Analyst Talk - Motion Commotion: Voting to Advance IACA’s Innovative Ideas - Leapodcasts

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to Analyst Talk with Jason Elder.

(00:01):
It's like coffee with an analyst,or it could be whiskey with an
analyst reading a spreadsheet,linking crime events, identifying a
series, and getting the latest scoopon association news and training.
So please don't beat thatanalyst and join us as we define
the law enforcement analysisprofession one episode ahead time.
How we doing?
Alice, Jason Elder here with aspecial LEA podcast Deep Dive.

(00:24):
This is an episode dedicatedto the IACA who is currently
asking for innovative ideas.
, What we're gonna do with this episodeis talk about the innovative ideas
that were motioned by, the membership.
Go into the logistics of each motionand talk about how IACA folks vote.

(00:49):
So this is gonna be a very.
IACA centric episode, but this is a newprocess We wanted to , put a spotlight on
this process, get as many membership eyeson this process given that this is the
first time the ICA has ever done this, andhopefully this is the beginning of more

(01:10):
types of these online motions to come.
So with all that being said, withthat introduction, my panel today is
Mindy y, Noah, Fritz and Deb Peele.
And Deb Peele has gottenstuck in on a plane.
So she is going to be late.
So we are going to checkback with her later.

(01:32):
But Mindy, Noah, how we doing?
I'm great.
I'm doing really good.
Jason, thanks for inviting me and.
I'm excited about having this conversation
and I'm always happy to be here, so,
all right, thanks.
Thank you both so.
The way just to set the table a littlebit more, we're gonna go through the

(01:52):
announcement for these innovative ideas.
, And then we're gonna go through, thenine motions that were submitted.
So to start from the top the ICAboard put in a forum on the IACA
website asking for innovative ideas,wanting to hear from the membership.

(02:15):
They said a recent IACA member hadasked the board how to make and debate
motions in between the annual meeting.
It's, it's specified in the bylawsabout putting in motions and some
may even thought that it could onlybe done at annual meetings, but
this is their way of trying to doit outside of the annual meeting.

(02:38):
So there was a two week period fromMay 1st to May 14th where our old
members had an opportunity to submita motion they were looking for.
Ones that were very specific,actionable, justifiable, and consistent
with the association's bylaws.
And then starting Monday, May19th till the following Monday,

(03:03):
May 26th is the voting period.
And so the, these nine motionsare going, on a ballot.
The members will have a week tovote , for the motion to move forward
at least 10% of the membership or735 must vote in favor of the motion.
So with all that being said,I wanna start with Noah.

(03:25):
Because you were the unnamed memberwho was recently asking the board
about how to make and debate motionsin between the annual meetings.
So I wanted to start with you, Noah,
fair enough.
It's def I will openly admit, in apublic forum that I am that person
that kind of challenges the boardto allow a couple motions that I've

(03:47):
made now a couple multiple times.
I applaud them for at leastlooking for a way to start the
conversation and begin to do things.
But my first motion or innovative ideathat I put forward in all due respect
to the IECA board was that the processthey've created, I find problematic.
And I'm not gonna read the motionin the interest of time, but I

(04:09):
believe it violates the bylaws.
Which simply says in multiple places,and, and it's our common practice
or standard practice, that it, thatit is always a majority vote of
the voting member, not a, a 10% anarbitrary number that they've created.
And so I'm basically proposing thatwe find a different approach that
does not violate the current bylawsor standard practice, and that really

(04:33):
reflects the fact that we stillstruggle with getting members engaged.
I think the last vote for election, whichwas the VP of administration, only had 215
people vote, even though about a thousandpeople followed the debate or the forum.
So we can get past this one.
I just ask members to take a look atthat and challenge the board to be more

(04:56):
thoughtful about and be more realisticabout this and follow the bylaws.
And this process for innovative ideasdoesn't even say it's a motion and it,
and it doesn't go to the membership.
In a roundabout way it does, but Ihave to have 715 people, inadvertently
decide to read it and then support it.
I'd rather have a petition processwhere I could seek out petitions and

(05:19):
then make it become a, a formal motion.
But Robert's rule of order simply saysyou have to make a motion, and it only has
to be seconded by one person in order forit to go into a discussion or a debate.
So we're not following even thebasic rules of Robert rules.
And I'll stop on that.
They can read that one.
It's out there on the forum.
So
yeah.
And all of these, we will put linksto additional information . So

(05:42):
we'll put a link for the forums.
We'll put a link to all the individualmotions for those that listening
that can get more information.
Mendi, you, you wanna react to that?
Yeah, no.
I just wanted to ask for clarification.
So when you said majority of voters,so theoretically, if only three people

(06:03):
participated, if two people voted in favorof something, technically that passes.
'cause it is the majority of thepeople who, that's what the bylaws
say.
Now we can change the bylaws, but wegotta go through a process to do that.
The language is clear in the bylaws.
Quote, unquote, a majorityvote of the voting members.
I think it shows up in two or threeplaces now, we've never had this

(06:24):
particular issue with voting onmotions yet, but I would argue that's
our standard practice for elections.
It does mention that in other places foroverturning like an ethics complaint.
So it's not something new that'sjust coming from left field.
Now the flip side of that would be ifthey, if they want to come up with a, a
new bylaw that says 10% of the membershave to be voting, then that 50% plus

(06:46):
one, would we, that technically wouldbe 368 voting members to get something
on the ballot or to continue it further.
I don't, I still don't like thatgiven we only have 215 people that
voted in our most recent correctme if I'm wrong, Jason, six or
seven candidates who ran for that.
Mm-hmm.
Had over a thousand people at leastreview the forum, which was, I'm

(07:09):
excited about that, that engagement,but then that turns into, for some
reason, only 215 people out of 7,000take the time to click on a button that
says, or rank order the membership.
We ought to find out why that's the case.
Right.
That that's part of.
My other, my original motion.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
To get un, get behind some of this.
Why aren't we more engaged asa professional organization?

(07:33):
People should care more about this groupand, and this international association.
Yeah.
Well, one of the reasons we wantedto do this podcast today is to
bring spotlight to this process.
I think this was advertised viaemail to the IACA members, but it
wasn't put into the announcementforum, which is something that.

(07:57):
Can be found later.
I think this is the email wasonly sent, if you lost the email
, It might've got buried down 350 ora thousand emails and I never got
back around to looking at it, so,
, This is going to be a heavylift to get to the 7 35 for,
for each one of these motions.
And I understand that thisis the first go around.

(08:19):
This is the first try.
And I, I really hope that this isthe first of many opportunities
like this to, to where they, theyschedule 'em and people know what
time of year they're going to be.
Maybe we do one in the spring, one inone, in the business meeting in the fall.
It's twice a year.

(08:40):
, I feel that in terms of the forums,the more that the members use the
forum and use that as an opportunityfor a voice, the more it'll become
standard practice for our membership.
, To be
fair to the board, I wanna commendthem that they've actually, stepped
up and started something like this.
So it's not, I'm not just trying toattack them by pointing out the bylaws.

(09:02):
I think we should adhere to what therules we have, but I do applaud them
on a high level for stepping up and,and trying to honor my request as a, a
motion and more importantly coming upwith a process for us to do business.
Kind of sort of related to this, Iguess I don't wanna just come to the
table with problems and complaints.
Mm-hmm.

(09:22):
With solutions.
I mean, like you, I'm optimistic.
I hope they do this again.
I understand this is a new processand we're trying something.
Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.
I guess my only thing is I hopethat next time we just have a longer
timeline, like whether it be a month,whether it be maybe two months.
I understand the need to setlike hard deadlines, just so

(09:43):
we actually get things done.
People don't procrastinate,people don't mm-hmm.
Drag their feet on it, but on top ofeverybody, having jobs and everything.
Mm-hmm.
But like school, a lot ofpeople like teach and stuff.
This is like the end of the semester.
So even with me, I knowNoah, what to just as well.
It's like, oh, it's finals week.
Hold on, let me, log onand do all this stuff.
So no, it should be

(10:03):
just, it's just similar tolike the elections, right?
Yeah.
There is multiple emails that goout, multiple postings that go out.
Coming up before the election periodstarts, and this, this should have the,
the similar feel where it's maybe you picka month, March, april, whatever it is.
And leading up to that, , there'sconversation and then during,

(10:25):
there's conversation, and then youhave the voting period right after.
I'm big on consistency.
That's why I publish every Monday.
, You should expect new episode of AnalystsTalk podcast every Monday, everybody.
That's something that people can knowwhen it's coming out and it's consistent.
So I think it'll, it'llhelp in the future.

(10:46):
If there is a, a consistent timeperiod for this and that people can
know plan accordingly and be involved.
, We talked about that 10% thresholdand I agree like there should be some
threshold, there should be some metric,but we don't have that for anything else.
At least to my understanding.
Like you guys mentioned earlier,like the most recent election we

(11:06):
had with vp, like we only had 215.
Like should that not have counted?
Since we didn't reach the threshold,we didn't reach 3 75, we didn't
reach the 360 8 or whatever it was.
So why particularly this one,and on the off chance that we get
like 367, what do we do with that?
It's like, oh, sorry, close, butno dice and then nothing passes.

