Biased Chairman

This is just my opinion, but I would not have made the presentation had it not been on my terms...After spending all that time and effort for no compensation, I would think they would at least give you that...I would have politely refused to speak, until reasonable heads prevailed....or at least I could claim the decision was based on incomplete data, and therefore not valid...

Not enough information. Maybe it's a British thing and I'm just a Yank, from Arkansas no less.

Maybe Del, or the ever popular English Rose, may have some advice.

I'm off to the pub.

Cheers.

Live and learn, loyalty to those who you do not have good reason to trust rarely gets rewarded.

'Fraid you're prob'ly going to have to either just chalk this one up, or take it higher (at the risk of having no more involvement). Sounds like there are a lot of dick-heads on the team.

After the horse has bolted, I'd suggest A) taking your presentation with you on your own laptop (connectable to their OHP or whatever) and B) taking loads of hard copy - both your text & diagrams - and be prepared to do some handing out & talking through the material.

Bet you've got a bitter taste in your mouth.

Thinking a bit more, you said "... the Convenor together with another UK delegate had prepared a presentation of their own in opposition to the official UK mandate ...".

If you can produce clear documentary evidence of this, then you should definitely take it higher. The Convenor is (presumably) supposed to be impartial, and the UK team member is verging on treason if they present such a case. Both should be removed^[1].

[1] Unless the 'official UK mandate' is a load of crap - but that's between you and them. Without knowing the ins'n'outs, no-one here can realy comment.

I'm with JohnDG on this one: time for practical politicking.

Phase I: Go tell your nearest Tory MP, the more Eurosceptic the better (Tories are stand-up 'fair traders'). Find him on the Tories' website, under 'Find your Local Conservative': http://www.conservatives.com/

They all have constituency offices, so start by calling there and asking for an appointment. If he's a Minister, who thus has no time to spend, tell another one.

Start with your local MP; if you make no progress with him, find a staunch Eurosceptic one.

For orientation, call a regional party organizer or local association President. You can find them at: http://www.conservatives.com/People/Voluntary_Party.aspx

Phase II: Look under 'People' on the Tories' home page, and get in touch with someone appropriate. If there's a Euro spin to this, consider telling a Euro MP.

I'd consider contacting a Conservative Peer of the House of Lords, if you can find one interested or responsible for your subject matter (someone on an Industry or Industrial Policy committee). Again, call a regional organizer for this.

You may wish to do the above with the Lib-Dem and Labour parties, but I recommend the Tories since they're collectively the most assertive "we'll do it OUR way", most particularly the right-wingers.

Above all: define the consequences, frame your argument (i.e., say/present succinctly why it matters), and emphasize that what's going on is against UK mandate/policy; and document within the limits of reason (which mandate? what does it say? show a declaration of mandate/policy? why does it matter (apart from your committe's being highjacked)?).

Cheers! And good luck.

Dread Zontar

P.S. And don't go against Canadian interests, y'hear? Hahahaha ...

DISCLAIMER: I'm a Canadian Conservative party member. That being said, I recommend bringing this matter up with UK Conservatives because: 1. they're in power (more than Lib-Dems); and 2. they're the most stridently against this kind of thing.

I'd recommend other parties I were to believe them more suitable for the present situation.

Hold on a minute!!!

I don't know how important this is, but it sounds to me like something's very wrong here. These people seem to be on an agenda that doesn't align with the best interests of the UK.

English Rose or Del the cat should be able to offer some insight.....................possibly through PM, depending on how much of this you want to air in the open. Good luck.

Oops. Or JohnDG.

The hierarchy and description of your situation baffles me to say if you've been slighted or if you fumbled the situation. I will say this though, before you actively do something about this you should know if you were slighted or if you made a real submission error. (Possibly you did not follow proper protocol because you were misinformed, but it may still have been your responsibility to find out what was the proper protocol and you botched it.) You must also know beyond a reasonable doubt if your presentation brings something critical to the table. I seriously doubt that you've discovered something that nobody else on this committee knows about but it is possible.

My point here is that you don't know what to do because you apparently don't know what actually happened. If you don't know, then we certainly don't know.

Or it may not be about him at all.

