MSLDesigner

1. Tongue stepping My only regret is in taking your original post at face value and not finding out whether or not your claims were true before weighing in on them. I am pretty passionate about things like that when they're grounded in fact. In hindsight, after a considerable effort of my own to find out the truth, I found I have an entirely different opinion. Witch hunts only tend to hurt legitimate causes. The second you burn someone at the stake who in reality is innocent you rob your own crusade of legitimacy and will fail to have the means to fight against real injustices. The lesson to learn here is to endeavor first to be on the side of the truth, which goes hand in hand with justice. I believe in the truth so passionately I want to make sure it is the truth I'm fighting for. 2. Complaint calls from board members Since you're so eager to find out names, perhaps you'd go on the record and state here just who exactly, boardmembers and chairs, who called you with complaints? Perhaps the reason you've never got that one name you're so convinced is responsible for these proposed changes is that it truly was a group idea and effort. No idea gains much traction in a group of peers unless it is one already held in common, in one way, shape or form. I don't think the lack of a specific name is any proof that the answer of it being a group concept is a false one. But if its answers you want from ISA perhaps you'd have better luck if you actually joined it and became part of the dialogue. You want to see whether or not the rock star is lip syncing or doing the real thing? The only way to know for sure is to go to the concert, not listen to it on the radio. 3. Cop out answer passed down to me That's a laugh. If there is anyone on planet earth who resists the machine and refuses to believe something just because someone in authority tells them so, It's me. You don't know me well enough to know how independently minded I really am. Nobody tells me how or what to think. I like to base my opinions on the facts of the matter, and after having the chance to examine them myself in this case I realized how foolish it was of me to comment without knowing them first. I'll be the first to jump on a crusade for truth and justice, but in this case I don't believe ISA is guilty of any of the claims you make of them, so yes I retract my first reaction completely. I've read the proposal, I've asked for details and after receiving them I find ISA not guilty of being the villain portrayed in your quite creative illustration. ;) If you find any conclusive, damning evidence, present it, otherwise you're basing your fears on nothing but fears.

Nonsense. my first post was a knee jerk reaction, based on my own beliefs in general and a taking at face value the truth of the OP's post. Once I had a chance to find out the facts for myself (a quest I undertook with the utmost scrutiny) I realized the OP wasn't necessarily representing the truth, but his own take on it. Therefore I changed my opinion and said so.

I'd like to follow up my original comments (self quote, above) with some clarification in light of looking into this matter thoroughly and coming up with my own conclusions as a result. While I remain no less passionate about my opposition to any and all consolidation of power into the hands of a privileged few at the expense of the disenfranchised masses, I fail to see any evidence whatsoever that this is what the International Sign Association is trying to do through its restructuring effort. If anything, it is trying to give a better voice to the little guy, not less. The onus though is on the little guy to get involved, to get engaged, and to fight for the things she or he believes in within the context of an organization that is as committed to reaching a consensus by extensive consultation and open dialogue as the ISA, made even more accessable as an option now that ISA is extending automatic membership to those who already are members of regional associations. Criticism from without, especially criticism rooted in ignorance of the facts is ineffectual and counterproductive. As a point of belief I support anyone's right to do so. But my passionate opposition to any "power grab" is only as intense as it is true. I'm not about to go to battle against wrongs that do not exist. I'm a passionate believer in democracy, liberty, equality and fair play. As an employee of a man who today sits on the board of ISA, I've had extended and unfettered access to ask as many grueling questions as I wanted to in order to arrive at the truth of this matter. After having done so, I do not feel its fair to characterize ISA's effort to restructure itself more effectively as some kind of big brother, big business initiative to wrestle all control away from local and smaller players. If anything, the ISA provides a forum and structure in which there is more of a level playing field among participants, where richer, larger company owners have no more votes than one man sign shops. Outside of this context, out in the competitive industry, bigger companies are free to spend as much money as it takes to run roughshod over anyone else's efforts at making a buck as far as it is legal to do so. Not so in ISA. There is just as much room, especially under the new proposed Bylaw amendments, for the equal representation of those members of lesser means, even at the highest level, all within a well governed, democratic structure. Local and regional organizations would remain as free as ever under the proposed changes to develop and promote positions that are more in keeping with regional and local concerns. My own employer, Robert Mattatall, both a board member and proponent of the changes outlined in ISA's restructuring proposal (which I might add has not yet even been ratified by its membership, by popular vote, as is the intent) is the president of a relatively small company of a little over 30 employees. I know for a fact that this man has made many personal sacrifices to keep his company competitive and profitable, not for his own financial security, but for the benefit of his employees. This to me is not the kind of person who is likely to side with big business trying to crush the little guy. I can say without question he would never support or endorse any restructuring of ISA that would do so. (And for anyone out there who would read this and like to accuse him of coercing me into making these statements I would simply say that you don't know either of us very well. He would never do anything of the sort, and even if he did, I'm not the kind of guy who takes kindly to other people doing my thinking for me, so let's settle that argument before it even gets started. I'm doing this entirely of my own accord). The truth is there is no effort on ISA's part to exert control or to interfere in local associations or local issues. I see no evidence of an agenda to force participation in it or any other association, and there certainly is no evidence of it trying to crush or oppose healthy competition among players in the industry, big or small. On a specific issue, raised by the OP, regarding the notion of amending ISA's bylaws to make for mandatory expulsion for failing to pay one's suppliers, I'd like to say that its my belief that if such a clause were adopted it would effectively turn the ISA into the autocratic, big brother, global power grabbing monster the OP makes it seem it already is! I believe whether or not a company pays its bills falls under the power and authority of state or provincial governments, who have a legal obligation to police such offences, certainly not an industry association whose effort is to develop a collective voice, not impose its power on its members, even if it is by the stigma associated with expulsion. It's not, nor it should be, the ISA's or any other sign association's mandate to interfere in legal disputes among its members or pass judgement on one side or another. In the end, I remain just as concerned about the invasive and intrusive push toward globalization in many industries and governments the world over. My own, exclusive, personal opinion is that globalization has brought untold destruction to the US and Canadian economies and has done nothing but undercut the middle class and weaken western civilization in favor of countries more willing to sell their labor for peanuts. I just don't believe that ISA's restructuring has anything to do with that whatsoever, or is even remotely undertaken in the same kind of spirit. Quite the opposite in fact.

It's happening everywhere else, why shouldn't it in our beloved industry? I agree with the sentiments of the OP. I believe this universal push to consolidate everything under one giant big brother organization promotes itself through patently false claims. Creating a top heavy, centralized authority does not result in the masses speaking in "one powerful voice", it results in each of their individual, unique voices being watered down to one foul synthesis that represents nobody's interests except for the select fiew who sit on the Politburo that rules over it. I'm wary of any all powerful organization that pats it's members heads with a soothing assurance that "it's for your own good, little one, now run along, shut up and let the grownups decide what's best for you."