(11:28):
So what do we do with that?
Look, and we'll go through all ofthese motions and it looks like , four
people put in for the nine motions.
And so it, it got me thinking.
Did members not know about this process?
Just missed all , the documentation,all the advertisements do they see it?
And then didn't haveanything really to add.

(11:51):
Or , did they feel a sense ofhopelessness that the fact of like,
oh, this is probably not going to.
Pass.
So why would take the timeto write something that's
not have a chance to pass?
I, I guess down those lines, I wouldlike to see us, whether it's elections
or motions or things like this, thatwe very seriously take these all very

(12:11):
seriously and we're more proactive aboutthat marketing and reminding people.
I think there's a lot of things we cando on the website when people log in.
We've talked about that in,in a little bit differently.
I also concern more about the apathy thatout of 7,000 people, such a few number,
even the, even with a thousand people,I'm, I mean, I'm excited about that,
that we've made maybe that transition,but that's still, very small percentage.

(12:35):
And there, so there's somethingabout our organizational structure
and about our membership there couldbe police officers who came to the
conference that joined, or studentswho aren't quite yet, professional
crime analyst or intelligence analysts.
So we need to do some research aboutthat and marketing and the bigger, bigger
one that I hear, 'cause I get peoplewho call me now, especially that I'm a

(12:56):
little more actively involved, again,who are afraid to speak up whether
it's for or against certain things.
'cause they don't wanna be targetedor, or be seen as negative.
But, but in a professional organization,we ought to be able to speak, truth
and, and truth to power and share ideas.
And, and that's my bigger concern isthat there are a good number of us.

(13:18):
Our, our colleagues that arejust afraid on either side of the
issue to, to put their name onsomething or , to take a position.
Alright, let's bringin Deb Peele now, Deb.
How we doing?
We're doing good.
All right.
So I've been
flying around the country, buthere I am to talk about this stuff.
All right.
I appreciate your time giventhe chaotic nature of your day.

(13:41):
So just chime in here on your general.
Thoughts of this innovative ideas process.
This idea members being able to put inmotions in between annual conferences
Sure.
And.
I really appreciate yougiving me this opportunity.
I think that anybody who knows me wouldunderstand that I am all four innovative

(14:04):
ideas, and we need it in our profession.
We need it in our association.
And , all of us as as analysts, needto do our best to be innovative.
So just in that simple concept, I'm a fan.
Of looking at how we can best do that.
At the same time, I do feel thatgovernance, be it from the IACA or or

(14:26):
from the White House is a difficultprocess and I think, especially
difficult when you are really committedto trying to give as many members of
the constituency the opportunity to.
Submit innovative ideas have thoseconsidered by an educated percentage

(14:47):
of the constituency and, , votedon and, and really thought about.
And, and I think there are probablya million good ways to do that.
But I also think there's alot to think about it, how
to best go forward with that.
So I guess I say that a little bitto express my own feelings that.
Maybe the, the process is goinga, a little fast, perhaps.

(15:10):
And I honestly, , don't.
Have the time to monitor thesort of process day by day.
So there could be things that I missed,but I want to stress that wholeheartedly.
I think there needs to be easy, effective,accessible ways to, to share ideas, be
they innovative or more foundational.

(15:32):
And so anything that.
Moves that forward and gets thesupport of whatever quota is
determined needs to be met, thenI, I think that's a, a great idea.
It's good for the IACA and I thinkit, it's good for our profession, we.
If nothing else, we're in, Ithink very innovative times
and we need to move with that.
All right.

(15:53):
Well let's get into these motions then.
And Noah, you talked about the, the firstone briefly, but I do want to bring it
back to this as we're starting out togo through each one of these motions.
So I just again, you can justadd to what you've already said.
Sure.
The, the other motion I put inreally is more just, I wanna go

(16:13):
on the record because this is theprocess that the board put together
for motions or in lieu of motions.
Again, not calling it a motion,calling it an innovative idea.
So my original motion of creating acommission or a formal ICA committee to
review kind of the state of affairs, Ijust wanted to make sure on the record

(16:34):
that, that, that got put out there forpeople to look at and, and honor me.
It just happens to be me, but anymember that wants to put an idea
forward and, and we should, do that.
And, and since they created thisprocess, I wanted to make sure that
my original motion got included.
So that's, that's one of my motionsis just to formally state that

(16:55):
I move to create a commission toreview the current state of affairs.
And you can read it for yourself.
I won't need to say anythingelse more about that, but
I think it's a bigger deal.
I, I think we've grown to 7,000 members.
We've kind of outgrown.
We're gonna talk more about that aboutsome other motions that are out there
on how to, maybe change our structure.
But this gets, this is the researchpiece that points to and allows members

(17:19):
to share their concerns anonymouslyor through another commission.
Completely, checks and balance wise,an objective commission that is just
there to collect this information.
So
I'll leave it at that.
Yeah.
So the, the fir, the first one thatyou, you had is challenging this process
and that, hey, this may I. Violate thecurrent bylaws in standard practice.

(17:43):
So that's the, the first onethat just challenging the 10%
threshold with the 7 35 in favor.
And then the second one youdid was to create a commission.
And I think for this podcast,commission working group committee,
it's all, the same thing in, in thisregard, what we're saying is we're

(18:06):
gonna create a special group withthat is going to be tasked to answer.
Certain questions orcomplete a certain task.
So just, just so there'snot any confusion on that,
let me add to that and, andwhy I think it's important.
The bylaws do allow membersto make motions and to create
committees and projects themselves.

(18:27):
Again, you've gotta get itgot to be put out there.
Whether it's a working group or not,this is a motion to create that committee
from the membership, not from the board.
And we have a right to do thatif you follow the bylaws and
whatever protocol we come up with.
And at this point.
I want to at least have them honor thatit's not their committee that reports back

(18:49):
to them and they get to make the decision.
This is a committee slash commissionor committee that will do those
research with the support of thefull membership or majority of the
voting members of the membership.
But we then we get busy and,and it's run objectively
outside the realm of the board.
In my opinion that it's a differentcommittee than they've created.

(19:11):
They're gonna argue they've gottwo working groups, one to look at
ethics, one to look at elections.
They're gonna create anotherone probably for bylaws.
This is not that.
This is something independent.
Of the board controlling it andlet the members have their say.
And, and so that's that my originalmotion that I want to be heard.
This whole thing., , the problems that,have come up is this idea of there is

(19:35):
a bylaws and then enforcing the bylaws.
This, , is a little bitproblematic with the, association
in that we have these bylaws.
What's the mechanism to ensurethat these bylaws are enforced?
, And so the bylaws does talkabout committees that be, can be

(19:55):
created and, worked on by members.
, But how does, anybody do thatif it's never been done before?
The bylaws.
Say who, who, how doesthat get into demo motion?
And then the bylaws enforced.
Deb, what do you think?
Having known Noah, fora very, very long time.

(20:16):
I always believe that his intentions,even, his heart is always around
greater collaboration, greaterinteraction, more mixing and mingling
and sharing of ideas, , all of that.
And I'm supportive of all of that.
And I, I do spend time.
Thinking about these things froma few different perspectives.

(20:38):
I was a big fan of thelistserv, the way it.
It was.
Mm-hmm.
Now, I know there might have beensome, some technical issues with that.
Might always be needing to upgrade theplatforms and services that we use.
But I, I think a big step forwardin further collaboration and
further outreach by the IACA ingeneral would be to have just more.

(21:04):
Email communication in, inpeople's faces, if you will.
I still find it, , difficult not,not difficult in, , a physical way,
but just a little cumbersome to,to get to the forum and, and go
through and look at things there.
I think we miss with the new system,we do miss some opportunities to
remind people just that the associationis there and you're a member.

(21:27):
Here's something that came up so.
I, that might sound simplistic.
Been a need, but I've thought aboutthat for a long time and I just
think that's a simple opportunitywhere we're, we're missing one of the
things that we're striving to achieve.
So then to move beyond thatin a, greater sense of.

(21:47):
Outreach and collaboration.
I always wonder every year that itseems we have around, , 50 50 at every
conference where it's somewhere around50%, our first time attendees I don't
know what, what ratio and associationlike the IACA should be striving for.
But as , one of the old timers I wouldlike to to see a higher rate of returning

(22:12):
attendees and that's, that might soundsomewhat anti-growth or something.
But we are in such a dynamic profession,and I do feel personally that the IACA
has been a huge element of, of my careerand that a huge part of, my ability to
learn new things, expand my thinking,hear about what other people are doing

(22:34):
around the country, meet new people.
All those, those things, I'm very,very grateful that the IUCA exists.
And it, I wonder why we don'thave more returning attendees.
And I know that often has to dowith budgets and travel issues
and, and everybody's scraping formoney, all that sort of thing.
So there's lots of things to discussthere, but I think that we might wanna

(22:57):
look into some of those factors, , why.
Why is that?
. I wanna see it grow in ways thatthat I think the other initiative of
what we're trying to accomplish, thatprofessionals we grow professionally
and that professional analystsare seeking out other professional
analysts to share ideas and pusheach other and that sort of thing.
So I think we are in a very different age.

