itSMF can be forgiven a little shaky governance

I guess ISACA are the governance gurus and itSMF can be forgiven a little shaky governance right? Why should every chapter bother with published accounts? In a tough year, of course an international team needs to meet face to face every quarter – there is only so much you can do with teleconferencing. Is there a best practice for a Board to extend its tenure, or even try to avoid elections entirely? And what’s a wobbly election process between friends? Who’s to say what is a reasonable vendor presence anyway. Why shouldn’t itSMF Board members be paid consulting fees by the same body? It’s cool if board and committees resign en masse then factions fight it out for control without a formal board dissolution. It’s not as if the world looks up to itSMF for governance leadership or anything, right? That’s ISACA. We’re the process people. Just look at our processes.

Syndicate content