The BCS EGM : a pro-transparency compromise

This blog post is really intended for BCS members deciding how to vote in the upcoming Extraordinary General Meeting on a vote of no-confidence in the Trustee Board and Chief Executive.

It's a personal viewpoint, and it's written against a backdrop of my personal dissatisfaction with the BCS. After several years, I'm left wondering what it really offers me as a professional member.

Despite my general dissatisfaction I'm going to vote against the no confidence motions, but I'm also going to vote against the board endorsements and against the special resolution.

And I'm also going to vote for resolution 3 - calling for full and open transparency on how my and other members' subscriptions are being used.

Here's my reasoning:

Each year I consider ending my subscription. I get more help and support from Twitter and IT-orientated mailing lists than I do from the BCS, to which I pay a not inconsiderable yearly membership.

Unless something radical changes, this year will be my last.

For those in or just leaving academia, and for IT professionals working in larger corporations I can see how the organisations in which they work or study can help, support and encourage professionals on a path to chartered status.

But I'm still left struggling to find how an industry professional with thirteen years experience, publications and an IT-related patent (sole inventor) can find the necessary sponsor and coaching to get there whilst running his own consultancy.

But overseeing chartered status should not in my view be the sole primary role of the BCS. Small IT business owners, freelancers and sole traders in the IT industry need and deserve more.

To start with, even more useful than chartered status would be a recognised industry body to help improve the reputation of companies competing for work against less reputable and less qualified outfits. I have seem some pretty shocking scripts and software written by third-party "software developers".

I would like to see something akin to the General Medical Council or Federation of Master Builders, a membership body with the power to revoke membership on the basis of unprofessional conduct.

A body promising a level of protection for consumers and clients which should include a mandatory minimum warranty on bespoke software and adequate levels of professional indemnity insurance should things go wrong.

But these are my personal views which underscore my dissatisfaction with the BCS and are not related to the specific issues for which an EGM was called.

To some extent this EGM has acted as a stimulus for a much-needed debate.

But despite my general grievances it's simply not right for me to support a motion of no-confidence on the flimsy evidence presented by those calling for an EGM. The board and the Chief Executive may or may not have made mistakes along the way, but without proof of serious wrongdoing I'm not about to fire the whole board.

If nothing else, what alternative is proposed to the existing board and Chief Executive?

But by the same reasoning I'm not about to vote for endorsements of the Board and Chief Executive. I don't see any evidence that what they're doing is aligned with what I need from a professional organisation. But that's my choice - the BCS may not be the right organisation for me.

What I am sure of is that transparency and openness are very important for membership societies like the BCS.

The society is owned by its members and, like the electorate now have rights to know what the government is doing in its name under the Freedom of Information Act, the BCS has in my view an absolute obligation to provide full transparency in the "transformation programme" and all other aspects of its management.

That is why I'm voting for resolution 3 and against all other resolutions and special resolutions.