(23:19):
There's a lot of competition for analysts.
Attention these days.
And we, we have to figure all of that out.
, I'm sitting here talking to youfrom , a rest area off the highway
because just you and I, for example,lead very busy lives in our profession
., I think that's different from even five years ago and certainly
very different from 10 years ago.

(23:40):
So, i'm not sure how muchpeople can absorb and how much
people can get more involved.
Let's move on to the third one then.
And so this is the one that I put in.
And so I, I'll say this, I, I putin four of the nine motions and I, I
will totally pick on myself that I washoping there would be more people that,

(24:04):
that come along and, put in motions.
But I, I decided like late, like latein the game in this whole thing, the two
week period that, Hey, if no one's gonnaput in there, let me put in like three
or four that I, I think are important andnot to give maybe , you can pick on me
for giving content to this podcast, right?

(24:25):
Or you can also pick on me if we'resaying death by working group.
'cause mine, I deal with a lot withproposing to create a working group.
So with all that being said,, mymotion is to create a working group to
establish a membership feedback process.
For proposed rules.
So what I'd like to see with theassociation is just a way to,

(24:48):
for members to have a voice priorto a new rule being enacted.
, I'm not talking about all rules.
That's why the working group wouldhave to establish what proposed
roles fit into that criteria.
But I just feel like there's, sooften the rule is not discussed

(25:11):
anywhere, and then all of a suddenit's, bam, it's right there.
, It's in play.
And the majority of members didn'thave an opportunity to voice an opinion
on that particular rural change.
And this can be stuff like.
Requirements that we would have orcosts or benefits or things that

(25:35):
impact the, the members directly.
For instance, instructor requirements,certification requirements
conference instructor benefits.
That was one that changedthis year historically in
instructors at the conference.
Those that got their presentationsgot picked, received a full

(25:55):
waived registration fee.
They didn't have to pay registration fee.
And this year, $250 you have to pay.
For registration fee as an instructor,and I understand that the cost of the,
the conference and increasing cost, andthat's what they're trying to counter,

(26:15):
but I would've liked an opportunity tovoice my concern and to have them think
about maybe some alternatives, or atleast again, it directly impacts me.
I've said a, a long time.
I don't make money off the podcast.
Going to their conference issomething I have to pay out of pocket.
And so to me, this was a big one.

(26:37):
The fact that they changed thisand it was just boom, it was, there
not no discussion, it was justsomething that was, that was there.
And I've asked if itwas, can it be prorated?
If I only show up one day for theconference, can it be prorated
instead of paying the whole $250?
And they said no.
So whether, whether you're thereone day or five as an instructor,

(26:59):
you have to pay the $250.
So that's just one.
I'm, we got a little bit, thatwas one that's near and dear to
my heart, so I'm going on to that.
But that was just one idea of justsome of the things that that this
committee could identify if this isgonna change, we're gonna give the
members an opportunity to chime in.
And I think , this innovativeideas process is the way to do it.

(27:21):
Put it up there, give two weeks.
And if more time is needed, givean opportunity to have more time,
but give members an opportunity.
To talk about certain rules that aregoing to be changed in the association.
I really absolutely agree with that.
And no.
The way I think we would have to moveforward on that is to, to create some

(27:43):
sort of formalized structure for that.
Mm-hmm.
I don't even think it's so much inworrying about the, the level of
feedback or debate that happens,but there should absolutely be a
structure for people to comment.
I think just as there is in, ingeneral, , local governments, when
something is proposed, there'susually a certain period of time

(28:06):
where people have the opportunity to.
To comment or askquestions or what have you.
And, and then there's a periodof time that the association has
to respond back to some of that.
And obviously this back and forthcan't, can't take forever, but it
should probably be more formalized.
If there is a formal process already I'mnot sure what it is, but then it also

(28:30):
gets back to then, , how are we sure thatthis information, number one, is put out
there for the membership, and then numbertwo, that the membership actually sees it.
And I think there's just alot of work that could be done
around that, that simple fact.
But I, I agree with you.
Every now and then.
I hear about something new thathas happened and it's not that

(28:50):
it, , stresses me too much.
I just just sometimes think like, oh, Idon't, I guess I missed, , all of that
because I didn't know that was coming.
Yeah.
And I don't think it's anybody'sintention to, to do things without
that sort of awareness going on.
I think there's just not a good structureand process for it, and there should be.
I guess I don't wanna be like anaysayer, like what you're saying.

(29:11):
I agree, is a good idea.
I just wanted further clarifications interms of like what would be the scope of
this working group and also like the scopeof like what the executive board does.
So I mean, in theory we elected thesepeople to make these decisions for us.
I mean, I would love to get moremembership involved, but like waiting

(29:32):
for majority of 7,000 people to allchime in, it doesn't, like, it'll take
forever just to make like a simple change.
So I, I guess like, do you have any.
Further, logistics of how this wouldwork, like what decisions would they make?
Like something like that.
I thank you for letting me know.
I didn't know that was a thing,but like did the conference

(29:52):
committee determine that?
Did executive board determine that?
Like, I don't, I don't know whodetermined that change, but I assume
there's a. Reason, I, I like to givepeople the benefit of the doubt.
I don't think that they're operatingwith malice or anything, but like, like
I said, like where's the line of like,all right, we trust our executive board,
we trust our conference committee orwhatever committee to make these decisions

(30:13):
on , our, as in the membership's behalf.
Mm-hmm.
You know what I mean?
So I'm, I'm just wondering like, where'sthe line of that of like, okay, this
needs more membership eyes on it.
This is like, okay, we, we needto move forward so somebody's
gonna make the executive decision.
Yeah.
And, and I'm not, sayingthese go to a membership vote.
I'm not saying that this is like apure democracy situation where you, you

(30:36):
call on the members to vote on everysingle decision that the IACA does.
I just think that there's an opportunityfor membership feedback, on certain
items, and that's why given the timethat I had to really flesh this out.
I knew I wasn't gonna beable to name everything.

(30:57):
I knew there was going to be caveatsand I. Complications on, on this stuff.
That's why I went, let'sgo the working group route.
Let's let them do the research, createbest practices, come up with a process
on what is and what is not going to be.

(31:17):
You have this grace periodbefore it goes into enactment.
Training costs and forum rules andelection rules and ethics rules.
I mean, the, these are, these arethings that should they change the, the
membership should have an opportunity.
To review them, ask questionsbefore , they get put into place.

(31:41):
So if, if, you might be a subjectmatter expert in, in that, or you might
come up with caveat that's better.
As a member.
And so I just, I, I just think thereneeds to be some kind of opportunity
for, for members to get a voice in this.
First.
I, I the fact that, you and Ihad to put in the majority of
emotions and Mindy to some extent.
One of their concerns was thatwe have to be careful about,

(32:03):
coming up with a process.
'cause they're gonna getinundated with motion.
I'm not worried about that.
I, I think people are, are thoughtful.
If they're, if they have a, if it is nearand dear to them, they're gonna step up.
But I don't think we have the, theproblem of thinking we're gonna get
10,000 or a thousand or a hundred motionsand we won't be able to manage them.
And I think this is indicative ofthat one, two, the other example of

(32:24):
that is when they changed the code ofconduct in December the board did that.
It went out.
It affects all of us froman ethics standpoint, from a
ethics complaint standpoint.
And tho that's a good example ofhow it shouldn't go out without a
discussion or at least become awareof what are those changes and what
was the rationale behind them.

(32:44):
One way to handle that, and that's whatlocal government does in city councils, is
they do what are called consent decrees.
So there might be a list of 20 items thathave been staffed that maybe a study and
you put it on and you, you pass all ofthese modifications and if, if somebody's
interested in that they can see theagenda and they can read it and then, and

(33:04):
they could get it pulled off the agenda.
But they agree to all those things.
And so there's ways to do that.
I think one of the longest city councilmeetings I attended was a debate over
tennis courts and pickleball courtsin the parks department, right?
Mm-hmm.
It went for like past midnight.
There was, it was like a big, big debate.
But it was important to people, right?
And they showed up forthat particular issue.

(33:26):
You don't know what you don'tknow unless you put it out there
for discussion or the rationale.
And then if there was research,if the training committee puts
together a new proposal for whatever,picking new trainers, right?
Or moving from online, face-to-face toonline, I, I at least think for those of
us who care, and I've been a certifiedinstructor, I might look at that and

(33:47):
have something to say about that.
And, and you're just givingpeople the opportunity.
90% of this stuff will get passedwithout anybody, yelling or, or being.
They might send a nice email saying,well, have you thought about this?
And, and, and, and you leave it at that.
I don't think, I think we.
Create a bigger problem we thinkis gonna fall out of this fall
outta sky when in fact, I don'tthink it's gonna happen that often.

(34:09):
It's just about a courtesy topaying, members who are here.
And so I applaud at least theconcept of, again, engaging members,
giving us all an opportunity.
If we choose to look at things orpay attention and bringing it to our
colleagues' attention and, and, and,shining some light on it when necessary.
Mm-hmm.
So, all right, well,let's let's move on then.