The committee made a decision against the UK's interest.

Great..................another conspiracy.

Solar Eagle: They would have made the same decision anyway. Certain influential delegates did not want me to speak. They have gagged me in the past by using admin tricks. That is; I am only expressing a personal opinion that differed from other UK delegates - a firm UK mandate was needed if they were to believe me.. Or the item was not put on the Agenda and therefore not permitted. Or the Agenda did not go out in time. Or 'we've run out of time'. This time the item was on the Agenda with a UK mandate in writing, but my email submission was not on the website, and thus not available to down-load for OH projection. But it was the unauthorised UK version that they preferred - and in fairness to my foreign colleagues - they were swayed by the Convenor when he overruled me.

Lyn: Enjoy your drink.

Tcmtech. Live and learn is fine, but I need to do something about it.

JohnDG: You've summed it up well. I did have my laptop but it was playing up. I had trouble getting connected to the Internet, and a fault somewhere that throws up a blue screen. There is unlikely to be a next time because they will refuse to discuss the matter unless I can force the issue. I am annoyed and I don't want let it drop. But having said that I am retiring from committee work after 25 years and I thought the last meeting would be my final moment of glory - not my swan song. I have got nothing to lose by taking it higher.

Kramarat: Yes, there is something wrong opponents win their case by clever debating tricks and not by reasoned argument based on sound engineering principles. I know most of the tricks but I am still learning.

Redfred: I have not been slighted by the committee itself. I have been stitched up by my own UK team members. My presentation in support of the UK could have been a lot better I admit - but I was up against my own team who ignored the UK mandate and presented evidence that the committee wanted to hear. And because most went for the unofficial version the Convenor backed the majority. But as you might know, consensus committees do not have voting powers as such, so it is a question of judgement, but a sort of voting takes place sometimes by a show of hands by a few and the rest follow, or by a lack of dissent except for me being a minority of one. Thus easy to overrule - especially as it could be seen by other countries that the Convenor jumped on his fellow countryman and thus showing no bias in favour of the UK. Lots of Brownie points for that would you say.

The feedback I would like is to find out whether making a fuss works, and if so, how best to do it. And if all else fails, being bloody minded, what is the best way to stir things up for the team members that ignored the Uk mandate. ..

When I say the decision was not in the UK's interest, we were not alone, Canada was in full support, The USA was to some extent, and so was Germany. But on balance members present went for a compromise that left the UK isolated.

I could tell you all a bit more about the particular issue if you think it would help, but in a way not to reveal any names or identify people.

Sometimes making a fuss works, and sometimes it doesn't.

There is no best way to do it. No one recipe exists.

Based on what you've said, you will go nowhere with your teammates, so there is nowhere to go but above their heads.

From what I can see, you've got a couple of options:

1) You can retire, move on and forget about it.

2) You can go over their heads, present your case, and become one of two things:

A) A hero that is looking out for the interests of the UK.

B) A dirt bag, know it all, trouble maker that doesn't want to let the others have a go at it.

Your going to retire anyway, so only you can determine how far to take this.

Well for very understandable reasons there are details you are not not eager to place on a public blog. No matter what any of us say or suggest, you must be the one to decide if you should go over someone's head and how high and loud you should go.

I think what is pertinent to your dilemma is the experience Richard P. Feynman had with the Challenger disaster. At the time that R.P. Feynman published this report, he was one of if not the most famous living physicist on the planet. Despite this stellar prestige and acuity of intellect R.P. Feynman brought to the Challenger Commission, he had to publish a minority opinion about the root cause he found for the disaster. That root he found was not the O rings but the culture of NASA management and politics to make the shuttle seem safe. These were likely the exact same roots that had planted into the foam of the fuel tank attached to Columbia many years later.

So now that I've probably depressed you, I want you to ponder why he bothered to publish a minority opinion. Did he think that NASA would forever change their ways now that he showed them their flaw? Did his prestige go to his head? I don't know. I suspect that he slept easier once he published his opinion.

Who wrote this story--Franz Kafka? No identifying details or specific content of proposals have been given, only some shadowy hints of bad politics. That makes it hard to come to a judgment.

