ASQ’s Strange, Factless Response to the Call for TAG Reform

To start, this post isn’t about ASQ in any other capacity than its management of the US TAG to TC 176, the committee that writes the ISO 9000 family of standards. At the section level, I have a great relationship with ASQ, probably because they love that I do so many free events for them. But when dealing with the US TAG leadership, you have to go through a few ASQ functionaries, since the leaders won’t respond to anyone personally. Apparently, getting to the TAG is just like trying to grab a selfie with Justin Bieber: you can’t get past the bodyguards.

Recently, ASQ was flooded with emails of support for my faux candidacy for US TAG Dictator Chairman. Maybe “flooded” is a bit strong, so let’s say they were trickled on. (That image works on multiple levels.) We know there were a lot of emails sent because nearly everyone cc’d me on them (thanks, O-fans!) and ASQ’s Julie Sharp — who’s also the US TAG Administrator — had to go to the trouble of creating a form letter response. That in itself is a new level of achievement for Oxebridge; you know you’ve arrived if your industry’s top professional society has to use CTRL-C to diss you.

In the letter, Ms. Sharp took the predicted tactic of dismissing the feedback by indicating to O-fans would have to join the TAG before they were taken seriously. I’m paraphrasing poorly, so have a look at the actual email that went out:

From: Standards Email
Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2015 5:20 AM
Cc: Standards Email
Subject: RE: Chris Paris for TAG Chair

Hello,

Thank you for your interest in the U.S. TAG to ISO/TC 176 on quality management and quality assurance (TAG 176). The TAG 176 procedures state that the officers are nominated and elected by the members. If you are interested in becoming a member please contact standards@asq.org.

Best regards,
Julie

Julie Sharp, CQIA
Standards Development Administrator
ASQ
600 North Plankinton Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53201, US
t: 800-248-1946, ext. 7647
International: +1-414-272-8575

The problem with the reply isn’t so much that it takes the typical bureaucratic approach to cock-blocking ISO 9001 users by suggesting only after someone becomes a member will their opinion be given attention. The bigger problem is that Ms. Sharp just makes up stuff. The TAG 176 procedures do not state that “officers are nominated and elected by the members.” In fact, they say something very different:

Six months before the expiration of these terms, the TAG Chair will appoint a nominating committee of not less than three TAG members to nominate candidates for these positions. [Emphasis added.]

So the rules state that nominations are done by a nominating committee appointed by the Chair. That’s very different than claiming that TAG members nominate their own candidates, like in the Free World in which we allegedly reside.

Commatose Democrazy

One could argue that this is a case of a misplaced comma. Perhaps Ms. Sharp intended to say “officers are nominated, and elected by the members” as if to say they are nominated (by someone else), and THEN elected by members.

Alas, this isn’t what she meant. In a subsequent email exchange, which Ms. Sharp then had posted publicly on ASQ’s forum board on LinkedIn, she doubled down:

Regarding the TAG 176 elections and whether members can nominate; yes, they can and they do. The nominating committee requests nominations from the whole TAG.  Then, they call each individual who has been nominated to ensure (1) if the individual has interest in the position; (2) if the individual has the ability to travel and attend the international meetings.  The name(s) of every interested individual is put on a ballot which goes to all the TAG members for voting.

Again, this clearly contradicts the TAG procedures (you can download them here for yourself), but worse than that, her account contradicts actual practices. During the nomination of current Chair Alka Jarvis — which I, and some 50 other people physically witnessed first hand — Jack West met in a secret meeting the night before, with Lorrie Hunt, Joseph Tsiakals and at least one other hand-picked pal, and nominated MS. Jarvis. The next day she was announced as the only candidate. When I questioned this process, Lorrie Hunt defended the practice by quoting the very same TAG rules that Sharp claims say something entirely different. When I pressed, Jack West shouted at me and shut off all discussion, from anyone, on the nomination and election process. Jarvis, of course, was elected without contest shortly thereafter.

Now this doesn’t mean that Ms. Sharp is a liar. She’s a dutiful functionary who probably wasn’t around at the earlier meetings, and is defending her bosses by quoting what she thinks the procedures say, rather than what they actually say. And, as a dutiful functionary, she isn’t about to publicly acknowledge that, yes, the rules allow Jarvis to hand-pick her successor and then hold a sham vote that denies competing candidates in a manner akin to what they do in Pyongyang. What’s odd, though, is that she’d go public with such an obvious contradiction of the truth, one which anyone can verify is untrue just by reading the actual rules.

Wild, Wild West

This is the cult of personality that has grown up in the TAG, and which must be shut down. The dutiful soldiers, like Hunt and Robitaille and Palmes and Sharp, are rewarded with the attentions of the Jack West and the leadership, which reinvigorates their need to please, even if it means throwing their ethics out the window. Critics and independent thinkers are shunned and shouted at. I mean, does it really reflect good ol’ American values if the TAG Chair screams his lungs out from the podium to shut down a discussion about democratic elections?

This is why the TAG Leadership has to go. They are obsessed with keeping their rule in place, presumably so they can cash in at bullshit events, while preventing users from having their say. Hundreds of you have written to me asking why your comments, sent to the TAG, went unnoticed and were never reflected in the ISO 9001 text that emerged. This is why.

So keep the pressure on. Keep writing the TAG Admin and cc Alka Jarvis. Keep demanding a mild change to the TAG election rules to ensure democratic values are maintained, and to ensure that we can get ISO 9001 back on track.

Or, just do it for the unicorn pony. Whatever.