(34:31):
We, we did, we did have one otherperson put in , for in, for a motion.
And John,, I'm gonnabutcher his last name.
TE A-N-T-E-Y-I.
John, I am sorry.
. Mindy, you would you wanna justgive an overview of John's motions?
Yeah, I can do that.
And yeah, I was gonna say, should we putin that little detail that three out of

(34:53):
the four people who put in, it's likeon this, on this recording right now,
like we probably should have reachedout to John, see if he was interested
in joining us too while we're headed.
I shoulda have.
Yeah, you're right.
It's alright.
Hi John.
Yeah, so John put in, I think it was five.
So the first motion that he John putforward was to have adjusted rates

(35:14):
for the CLIA and leaf exams fordifferent countries instead of just
going by the, whatever the USD rate is.
And then the second one is theannual conference to should be
rotated around different countries.
So it's not just always in the USA.
The third one is leadershippositions and successful planning.

(35:34):
So people like, especially youngerpeople who are like interested in
leadership roles to have opportunitiesto be mentored and get involved early.
And I feel like the word groomedis weird, so I don't wanna use
that word like room to be leader.
Yeah.
So like, to be mentored.
Then next step number fouris having regional chapter

(35:57):
accessibilities around the clock.
So whenever they need to use somethingthrough IECA, it's available to them.
They don't need to use itwithin whatever time somebody
from IECA is available to help.
And then the last one, the fifthone is membership, referrals
and recognition system.
So if somebody recommends somebodyto get recognized for it, have some

(36:18):
incentive to recruit people, I guess.
So those are the five
that, that last one.
We do have a recognition system.
You may not be aware of it,it's the Ambassador Award.
It wouldn't be just for a one memberthat you might have, suggested.
He's also talking about, if I do areferral like you do with other stuff,
if you refer a friend for a product,you get a discount in the next month.
I think, like, like Netflixor something like that.

(36:41):
If another person joinsand you recommended them.
You might get a $10 discountnext month or something.
Those are good incentives.
But, but, but we do have an awardprocess called the Ambassador Award
for those individuals who consistentlyor over a year have brought
membership, either a whole groupor a, significant number of people.

(37:01):
Yeah, into the fold if you'll,
yeah, I did respond to John'spost on the on the forums.
I think I messed up the award.
I think I called it the membershipaward instead of ambassador.
So my bad.
O
one other quick reaction and, and I'mvery we're called the International
Association of Crime Analyst, so I'mfully supportive of, that initiative.

(37:22):
But we still, we have 17,000 policedepartments here in the United States.
And for example, we have a regionalassociation in Tennessee that the last
time I checked was only six members.
There are other, also other placesthat we should provide incentives
or discounts as they grow.
And then over time.
If you do a group, you alreadyget a discount if you're
over certain thresholds.

(37:43):
Mm-hmm.
So we do that regardless ofwhat country you're from.
If you bring a group of membersto the table, I think we give a
discount for other kinds of things.
Again, to the conference.
If you sent, if you're part of the FBI,I saw something that I never seen before.
Before that certain federalagencies got discounts and I'm like.
They got a lot of money for training, alot more than the agencies I've worked

(38:05):
for in the past, so I just wanna make surewe're inclusive of any area, regardless
of country that, would benefit from orthe association would benefit from by
giving those same incentive, not just,necessarily international discounts.
So,
So the international piece, I don'tdisagree with the concept or, the

(38:28):
desire to, , move the conference around.
I just, I don't know how to do it.
I personally don't, don't knowhow to make that happen in
any sort of sustainable way.
Mm-hmm.
I wish it could happen.
I just think that's difficult.
Just from, from a practical sense, I, Ithink it's difficult and I don't know that

(38:49):
there are other associations similar toours that do manage to carry that off.
I think everything is, is hard about itand given all of the complications, just
simply time zones and language and then.
The expense of travel and allof that, I, I think, are just
difficult, practical considerations.

(39:10):
I don't think there's anybody thatwouldn't want to do it if we could.
I just think that's hard.
yeah.
We used to have an international symposiumthat was not part of the conference.
It take took place about once a year, Ithink in the springtime that was opposite
of the annual conference, and thatwould be at an international location.

(39:33):
And I, I'm not actually sure why westopped doing that or when that stopped
happening, but it's been a while.
This opportunity, I think the last two or
three Jason that we trieddid not get the number.
I know they did some EuropeanSam had tried really hard
to do two or three times.
He's created his own little.
Area over there that they are doingnow, a couple, they're not IACA

(39:54):
endorsed, they're not necessarilyin, in partnership with, with the
IACA and I'd like to see that again.
We've done some in Canada.
That's where the numbers grow.
Right.
When we host a, an annual conferenceor a training conference, that's when
you, when we move it around the country.
All of a sudden that associationor co-sponsor of that state all
of a sudden grows in numbers.

(40:14):
I just don't think the numbers are thereto replace the annual conference that
for, American analysts would go to, butI think we ought to continue or find a
way to do that spring symposium or maybe,bridge the gap between those things.
I don't want to do it instead of,because I think then I know a lot
of the US people could not leavethe country to attend a conference.

(40:37):
Their agency just won't payfor international travel.
And, and so we gotta find abalance between those two things.
For the first point regardingcertifications, I did tag the
certification chair on theforms as well, just asking.
So there is a reduced rates for countrieson developing like nations lists.
I don't know what the list is rightnow, but CLIA is a flat rate of $75

(41:02):
USD, including retakes and Leaf is aflat rate of $50 USD, including retakes.
I don't know if that's like set instone or if it can be adjusted for
like, even more developing countries.
I don't know what that translates toin local currency, but I just wanted
to throw it out there for peoplewho don't know that there is an
adjusted rate for different countries.

(41:24):
All right, so then, the next oneanother one of mine, which is a creation
of IACA, working groups on membercommunication and information sharing.
This deals with the idea of transparency,which seems to have been talked about

(41:44):
a lot in the past year with the IACAand I just want a group to, again.
Study all the documentation that the ICAhas and come up with a way to create a
library for members to find information.

(42:06):
, I really feel that the standard should be,everything's going to be shared with the
members unless there's a reason not to.
And that there is either confidentialityor business wise, it would impact
the association, stuff like that.
I think that the mantra that I've,I've heard from the board was

(42:28):
just ask us and we'll tell you.
And I, and then some people do thatand I've done that and, but I think
whatever information was given tome should be available to everybody.
I. There should be there this sectionout there that are like, okay,
here's, here's what was asked for,here's the information in case you
ever want to know what that that is.
There needs to be a way, forthe membership to be informed

(42:55):
and to have access to variousdocuments with the association.
I'm reflecting back on the, 30 years ofthe IACA and over the years until the
last even five or so years, maybe 10.
We've lo we've, we've lost thosehistorical records for good, right?
People took 'em with 'em, whetherthey were the newsletter, whether they

(43:15):
were old bylaws, and, and that reallyshouldn't be the case in an organization
that, we understand, the importanceof records and keeping track of stuff.
It, it, but it's, it's, it is.
But going forward.
A, a dedicated process and some protocolsfor keeping that stuff in case someone,
a new board comes on board and wants torefer back to not only maybe an old bylaw,

(43:38):
but some of the communication on why wedid it that way, so we're not reinventing
the wheel over and over and over again.
Why can't I use the logo?
What was the rationalefor not using the logo?
If I'm a, a candidate, andmaybe it's a good argument,
but I don't know what that is.
. But it would be nice to go back andunderstand what the current conversation
was, whether that's a memo or a committeethat pulled that together and, and then

(44:03):
made those things, or, or even for theboard to have those historical records
to review when we consider new things.
We had a lot of suggestions that Iheard on some of the posts we've had
previously for the VP of Administration,and it's like, we already do that.
Like Mindy just brought up, well, thecertification already gives a discount.
Well, if you, if that readilyavailable, then we could just point

(44:25):
that person to say, oh, go read this.
Good.
That's a good idea.
But we do it, or here'swhy we don't do it.
And you could educate yourself.
And, and so I, I applaud this one as well.
So I understand the sentiment and at themost foundational level, all information
that that can be shared should be shared.
And I don't.
Doubt that there is information thatthat should be shared that for a

(44:47):
variety of reasons doesn't get shared.
But I, I feel, , kind of stronglyabout this, that there are a variety
of different ways for people to stay ontop of things, and I'm pretty confident
that there is only a handful of members.
Really work at that.
So every year at the conference, first of all, I, I go every year.

(45:09):
There's only a, a couple that I'vemissed over the past many, many years.
Mm-hmm.
So there's that.
I always plan to stay on theFriday for that business meeting.
Very, very few members do.
I have only occasionally over the years.
Used the, the virtual opportunitiesto attend board meetings.