It sounds like you have been shafted. You were asked to work on a presentation along lines A, and you spent months doing that, unpaid. All your work was disregarded, and they presented their own contrary view along lines B.

Unfortunately volunteers end up treated like workers, in that they are expected to produce things of high quality in good time, but the value that is placed on that stuff is nothing, because that is what it costs the organisation. So your work can be thrown out and disregarded without any loss to the organisation.

It has happened to me. The only power you have is that you can say 'I'm not doing it.'

The questions are:

A Why weren't you kept in the loop about their 'plan B', and

B What do those two stand to gain from the decision against the UK interest?

The answers may not be sinister. they may not understand what they have done, a misinterpretation, just plain ignorance.

They may be sinister. Financial gain, or other backscratching kickbacks.

Answer the two questions first, and that will give you an idea of the next step.

If you go over their heads what is the worst that can happen? Would you get fired?

You just worked months for nothing. What are you getting out of that? What are you getting out of your involvement generally?

but was warned off.

Was this by one of the two or is someone else involved?

But as a committee member I could liaise with the Convenor to send my written presentation to the committee - Err, you already sent it to the Convenor. This is just to keep you quiet. ie, 'You have a complaint about the way I have handled something. Ok send your complaint in writing to ...me, and I will look into it for you.' No. it would never make it, but you would think it had, and sit waiting for judgement day to come.

Questions A and B is the first step to the way forward.

CNC

To get some idea of who and what you may be up against, search narcissistic personality disorder and OCD on the Web. Less likely choices are paranoid personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. The outlook for these last two is gloomy but the people with OCD can take some version of a serotonin reuptake inhibitor. In my whole life, that I know of, I've met several of each of these characters. Recognizing them is sometimes not easy. Also, C. Fred Alford wrote at least one book on whistleblowing. If you're going to get screwed you should at least know why.

From my personal experience I would take the high road and present your case to a wider and higher audience and authority. It may go nowhere at first or ever but you at least will sleep with a clean conscience that your efforts and views have been seen by others.

I have done that a few times in my life. At first it appeared that little to nothing was done after I presented my findings to the people above the ones I had issue with but some time later I did find that they got what they deserved in terms of being removed from positions by firing or being moved to positions where their actions have little effect regardless of what they try.

I recently found out that a former bad boss of mine got busted down to lowly truck driver after enough of the truck drivers he created such misery for due to his clueless and incredibly selfish actions ratted him out. I was just the first one to go above his head formally but when I did it I made full well sure that my coworkers at the time knew what I did and what the resulting response was that I got from the top office for bringing up the concern. Then I walked out and never came back after my name had been cleared.

If you are wondering I think that his getting knocked down to the ranks and pay of whom he caused the most problems for was a far more fitting punishment than firing. Had he been fired he probably would have just ended up as another over paid bad manager in another company. Having to work every day with the people who hate you and for good reason is far worse!

Kramarat - post 11 & Redfred - post 12: I am going to retire, but I will not be able to forget it if I give up.

I feel like an Olympic marathon runner on an obstacle course on the home straight going for Gold - but with a runner in front to pass - if only I could surmount the obstacles in my path put there by the supporters of my opponent. One last minute almighty burst is needed right at the time of lowest ebb when temptation to give up is greatest - and why not !, you're likely to get Silver anyway.

In this analogy I have to accept that I am not likely to win outright. I will have to call for a Steward's Enquiry to get my opponent disqualified . And that will be difficult because the obstacles were put there by the steward..

I appreciate it is my decision and no one else's. My enquiry here amongst fellow engineers is find options, especially those I have not thought of, and to gauge the value of each one.

On balance it looks like I need to take the matter to a higher level (and at what level?). In my case there is a hierarchy of management. Do you jump straight in at 'director; level. But whatever level do you go in without reference to anybody, or is it best to tell them what you intend to do, and then do it without further notice if a solution is not forthcoming (with a time limit?)

If I was me (as Convenor) I would lke to be advised before anybody went over my head. But having said that, I would not have let the matter reach this stage in the first place.

Well at the very least I would be sure to contact whoever made your presentation the official UK perspective as JohnDG pointed out. They deserve to know why your approved presentation did not appear.

