“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” – Isoroku Yamamoto
The following is a hypothetical conversation regarding where NASPO might fit in relative to the NIGP #CodeGate scandal:
The National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO), Inc. was formally established on January 29, 1947, in Chicago, Illinois.
NASPO is a non-profit association dedicated to advancing public procurement through leadership, excellence, and integrity. It is made up of the directors of the central purchasing offices in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the territories of the United States. NASPO is an organization that helps its members achieve success as public procurement leaders through promotion of best practices, education, professional development, research, and innovative procurement strategies.
It looks very similar to what the NIGP is purportedly doing . . .
It may be that there’s a natural transition that will come, especially fueled by the controversy around NIGP.
I was thinking the same . . . the question is how do you get rid of the NIGP without looking bad . . . NASPO is probably not likely to shed a tear over NIGP’s implosion . . . what do you think?
Maybe the NIGP board, once they get rid of Grimm, will approach NASPO for some sort of consolidation.
Maybe that was the plan all along . . . when I asked for NASPO’s 990 filing this morning, they had it to me faster than a speeding bullet . . . They know they are strong and that they look great on paper . . . better than any association finances I have seen so far . . .
If I were the head of procurement for Missouri and received the Persicope challenge including the Periscope/NIGP letter, I would turn to NASPO and say . . . well they (being NIGP) have finally done it . . . they crossed the line. If we let them get stronger they will likely do this again but with greater stealth and effectiveness.
Got to wonder…
However, no association ever wants to appear that they are taking a negative shot at another association, let alone facilitated their demise . . .
So maybe the NIGP board, whose members I’ll bet are also NASPO members, will broach the idea. That let’s NASPO look like the ‘bigger person’ instead of taking negative shots.
Remember Isoroku Yamamoto’s words after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor . . . “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” NASPO is the NIGP’s sleeping giant . . .
Or potential ‘savior’… at least of their principles and intent as an organization.
Just started following the NIGP #CodeGate story? Use the following link to access the Post Archive; https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/nigp-codegate/
Follow my coverage of this story on Twitter using the hashtags #missbid and #CodeGate
On The Go? You can also listen to the audio version of this post as well as others through @Umano https://umano.me/jhansen
30
Procurement Insights 
colincram
May 6, 2015
This is an interesting scenario. It would be fascinating to hear from others on the desirability and practicality of a merger. The article is suggesting that NIGP may not be able to remain an independent body. Is that a reasonable supposition?
piblogger
May 6, 2015
I think that the bigger question is not “could” it remain an independent body, but “should” it remain an independent body?
Besides questions surrounding the NIGP’s business dealings with private enterprise such as a Periscope, and the resulting financial/influence implications, it is the stewardship of the NIGP Code that poses the greatest possible threat to NASPO values and interests.
By becoming a notable part of the Periscope Missouri protest of the award of an eProcurement contract to a competing vendor, the NIGP demonstrated that you cannot serve two masters (or conflicting interests).
With 33 states and countless other government entities relying on the NIGP Code, there is no guarantee that such challenges, or attempts to manipulate the public sector procurement process, will not happen in some form down the road.
The mere fact that this concern even exists is why – similar to the UNSPSC Code, the NIGP Code’s stewardship should be under the control of a neutral and independent third party whose interests are clearly focused on serving the public sector.
Refer to my December 11th, 2014 post Up Periscope? Examining Periscope’s acquisition of BidSync with a “Survivor’s” eye and my December 14th, 2014 post Who are those guys? Are these the people who will have the most influence on public sector procurement in the coming years? @ https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/nigp-codegate/