(45:30):
, Maybe they should simply be moreinformation simply put out in the form
of newsletters or meeting summariesor, or something that was just sent
to people and they can choose not to.
To read it or not read it or commentor not comment, rather than expecting
people to take some sort of actionwithin their, their workday to listen

(45:52):
to a meeting or something like that.
I, I think there's alwaysopportunities for greater information
sharing in a variety of ways.
And I think, I think there's twothings that come up on this topic.
There's information sharing, ofcourse, and I think in every.
Enterprise that can always be made betterand really needs a lot of attention.
And then there's the whole, , conceptof transparency in, in a similar way.

(46:17):
I think it's something that theentity, , the IACA, , has to
always be making sure that they're,, maintaining standards like that.
But I. I struggle when it's putout there somewhat in the, in the
negative that there's things goingon and there is no transparency.
I I'm just, I feel it'sa little bit a cultural.

(46:39):
Buzzword right now across allof our cultural institutions
and our government institutions.
And to say that there needs to bemore doesn't necessarily equal for me
that there's a crisis in transparency.
And I think it comes back to a lotof what we've spoken about already.
Mm-hmm.
Everybody is busy.
Everybody has only somuch time in their day.

(47:01):
Most of the, the.
Experience working good analysts areputting in way more than than 40 hours a
week, whether it's actual work or in thatconstant effort to maintain their skills.
And, and so I, I think there's onlyso much that people can do and it's,
it's hard to keep up on everything.

(47:22):
So I guess what I'm trying to say isthat those are issues and needs that.
Always need attention, andit's the responsibility of that
governing entity to, to always bestriving for more and not less.
And I think as you mentioned, toalways be striving to make sure
everything that that should be shared.

(47:43):
My laws and, and whatever elsedictates things that should be shared.
We should always be making sure that,that, all of that, whether someone
thinks it's consequential or not, ifit can be shared, it should be shared.
I was gonna say that I also agreewith this, it makes sense to me.
And just having these files anddocumentations, it take out all
the pri, personal, private stuff.
Sure.

(48:03):
But I guess not, I don't wanna say it'sa challenge, but more of a clarification.
Travel policy records, expensesummaries, lists of benefits like,
like you were saying with like themantra that the board already gives
of like, oh, if you want it, just ask.
And to me, I'm like, well, ittechnically exists in the business
meeting whenever they do their bigpresentation, this information is.

(48:24):
Technically given to us.
So I guess what I'm trying toget at is how many people do you
think are interested in this?
Like for me personally speaking, I'minterested in it, but I'm one person.
Just say 10, 20.
A small percentage of the 7,000.
So I'm just curious like one, how manypeople are actually interested at two?

(48:46):
Like how many peoplewill actually look at it?
And are we just proposing stuff that.
Only like a hundred peopleout of 7,000 are interested.
It's like, is what's that phrase?
It's like sub juice worth the squeezeor like, are we doing something
that only a few people want?
I'm just curious.
Yeah.
Well, I think of, as a member ofany organization, you have the

(49:06):
right to certain documentation.
If there's no reason not to giveit, then it should be available.
Right.
And there's more detailsthat, that could be involved.
And a lot of that business meeting, at the conference, there is more
information that that could be discussed.
Again, this is why I went tothe working group concept here.

(49:26):
'cause I know there's gonna be a lotthat has to be hashed out in terms of
what documents can be available, whataren't gonna be available, how it's going
to what's the procedure, just all that.
It, it's, there is, there is a lotthere, but I think it's, it's an
opportunity to create this library.

(49:49):
So, hey, it's going to, but to yourpoint, who's it going to be important to?
It's gonna be important to youwhen it's important to you.
And that seems funny to say, but,and to, you're going along, and then
something happens with the associationand then you're like, oh, well.
Why did that happen?
I need more information.
And then you're trying to findmore information about whatever

(50:11):
that topic is and that, and thatshould just be available to,
the members in a library format.
All right.
And to, to the listeners here,we don't know the exact order
that these are gonna show up.
On the ballot as we're voting.
So in the show notes, , the description,the timestamp, and , the name of

(50:35):
the motion will be listed there.
So you can bounce arounddepending on what order you're,
voting in.
Just FYI on that one.
All right, Mindy your proposalwe're, let's talk about you.
I feel like my proposal, likecomparatively is so like, like
it's serious, but like not asserious as like other things.

(50:57):
So my proposal, I wanted like an op in.
Buddy system for the conference committee.
Yeah.
Yeah.
, Hey, it got some love there.
On the forum, there was a lot ofhearts on that original posting.
I, I didn't wanna say it, butI was gonna say mine had the
most reactions compared to

(51:18):
sometimes the simplest thingsare very important, though.
There's a lot of leverage in that,the concept that you're proposing
here in terms of a buddy system and,and bringing new members on board.
I know churches do this.
If someone goes for the first timeto visit and attend a service.
They, I know churches thatsend, one or two people out as

(51:39):
a welcoming committee, right?
And, and this is kind of down thoselines and that, that there's a
lot of merit in, in getting those.
Then they feel welcome.
They, they become engaged.
They, they, they care more about theprofession by doing one little thing.
And it doesn't have to be a lot,make somebody a cake, right?
Or send 'em a cupcake or buy 'ema cup of coffee at the conference.

(52:00):
Doesn't have to be, I'm gonnawalk, I'm gonna escort this person
around the entire conference.
But you, you introduce them,you bring 'em together.
And I, and I think it's neat.
I, I think it's a, and it's simple, right?
I mean, at some level we don'thave to make this real complicated.
So logistically it was just,when we're registering just a few
extra questions like, Hey, do youwanna participate in this thing?
If you do, like, Hey, this is.

(52:21):
Your buddy for the week and I, I wantedit to be more like trying to use the
right word so it doesn't sound weirdand creepy, but like, I don't wanna
say intimate, but it's, you go tothis big conference, there's so many
people and you meet so many, and it'sjust like, here's my business card.
Okay, bye forever.
So I was like, Hey, let's have a more.

(52:42):
Semi-structured, like networking.
It's like, here's one-on-one,here's your buddy.
Like, maybe you go to class togetheror maybe you go to lunch together, or
maybe you go to like these other eventstogether just so you're not alone.
I mean, I think on the surface, verybeneficial for those who are more
shy, reserv, introvert, whatever.
Instead of meeting like 10 people all atonce, like here's just the one person.

(53:03):
And just more intentional.
I think I mentioned this in, oneof my responses because Noah said,
oh, this is like speed dating.
And I was like, no, it'slike an arranged marriage.
And I was like, right after Iread that, I was like, oh my gosh.
I'm like, I'm probably like not sellingthis very well and scaring people off.

(53:24):
I was like trying
to, I said that very facetiously and fun.
So I don't think it's like speed dating.
But, but, and I'veparticipated in speed dating.
Trust me, it's not apleasant, pleasant experience.
Would you participate ina, a range of marriage?
I'm just kidding.
I wouldn't do that either, but,I've got a couple friends that have
been subject to that, I guess, or,or tried to be subject to that.

(53:46):
Yeah.
So I was like, Hey, thisis just your one buddy.
You don't have to, try to to just connect.
And I, I, I do recognize, likeI said, it's a lot going on.
There's hundreds of people,so many things going on.
Like it, it's.
It's intense and overwhelming,especially if it's your first time.
So it's like, Hey, you got thisone buddy that's there for you.
Like, Hey, I got you.
And theoretically you have a seasonedattendee with a new, and that makes sense.

(54:09):
But since this is mostly a randomizedprocess, you can have two people that
are new and they're together now.
But at least like, Hey,you're not alone in all this.
So I just thought it would be a nice,like I said, semi-formal way to connect
people, like on a deeper level insteadof like, hello, handshake, hello,
and then business card, and then bye.
So may, maybe a, a first time attendeereception and we hook 'em up at

(54:32):
that point and then they can decidewhat they wanna do or go together.
Somebody that, even if there's just twonew people, at least you've got a buddy
to, to go to a con, some of the sessionswith, or meet for, let's meet for lunch
and talk a little bit about stuff, right?
And give them that opportunity,something a little more structured
that makes those connections for them.
And, and that's why I do like the idea.

(54:52):
, Half the attendees are first timeattendees, so this is a pretty
substantial group of people thatcome to the conference every year.
I have been guilty of, you talkedabout lunch, I've been at conferences
where I ate alone at lunch and justsometimes you get busy and you didn't.
You didn't get into that group orwhatever it is, and everybody's

(55:15):
gone and it, it's, I don't know.
You, you have to plan ahead.
So I snoozed and I lost kind of thing.
It can be quite intimidating if you'rea first timer and perhaps even another
level to this, that you're the only memberof your agency attending the conference.
That's a, that's anotheraspect to this, thing.
This is a, wonderful opportunity to helpthose at are first timers to network

(55:41):
Deb, your thoughts?
I am definitely on board with anythingthat would help new attendees, new
analysts meet people and, and and meetsome of us who are longtime members
and , feel comfortable at the conference.
And, and at the end of the week we'vefeeling like they really have network.
They've met people.
They've met people that they can,, reach out to on a, on a regular basis.