As for your dream of a final blaze of glory finish, forget about that. Even in your Olympic marathon analogy, you are the one coming in second. If the winner in front of you is there from doping or any other illegal activity, you will not get the gold medal by ratting on the opponent that beat you. Now if the truth comes out on its own then you might get a gold medal by default but it certainly will not come with any glory. (Does anyone remember who raced against Marion Jones in the 2000 Olympics?)

This leaves only the question of your sleep. Once you've reported why your presentation never appeared, you could sleep easy knowing that the one who confided with you the "official" perspective now has minions that won't tow the party line. This Convener and cohort will no longer be your problem after retirement starts. That is as long as your retirement is legally secured.

If you still cannot sleep, then you have to recognize that Lord Poopah that gave you the official nod appears to have no control over Winking and Blinking. Certainly Winking and Blinking are not swayed by Lord Poopah's power and position. This maybe because Winking and Blinking believe they are correct in their presentation. Then again, Chancellor Sourpuss who gave Winking the position of Convener may just be tired of Lord Poopah's meddling in the Chancellor's business.

You might consider contacting Scribe Baldric for his trade journal publication. (There's certainly many trade journals out there.) Baldric might publish this sordid tale. Baldric should have somebody on staff familiar with the jargon to see merit or folly in the presentations and game play.

Whatever you do, don't confess this story to Blackadder. He's too much full of himself and will come up with a ridiculous plan that'll just leave everyone laughing.

Then again there's always Ambien.

Here in the US, I would quietly and unofficially work my way up the ladder..................bringing it up, but not making a stink, until you find an ally. Once you find a person that is friendly to your cause, you can show them your entire presentation and make your case. Then it will be up to them to carry it forward, with you being available to corroborate the story and present any evidence that may be needed.

Going out in a blaze of glory sounds good, you just don't want to get yourself burnt in the process.

I don't know how serious this whole situation is.......................but people have been hurt or killed in similar scenarios. There's a reason that these people are going directly against the interests of the UK.

Just focussing on "... do you go in without reference to anybody, or is it best to tell them what you intend to do ..." - if you give the Convenor (or anyone else) prior warning, it gives them opportunities to A) plan a defence/way to wriggle out/way to suppress your submission-to-be (depending how sneaky/ulteriorly motivated they may be), and B) go to the higher levels, and express concerns that "Noddy's going off the rails" or whatever, and so sew the seeds of doubt.

If you're going to do it, do it directly to whoever (with cc to all others concerned - i.e. the Convenor and the rest of the UK team, plus anyone else you can think of).

[Edit - I identify with your "fair-minded" thinking re. letting him know what you intend to do _{after all - it's the British way, dem it!} , but IMHO it isn't appropriate here]

I seem to recall this same situation/complaint, being posted/discussed, one or two years ago.

It sounds like the same organisation. If so, you may have an ally.

(that is, assuming it wasn't you back then too)

Cnc jim - post 14: Yes, I have been shafted. I am in the loop as an appointed committee member (but not in the inner circle so to speak). The standards committees in question are part of BSI and ISO - I will give no more detail than that. I am a retired director of a very small company so I can be ignored with impunity because I am nobody of consequence. Don't get me wrong, I do not feel inferior - far from it - because I know on technical merit in my special subject I can 'out-engineer' any of them. That's part of the problem because the technical argument to present my case goes over their heads. My problem is more political than technical, and that puts me at a disadvantage because I do not have the experience of working within a large organisation.

At the same time I do not have the problems. I can't be fired, I can't be ordered around. To a great extent I can please myself. That degree of freedom allows me to speak my mind at meetings without fear of consequences - other than the fact that I have a particular objective in mind - where coming across as arrogant or smug could be counter-productive.

The UK interest is embodied in the existing BS;s for use in our trade. Which for the last thirty years we (as a company) have worked to. Obviously it makes sense to me to keep these standards hence my efforts on behalf of the UK to justify the reasons at ISO meetings.

