CFA Institute members, please consider the following guidance that the NYSSA sent out today: ----------------------------- "Dear Members, The Executive Committee of the New York Society of Security Analysts (NYSSA) has reviewed the proposed amendments to the CFA Institute Articles of Incorporations and Bylaws to be determined by proxy on May 8, 2011. Given the gravity of some of the proposed amendments to the bylaws, we wanted to be sure to bring these matters to your attention before you cast your vote. We are joining the Chicago and Atlanta Societies in this effort. Consequently, the Executive Committee is making the following recommendations: VOTE NO: Acceptable Work Experience Amendment changes to bylaw section: 2.1 Rationale: Potentially allows for a significant dilution of the Acceptable Professional Work Experience required of Charterholders by giving the board complete discretion to define “Acceptable Professional Work Experience” without providing a specific minimum standard. Allows for changes to that standard without proper consideration or approval of the membership. VOTE NO: Minimum Passing Scores Amendment changes to bylaw sections: 3.4(a)(i), 5.7, and 5.8© Rationale: Removes the requirement that minimum passing scores be approved by a majority of the Charterholder Governors potentially allowing Institute Staff and non-Charterholders to set the standards for determining which candidates pass each exam and receive their charters. Requires more clarity related to Board oversight of setting Minimum Passing Scores (MPS) and does not disclose the guiding principles for (MPS) nor does it provide detail on how those principles can be changed in the future. Creates a potential conflict of interest for lowering the minimum passing score to increase Institute Membership and therefore Institute revenue levels. VOTE NO: Setting of Dues Amendment changes to bylaw sections: 3.7, 10.2 Rationale: Removes direct responsibility and approval for setting dues from the Board to management of CFA Institute. Amendment allows for future changes without the proper consideration or input from the membership. The CFA Institute’s purpose of change relies on revenue principles adopted by the Board in February 2010, but does not provide detail on how those principles can be changed in the future. If you have already cast your vote and wish to make a change, you can do so by re-casting your vote. In order to gain access to your electronic ballot, you must enter your CFA Institute Member Number and Election Validation Number. The Election Validation Number can be found in either the right-hand side of the paper ballot that was mailed or in the proxy notification e-mail sent to members who elected to receive the information electronically. If you have any questions concerning your ballot number or electronic voting, please contact Election Services Corporation or call (866) 720-4357 or +1 (516) 688-7013. http://www.cfainstitute.org/about/governance/Pages/proxy.aspx
Good for them, I completely agree that members must vote against these measures.
When is the deadline for voting? I received the pack but can’t remember where I put it. Wil have to dig it out over the weekend.
Deadline is Friday, so get cracking.
The Boston society sent out basically the same letter
Carson - just vote electronically. Try this link: https://www.esc-vote.com/cfa2011/?zbrandid=4161&zidType=CH&zid=6468142&zsubscriberId=1008846922&zbdom=http://nyssa.informz.net The vote seems to be going poorly for the CFAI. They sent an email out about a week ago encouraging members to support the changes. I don’t recall them ever doing that since I’ve been a member (about 6-7 years). And while I’m at it, I encourage you all to write to the CFAI and ask them for a copy of the policies that the Board and the CFA Institute have established regarding the determination of the MPS and the guide that the Board adopted in regard to revenue principles. They’ll direct you to some FAQ on the website that they don’t provide a link to, but maybe if enough people ask they’ll finally disclose it. Note that the response will likely come from the “Office of the General Counsel” for whatever reason.