(56:04):
And I think it's incumbent upon peoplelike you and I and Mindy and Noah and
various people to, to try probablyharder than we do in the conference,
to, to do more of that outreach.
Thanks.
All right.
Yeah, that's we didn't have a contestto see who's gonna get the most
votes, but I, I don't know if I'mgambling on, on, on these ones, so.

(56:26):
All right.
So next one, another one is mine isI. , This is not a working group,
this is the motion is to havecommittee meetings be open to members
for observation and engagement.
Right now , the committees, the committeechair is a of a lifelong appointment.

(56:48):
And some of the committees, there's rarely an opening
and it's hard to get engaged.
And, and so you may come in to , theassociation have a desire to know more
information about a particular committee.
And this would be an opportunityfor , I'm interested in this.
If there's opportunitiesto volunteer, sign me up.

(57:10):
I wanna learn more.
I wanna eventually be amember of this committee.
And so this is, gives anopportunity to shadow.
The, the committee in a way, and to getmore information and to be available
should an opportunity to help arise.
If there's meetings.
, On Zoom that they would be announcedand people could sign up, just like

(57:36):
the normal process that they gothrough with the executive board
when they hold the quarterly meeting.
It would be a similar processto that, , the committee comes
together schedules a zoom call.
It's announced, it's scheduled, andpeople know about it and say they
can sign up for it just to observe.

(57:57):
If the committee doesn't normallyhave a scheduled meeting on a
quarter, I just cons, maybe thecommittee chairs should consider
having one just to allow this process.
If people are interested, people wantto sign up and get more information.
If nobody signs up justto you, you can cancel it.

(58:18):
It's not like I'm, I'm notpromoting it, having a meeting.
In an empty online roomor anything like that.
But just again, this is anopportunity for those that are
interested and want to get involved.
But there's no current openings andso this would be an, this would be
an avenue for them to get involved.
Yeah.
I like just the fact that we're,we're getting, offering it up

(58:39):
for those interested parties.
One more way to engage.
They're not voting members.
They're, they're just a fly on the wallmaybe, but they're learning 'cause they
have a future interest in being on acommittee or that particular committee.
Or, I'd like, I'm really interestedin international affairs.
I'd like to sit in on acouple inter international.
Meetings to, to hearwhat, what are the issues?

(59:01):
Kinda like an apprenticeship almostright in, in terms of the new members.
That new person, it's like, well,I'm not ready to be on a committee.
I don't really know enough about,we talk about, one proposal was
having te test in our other workinggroup to be, to run as a candidate.
Well, this is the way youcan educate yourself, right?
You don't need to take a testbut become more familiar.

(59:21):
With the operations, whateverthat looks like over time.
And so again, I'll do it, I like anyidea that we can float, do it as a
pilot project to see how many peopleget interested, are they engaged?
And if people don't, then it's, noharm, no foul, kind of a, a mentality.
So I know the idea is like liveinteraction and actually being there,

(59:42):
but just thinking about like differenttime zones, especially people who live
like on the other side of the world whereit's like a 12 hour, 14 hour difference.
Should these meetings also berecorded and stored somewhere?
Yeah.
Yeah, they should.
There's recordings and there's minutesand there's transcripts that, that
all could be, be made available.
So that's another opportunityfor those that may not be able to

(01:00:05):
attend at that particular time.
You're not, you're not gonna be, it'sgonna be really difficult to get one
time for all 7,000 members of theassociation to be on a call at once.
Deb?
What do you think?
And again, I think that there is meritto the idea because periodically.
Not, not often or anything, butsometimes I learn of a committee

(01:00:27):
that I didn't even know existed.
And had I known, maybe Iwould've, , wanted to be involved.
And I think there should besome reporting out perhaps.
The only hesitation I have, and in fulldisclosure I'm on the conference committee
is I, I think that committees in generaland members of committees do need a. Some

(01:00:49):
opportunity to just within the committeestructure, throw some ideas around and
have a, a open, , robust discussion about,, if you like the idea or you don't like
the idea, or you feel very strongly aboutthe idea, , without perhaps then being
concerned that you're going to have tojustify what you said in a discussion.

(01:01:09):
To the greater population becausepeople might not like it or something.
I, I think there's a middle groundwhere people should know what, what
committees are doing and probably alsoshould know who's on various committees.
But at the very least, if you have aquestion, , who, that you could, who
you could reach out to about that.
Maybe at least the, the.
Chairman or co-chairs, if thereare co-chairs, we should make that

(01:01:33):
information readily available.
And then , I don't know as a start,maybe they, , quarterly report on
what they're doing and if it's thetype of committee that doesn't do
anything, unless there is something intheir purview to do, then they could
just say, , no action this quarter.
But i'd like to think about it more, butI think in the idea that there should be
more information about the committees,what the committees do, what the committee

(01:01:57):
is for, and then also what the committeeis is doing in its, , current role.
Like my committee is very busy, theconference committee is always very
busy, so there probably should besome regular reporting out of what's
happening there because, again, I couldbe wrong about this, but I think that I
agree with you that there, , might notbe a lot of information shared about
what different committees are doing.

(01:02:18):
Somebody could say otherwise, I guess ifthere, if there are committees out there
that are always sharing what they'redoing, but I didn't, if that's happening,
then I, I've missed it, I guess.
Alright.
Very good.
Let's move on.
Noah, , this one's yours on aworking group for the possible
restructuring of the IACA.
Yeah.
And again, not to be confusedwith my larger motion.

(01:02:40):
That creates a commissionto just be, solicit and, and
collect any concerns or ideas.
This is more focused and, and it reallyboils down to the fact that we've
really, great applause for the boardand for everybody that served and, and,
and continues to serve as volunteers.
We've grown the associationexponentially over the, since Covid.

(01:03:04):
And, and internationallywe've done the same thing.
So, but we've gotten to a point I thinkthat the current structure and model and
the, and the, the way we govern ourselvesas a membership based organization is no
longer serving us as good as it should.
And I think we need to considerat least research and then
make some recommendations onhow to improve representation.

(01:03:27):
And, and I don't have a. I'm not sayingwe do it this way or that way, but this
is a, the pro to a motion to createa working group or a committee to
research and provide recommendations forrestructuring the IECA, the executive
board, the committee structure, theany staff positions that, that we've
all, we've kind of bounced around anddesigning a structure that also includes

(01:03:50):
or enhances the checks and balancesthat I think as, as we've grown now, we,
it, it's important for us to have that.
So some of that is about lookingat whether or not, the, the
existing board is big enough.
Does that become a boardof directors or not?
Do we want a bigger group, like a Senatein the model that I propose, or at least
that we could use as a as an example.

(01:04:12):
We don't have to do it the same way,but as a a, a university faculty Senate.
That each of the different areas ofdisciplines kind of have representations.
I would do that by a charter orchapter or, or maybe a country could
have a representative and from thatpool of, of the Senate pool, call

(01:04:32):
it that in small s senate, wouldn'tmake up our committee chairs.
And, and we give them like we did almost,most recently, we, we reached out to all
the committee chairs to ask for theirinput about the replacement for secretary.
And don't, don't do that informally,let's formalize that structure
and give them a voice and a vote.
And you represent a group.

(01:04:54):
Your, your regional associate,you are their representative.
And, and that's your constituency.
And, and I don't know what thenumbers ought to be, but that
would be one, one element of it.
So it's just something to considershould, we should rethink, given how
big we are now and that we're now trulyinternational, that we, we rethink,
what that structure might look like.

(01:05:14):
The bigger thing for me always is itis a membership based organization and
every member should have a voice and,and be represented one way or another.
And to some extent through motions,through an elected official who represents
me, someone I can touch or talk tothat, that will listen to me and what

(01:05:35):
my concerns are and continue to vote in.
The member's best interest,so I'll leave it at that.
I think people could read it.
It's a little bit longer.
One.
Make some suggestions for some staffingthat I think we bounced around ideas.
I think it's time we do that.
That might include needing to get a grantor raise the dues to be able to pay for
an executive director or a, a dedicatedchief financial officer who's our CPA.

(01:06:01):
That manages our funds, right?
And not a volunteer treasurer.
One of the reasons I really promotethat is that those are the two positions
that we tend to nominate by acclimation.
Nobody wants to sign up for treasurer.
No one, jumps at the chanceof, of being secretary.
Although, this last time I think wehad a half a dozen people say they
were interested, but, but they reallyought to be a board of director first.

(01:06:24):
Equally, equal status.
They're all board members , and let theday-to-day operations like finances and
the documents that you talk about, keepingthose records up to date, those become
someone's part-time or full-time job.
Because we're all busy as volunteersand I think we've outgrown a volunteer
organization, to be honest with you.

(01:06:45):
It, it's difficult to run a 7,000member organization completely with
volunteer people and not givingthem a voice in that operation.
So,
yeah.
Yeah.
Ri Ritchie Martinez alwayscalls it the church model.
Not that that's derogatory for churches,but it's just this idea that, it's
the, the church, you have volunteersand most churches are pretty small.

(01:07:09):
It can work and all this other stuff,but once you get so big and you want to
try to make money or you, you, you needto go more business model to a point.
My question again, I putting you on thespot and I, I guess I don't expect an
answer now, but just to think about howdo we expand that to ensure that we're
getting new voices and new memberships?