Other people in the UK and ISO are not commercially affected by these standards and hence are not bothered what goes in the ISO. But the UK standard is tighter than others (say USA or Germany) such that there is pressure to relax the UK standard to make life easier for others, such as one international company that would have trouble meeting the UK standard so they are fighting it by having their employees join as many committees as possible. .5 out of 14 delegates at the last meeting were on the committees of 3 countries present. And being part of the inner circle as well, with others, it influence rubs off on some of the UK team who would prefer to gain an international reputation for willingness to cooperate by relaxing UK standards . There are no brownie points for being in my good books.

Tcmtec - post 16: Deciding to speak up when your job or livelihood is at stake takes a special kind of courage. You make your decision and you live with the consequences.

Of all the wrong decisions I have made, fortunately not too many and most of short term inconvenience or consequence, the ones I regret most are those made at the time by taking advice or agreeing with others that instinctively I felt was wrong, but went along with for the sake of a quiet life with the hint it would result in promotion, pay rise, better perks, job etc. None of which ever materialised.

My instinct is to fight the issue - whatever it takes. But I would stop short of making trouble for my opponents just for the hell of it. Apart from my bit of hassle with them, they are all trying their best to produce an ISO standard, and for that, warts and all, we should be grateful.

I think a possible answer is to make sure my original email input to the committee gets accepted and posted officially as part of the records. Then if an enquiry is necessary, people cannot deny they knew about it. If the Convenor refuses to deal with it then I will send it direct to the top ISO committee secretary. I will be going over the head of the convenor but for very good reasons.

DreadZontar - post 20: Thanks. I have the option of going to my MP but I feel there is a lot of mileage in the hierarchy of BSI, ISO and CEN. My dissent is in relation to a technical detail in one particular standard brought about by a failure to follow proper procedure. The technical detail needs to be put right before the next voting stage.

That leaves no time at all for drawn out action as is likely by going down the MP route.

I suspect there will be people employed in the upper BSI and ISO structure who are paid to manage the proper function of the system rather than the technical detail in the standard. These are the people I need to approach as I guess they will want to know if things are not right.

Whether they take executive action is another matter. They have to be told first. And nobody else is going to do it except me.

Please just cut the crap, and tell us what is actually in the competing proposals. From the way you have proceded thus far, I can generate no sympathy. In the absence of cogently described differences of opinion, you are coming off as a pest. This is not something I wish to think, but you haven't given much to go on.

He could also be the guy with the proposal that is against the UK's best interests. What the hell do we know?

I just had another idea.

Since you're not getting paid, you're retiring, and you have nothing to lose.................................Well, everybody loves a scandal/whistle blower...................take it to the newspapers.

Tornado - post 20: Sympathy is not required.

I am not asking about the technical merit of the particular standard. Just a few tips from engineers on how best to handle a political situation will do.

No information will be provided to identify persons or committees. If the people I am dealing with are devious then it is likely they would lie to deny my version of events to the extent that they could sue me for libel. And if they are honest people, as I think they are, then outing them if quite unnecessary - and unfair.

Dear Mr. Noddy Timbs,

You have not referred about the Terms of Reference involved for your hard work.

If any item is breached upon, you can counter it.

DHAYANANDHAN.S

Reply to DHAYANANDHAN - post 29

Thank you.

The Terms-of-Reference are the ISO rules and guidelines for conducting international meetings to produce ISO standards.

Largely the rules are based on well established democratic principles that most people know about - but quite often forget (or ignore if convenient) - hence the Chairman (or Convenor as they are now called) has to steer a course through opposing arguments to arrive at a consensus - albeit that the interpretation of consensus is open to discussion. Sometimes the Convenor has to make a decision to enable progress.

For those who agree with the decision a consensus need only be a simple 'vote' that could be nothing more than a lack of dissent. For those who disagree (me) the decision having been made then becomes a problem getting it overturned by a higher authority.

That will be hard enough itself without having to fight an obstructive Convenor as well.

There are higher authorities - my committee is four layers down in an ISO structure where we are a sub-committee of a sub-committee of as sub-committee of the main committee.

The next committee up is the logical one to approach - except that the Convenor of that one is ex-officio of my committee and he actively supported the decision - so approaching him is an additional problem - and time is of the essence

Hence my question of how best to go about it.