(01:07:31):
Because with all these proposals,with like different working groups
and people I don't want it to be likethe same usual suspects who sign up.
I would like to think that I'm, objectiveand fair and all that stuff, but other
people might think differently, and Idon't want this to be like another thing
that just the usual people are doing it.
It's like, yeah, there's.
All these different groups, but itincludes like the same 10 people, the

(01:07:53):
same 20 people, the same whatever.
So mm-hmm.
How do we advertise this andencourage people who've never stepped
up with IACA and like, make themfeel welcome, make them feel like,
hey, like, please, yes, join us.
It's not just gonna be like an echochamber of like the same people,
same ideas, talking in circles.
I, I, I I'm just curious like what we cando to encourage more people to come in.

(01:08:15):
Yeah.
I think one thing is to have, I don'twanna call 'em term limits 'cause I
think if we vote and that we want thesame people doing it 'cause they're
doing a good job, we should as membersbe able to have our voice heard.
But I do think we can create whereyou can't stay in the position
forever or you rotate out.
In my proposal it talks about, there'sother organizations that do this.
Instead of having a president serve athree year term, they get voted in as

(01:08:39):
a, a third or second vice president.
They move to the first vice presidentposition, maybe they run a different part.
And then for one year after they'vebeen in there for two years,
they become president and thenthey're off for a period of time.
Right.
And we can do that with the samestructure, with committee members.
Maybe we have to, you, you alwayshave a again, an apprentice.

(01:08:59):
Who you serve for two years ona committee, you have a sub or a
co-chair or a sub chair, right.
That's gonna take over, and then youstep away and, and then they have to go
pick a, a, not a brand new person, butI think you pick from your committee
members and then you continue to educateand you continue to be inclusive.
And you, and when people that wannastep up make we make sure we give

(01:09:20):
them a task or a job or get them on acommittee because we've had a lot of
the same faces and people, includingme, I've ran for president three times
and, and was elected three times.
Right.
We could create some rulesthat create new blood.
We, we do that at the university,that that 10% or 20% of the people on
this committee have to be brand newmembers every year or every two years.

(01:09:43):
And that forces us as a organizationto invite new, exciting, new ideas.
The millennials or, or whatever Gen Xersthat look at the world differently, right?
People that have experiencedcovid differently.
I'm going on 67 and, andI'm an old salty dog, right?
I believe in rules and I'mGerman and, and, and my kids

(01:10:05):
don't think the same way I do.
They're 34 and 32.
And, and I think we have to,in a, in a growing profession.
Be very aware of that and, and, andagain, listen, open up our ears.
And I tend not to do that very wellas an old, old salty dog as well.
Yeah.
Well,
it, it is interesting the, the powerof just asking I do the podcast and

(01:10:28):
I always, I ask, Hey, if you wantto be on my podcast, contact me.
And I, I think I can count on one handthe number of people that have done that
and people, but asking them, I'm like,oh, yeah, sure, I'll, I'll do that.
. Part of this is you always do a call.
You promote the, the workinggroup as much as you can.
But sometimes it's just gonna come backto as like, okay, identifying who might

(01:10:54):
be a, a good candidate to be on thatcommittee and then just plain ask them.
The, the other big point on thisparticular proposal or idea or motion,
whatever you want to call it is this ideaof really wrapping our head around what
does it mean to have self-governance?
And, and, and there are nonprofits andl and 5 0 1 c threes that do have a

(01:11:15):
board of directors and they make all thedecisions, and that's their bylaws, right?
Mm-hmm.
That they get, somehow they come together.
This organization is never fromthe start, never created that way.
It was a membership.
Professional organization that was to benetworking and inclusive and, we've grown
to be 7,000 people, but how do we create amodel that continues to be self-governing?

(01:11:39):
And, and we've got, I think we've grownin, in the last decade into really
in some ways empowering the board.
And they, I've heard them saymultiple times that, well, I've been
elected to make these decisions.
And some would argue, some havebeen, some have been appointed.
They don't look for inputbefore they maybe make a vote.
They don't have a constituency,specific constituent besides all of us.

(01:12:01):
But because we don't open thatcommunication like we're suggesting
in many of these things, more inputfrom the members, the fact that
any member could put in a motion,we've kind of gotten away from that.
And again, , I don't even think theboard ought to make decisions about the
conference on what color the napkins oughtto be, or, what we're having for lunch.
They should step away and notmicromanage and empower that committee.

(01:12:22):
But it wouldn't be hard to put,a survey out to, to ask people.
We have people who have specialdietary concerns that might have the,
a luncheon, and we're gonna ask them,do they want, a vegetarian dish or
chicken or steak or something like that.
So in today's technological times,we can, we can ask a lot more input
than, than we've done here this way.
And it's not that hard

(01:12:43):
so.
again, at the heart of this somebodyshould definitely look into the best ways
to structure a 7,000 member association.
I suspect that that hasn'tbeen done in any organized,
scientific way in a long time.
In the past, as , there's been lots oftalk about should we have some kind of

(01:13:04):
full-time employee that stays on top ofthe, the regular administration of things.
Maybe we're at the point thatwe need something like that.
I, I think that it would be worthdefinitely doing more than, it
simply be run by a lot of volunteersbecause it's getting much bigger.
And I would like to put somethingforward like we've grown to such

(01:13:28):
a point, which is a very positivething that we have to think about.
What's the best way to structure suchan association so that all members
are adequately served and evendetermining, , what, what does that mean?
What is, what is our goal?
What, what does it mean to, tohave a, a member be adequately
served and figure that out.

(01:13:50):
I think it's definitely worth.
Looking at.
All right.
Very good.
And the last one the last motion,another one of mine is to create
a lifetime achievement webpage.
So for those that may not know, thereis a lifetime achievement recognition

(01:14:11):
membership for, for the association.
And Noah is actually one of them.
A couple months ago, we were tryingto figure out who's on that list,
i, I know that Mark Stallois, and I know that Steve
Gottlieb is, but , I'm not sure.
After that, who'sactually has that status?

(01:14:33):
So first off, just create a webpagethat people can find and know, who
has that honor, let's recognize them.
And number two, talk about the logisticsof like how somebody gets on, how,
how, how someone gets that status.
So it's a pretty, it'sa pretty simple one.
It's just put a create, let'screate something to recognize

(01:14:57):
both the people and the status.
I agree with that idea.
I don't know who else is on the list.
Mm-hmm.
But I do, , of people who I thinkshould be on the list and, and as
far as I know they're not, mm-hmm.
And is there even a list?
I mean, I know like the three peopleyou just rattled off, but mm-hmm.

(01:15:18):
If there are more , I'm not, I'm not sure.
I mean, even someone like Brian Hills,should he posthumously be on that list?
He certainly had a lifetime ofachievements and we give an award out
in his name, so he should be there.
Yes, I, I think that that needs.
Some structure to it and, and yeah,how do we determine that someone is
eligible for lifetime achievement?

(01:15:40):
And then what, , what does that mean?
What do they get for that?
And I, I think that's, that's important.
I think every association needsit's it's lifetime achievers.
It's old guard, if you will.
It's mentors.
It's Warren Buffets of the IACI, . And, Ithink it is important because I, I don't
know if there's anyone out there who'sthinking they should be on the list and

(01:16:01):
they're not, or, or something like that.
But there could be, andwe definitely should have.
Definitions around it and figureout how people do get there.
And I think it has to be morethan things like, , they have CLIA
certification or something like that.
It has to be , like the peoplewho have that status, they've
contributed for a long time overa career in a variety of ways.

(01:16:24):
And so, however those sorts ofthings are determined it's like a
Cooperstown sort of vote or something.
Yeah.
But yeah, I, I agree thatthat needs to be addressed.
I don't think Noah should be on there.
I don't think he's old enough.
60 seven's too young.
That's not a full lifetime yet.
Come on.
Yeah, I, I'm 67, that's, I'm not over yet.

(01:16:45):
I'm still teaching college.
And I, Jason, I think when youdid the original podcast would
be you and I talked, I thinkat that time I was retired.
Yeah.
And you said you're probably not done yet.
We'll probably hearing from you again.
And here I am.
Probably deeper into it now,as a non-board member than
I was as a board member.
I reached out to the board, and tobe honest with you, I, they, they
weren't sure like these changesof the rules you talked about.

(01:17:08):
In the other proposal, they made achange inadvertently, just kind of
on a whim that they were no longergoing to, to give I signed up for,
to register for the conference.
And one of the benefits ifyou're a lifetime achievement
award is you get a registration.
And they, they said, oh, you don't, we'renot, we're not giving those out anymore.
I go, well, that's part ofsomething I earned at the time.

(01:17:30):
They, they gave the award.
I go, you can't just willy-nillystop giving me what I was, what I
earned as a lifetime achievement.
Now if you want to go forward with thenew rule, which I don't think they should
do, I think anybody gets a lifetime.
We should want them to cometo the conference if they're
gonna pay their own way.
I know Mark Sta we did it downin near Dallas and, and he
should have been celebrated.

(01:17:51):
But if we've got lifetimepeople that will come.
If it's in their vicinity or they,they take it seriously, man, who
else should we celebrate if it'snot those two or three people?
Again, I'm, I'm speaking 'cause I'mone of 'em, but I think I've earned
that title given the 35 years.
I'm the only person I've beento, whatever it is, 33 out of

(01:18:12):
34 or 34 out of 35 conferences.
I think I've got a littleknowledge of, I know the history.
And, and I have no problemobviously speaking up.
And I would tell you if Dale Harrishasn't gotten one yet, in light of
what he did for the association and hiscompany, that he's been very instrumental.
He used to give us an award.
Someone needs to nominate himbefore he dies, for God's sakes

(01:18:34):
as a lifetime award winner.
He deserves it.
And I'll go public here on,on your, on your podcast today
that I will nominate him.
I hope I can get a secondsomewhere along the line.
And there are other people thathave done that kind of, you know
those kinds of achievements.
So yeah, let's justlet's just find a way to.
Recognize them.
Come up with a process, come upwith , the benefits , it's just I think

(01:18:57):
something that needs to be established.
I'm glad you brought it up.
'cause I have to say as like, I, Iknow I'm not that young, but like
the younger member I always, you're,
you're, you're a lot younger than us.
Millennial Mindy, scrub in Mindy.
It's okay.
Give us a, give us a hard time.
I, I guess I'm just like super ignorant.
I honestly thought you guysjust got it automatically.

(01:19:20):
I'm so sorry.
Like you, you're telling me likeDale Harris and like all you guys
will just get it like after like30 something years of country.
I don't, I don't know.
I I don't know why.
I just thought it was automatic.
Like I, I, my knowledge is itcomes from the president and
I don't think it should come.
Just from the, we, we alreadyhave a President's Award, right?
Mm-hmm.
That's very different.

(01:19:41):
There ought to be some criteriaor a, a group that looks for
when you meet certain thresholds.
You, Jason did the po, you guysdid the podcast on the route,
Mount Rushmore kind of deal.
Those would be the kind of peopleyou would at least consider.
Chris Bruce is still pretty young.
He's a professor.
He's done enough in his career alreadythat eventually he'll get into the
Hall of Fame, whatever that is.

(01:20:02):
Mm-hmm.
Susan Ornick, even the controversyaround some of that did so
much for this organization.
At some point in her career, she deservesvery serious consideration for that.
There aren't that many.
Right.
And again, if you gimme afree registration, and I'm not
asking you to pay my way, I'mpaying my own way this year.
I gave, I'm on two panels.

(01:20:23):
I got selected and I gave the,the discounts to my counter
participants because I'm alreadygetting my registration covered.
And as a mentor, as a LifetimeAchievement Award mentor, I'm still
looking for people to bring to the table.
Brand new analyst out of Tempe, Arizonais coming with me to do a presentation,
and it's an opportunity where shemight not have been able to come, it

(01:20:45):
might be her first conference, butsomebody that's been to 35 years doing
this to reach out to someone who'sonly been a one or two year member.
That's the kind of things thesekind of members have, have really
continued to move this organizationand the profession forward.
And there's, there's a fewmore that are like that.
Certainly Stephen Gottlieb,a highly recognized person.
He did crime analysisbefore the ICA even started.

(01:21:08):
He was doing it in California.
And that's how I wastrained under his tutelage.
He's really the grandfatherof crime analysis.
As far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, I mean he pushed it andmade it happen with what they did
in California in the nineties isreally when a lot of that started.
Yeah.
Alright.
So those are the, the ninemotions what you, the listener

(01:21:29):
can do is a couple things.
First off, vote, . As I mentioned,it's May 19th through May 26th.
Log on find where to vote and vote.
There'll be links for in this episode, to show you where you can vote.
Two, forward this, post, this email, thisout, whatever it is, get the word out to

(01:21:53):
those that you know that our IACA members.
And may not have heard about this,push this out as much as possible.
Repost.
That's what, that's what you can do toget the word out about , these innovative
ideas and this process of voting.
Let's get the most voterswe've ever had with the IACA.

(01:22:15):
Let's try to get to that 700plus threshold that they're
talking 7 35 threshold.
And so you can help out by, numberone, voting yourself, and number
two, reaching out to others.
So again, all the information is goingto be the website leapodcast.com with
links to additional information.

(01:22:37):
, You're not sure exactly how theballot's going to look, but we will
have timestamps on each proposal soyou can hop around , on the website
to listen to particular sections.
Jason, a question of what'syour thoughts about this?
And I don't know, the way I'mreading this is it takes 735
people to vote in favor of it.
So.

(01:22:57):
Another group of people can vote negativeor, or a thumb down, which means we're
gonna have to have 1,470 people if it wasa close vote to get to the 7 35 threshold.
Yeah.
You need 735 votes in favor.
So whether it's exactly 735 membersvoted and they all voted yes.

(01:23:18):
Or if 7 36 voted and only one voted no,whatever that is, you need 7 35 in favor.
Tha thanks for the clarification
, it could be at the end of this that the only people that vote
are those who vote in favor.
So there's no negative vote, buttheoretically people could vote it down.
Yeah.
So, but that's thatthreshold number, I guess.
Again, it's.

(01:23:38):
We, it, some clarificationneeds to be around that.
So, yeah.
But take a look.
, You listen to this podcast,review all the proposals.
'cause there's a way there is moredetail in each one of these proposals.
We just gave a summary and an overview.
But take, take the time to read and, andmake the vote and reach out to others

(01:23:59):
noah, I'm gonna give theladies, the last word.
So, Noah, you go first and then we'llhave, then we'll have Deb go, and
then we'll have, have , Mindy go.
So Noah, , what do you got for me?
All I got is thanks for the opportunity.
I, I hope.
If, if there's nothing else that I,through my energy and and commitment to
this organization, the message I reallywanna send to every single member is to,

(01:24:22):
to step up, to be an active member and,and be a lifetime member for the, the
betterment of what, what it is that we do.
Excellent.
Alright, Deb,
My last words will be similar tomy first words that I am very, very
grateful that there is an IACA.
It, it has been a huge influenceon my career and continues to be

(01:24:46):
an influence on, on my career andI. Continue to to regularly learn.
About knowledge and skills thatpeople who I have known as part of
the association for a long time, butwasn't always aware of all that they
do in their jobs and in their lives.

(01:25:06):
And just that I think as a professionalassociation is, is so valuable.
And I think that new analysts.
Or not quite new, but perhapsnewish analysts should really
look at that as, as a professionalopportunity and do everything
they can to become a part of that.

(01:25:26):
And I think like any institutionas you've mentioned, it's
grown a lot over the years.
It needs constant shaking up andlooking at ways in which we can be
the best association that we can be.
And.
I think that the whole innovativeideas concept is a. A good way
to start that ball rolling.

(01:25:48):
And I think we need to find ways toget more and more and more analysts
and other members involved in theprocess to contribute new ideas.
And strive to work within our membershipto make it better and better for everyone.
I think, I think that's the goal.
And just like myself, I don'tthink everybody has to agree
with every innovative idea.

(01:26:08):
But I think within the ideas that havebeen presented, there is meaty stuff
there that everyone should find elementsin there that, that they agree with,
or elements in there that they'd liketo expand upon or learn more about.
So I think this is a, really.
Good process to get going.
And and I think this is informationthat needs to be pushed out to

(01:26:31):
people repeatedly to the point ofannoying the membership because we
can't expect that our busy membersare going to go seek to participate.
It needs to be put in in front ofthem so they can look at it, think
about it, then get back to it, and.
Give their feedback and ultimatelyif there's a vote to give their
vote and we need to do more ofthat with everything, I think.

(01:26:53):
All right, Mindy, finish this up.
It's a lot of pressure.
I guess just piggybacking on whatNoah said, I mean, like, I, I hope
that we get a lot more engagement.
I hope that we reach that 735 threshold,but even if we only get like half of it,
I'll still be happy that like somebodystepped up or somebody got engaged and

(01:27:16):
which, despite how this may or may notgo, I just hope more people get engaged
or interested and step up in the future.
So, I hope this is the firststep, not the final one.
So.
Thank you everyone.
All right, very good.
Thank you for joining us.
Again., Check the show notes for the link.
Vote, reach out to othersinnovative ideas for the I aca.

(01:27:38):
If you have any questions orconcerns about this podcast or
any of the information we've goneover, you can always email us at
leapodcast.com podcasts@gmail.com.
Thank you everyone for listening.
You all be safe and until next time,
Thank you for making it tothe end of another episode of
Analyst Talk with Jason Elder.
You can show your support by sharingthis and other episodes found

(01:27:59):
on our website@www.podcasts.com.
If you have a topic you would likeus to cover or have a suggestion for
our next guest, please send us anemail at elliot podcasts@gmail.com.
Till next time, analysts, keep talking.

All Episodes

Analyst Talk - Motion Commotion: Voting to Advance IACA’s Innovative Ideas

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Analyst Talk - Motion Commotion: Voting to Advance IACA’s Innovative Ideas