From the peanut gallery, as an emeritus professor, I agree with this assessment. If Howard was deceitful or misled, if he hid information or obfuscated information, if he created and presented false documents, there would be a strong cause to terminate the offer. No one has presented any of that. Rick is right. If we are to act as a respected set of directors (small d so that I can include me), the offer stands and the process must continue. You may chose to confront Howard on your concerns. But that, at this point, would not be productive or in our best interests. I suggest giving the man a chance. If he doesn't work out. He doesn't. I'd like to give him and us the best chance to succeed. And, I'm really going to miss Jim Pace. A voice of reason -- even when I rarely disagree with him. 73, Art K0AIZ -- Arthur I. Zygielbaum, K0AIZ ARRL Midwest Division Vice Director On 8/17/2018 6:03 AM, Niswander, Rick wrote:
This email is nothing more than a thinly-veiled character assassination.
I want to address a few items with which I have direct knowledge and/or experience.
Nature of CEO experience. The authors are entirely correct that the role of IEEE President/CEO (as IEEE calls it) is akin to the role of the ARRL President. It has never been represented that his IEEE role was anything other than being the volunteer leader of a 400,000-member organization. That fact is clear from his resume and from the discussion in the Board room. For someone to suggest that this is a big surprise means they have not been paying attention to begin with.
The authors comments about Howard’s academic record clearly indicate that they have no meaningful understanding of academics. The emphasis on PhD students and patents is misplaced given the school at which Howard was employed and his specialty. The only PhD program in Engineering at UMass-Dartmouth is in EE. In the last 10 years, the Dartmouth EE PhD has graduated an average of 2.6 students per year so it is a very small program to begin with. More important, while Howard’s department was the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, it is obvious from his degree, interests, and research that his area is Computer Engineering, not Electrical Engineering. Dartmouth does not have a PhD in Computer Engineering, the highest degree is a MS. So it is not surprising that he did not participate in the work of many PhD students. In fact, for him to have participated in the work of ANY is unusual. Finally, his research and patent record is very reasonable for someone who is at a masters-level school in his discipline.
Students. I am appalled that the authors would even consider using Rate My Professor as a guide to whether someone is a good teacher or not and what that may infer to other characteristics. The self-selection bias on these sites is astounding. Further, bad reviews are more prevalent as the discipline becomes harder. He taught at UM-Dartmouth for 16 or 17 years and likely taught thousands of students. Putting credence in the self-selected views of eight students is absurd. Information from such sites is never considered in annual evaluations or tenure decisions, in large part because the “data” is unreliable and meaningless.
Finally, the January motion creating the search committee stated that one candidate would be presented. The time to have requested a different approach was last January.
K7GM
Frederick (Rick) Niswander, Ph.D., CPA, CGMA
Professor of Accounting
Bate 3110
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27858
*From:*arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Raisbeck *Sent:* Thursday, August 16, 2018 1:42 PM *To:* arrl-odv@arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org> *Subject:* [arrl-odv:27489] Concerning the selection of a CEO
Fellow Board Members,
Since the selection of Howard Michel as CEO candidate we have been searching for additional information on the candidate. What has come to light is concerning. It isn’t completely damning, but neither is it stellar. Here are some key points. More detailed commentary with numerous links is attached as a separate document.
·Nature of the candidate’s prior CEO experience
oOn taking a closer look at the IEEE articles pertaining to the position of IEEE president and CEO, it would appear that Michel’s experience is more akin to that of our own president rather than to the duties and responsibilities of a CEO
·The candidate’s views on governance and Board structure
oMuch as the League did 2 years ago, in 2015 the IEEE went through a period where they considered changes to their governance structure. The plan, subsequently withdrawn after considerable member society opposition, would have allowed the Directors’ positions to be somewhat more separated from the membership at large. Michel was a strong supporter of the proposed changes. We should be cautious here, lest members perceive him as supporting a less transparent governance model
·His current CTO activities
oWhile on first glance, the notion of robots in STEM education is quite compelling, a look at some of the material done by Michel reveals a lackluster explanation of how the robots would contribute to STEM education
·His performance as an academic
oHis academic career seems unremarkable as measured by several metrics, including PhD students graduated, and number of publications authored
·His dealings with his students
oThere seem to be some problems with the way he relates with his students; his reviews were surprisingly negative. These could reflect on his capabilities as a mentor, model, and leader of people
·Extremely thin amateur radio experience
oSearches for his name and callsign have produced nothing that would indicate a commitment to the hobby, any recent Amateur Radio experience, or that it is one of his passions
This information is important to us for what it tells us about the candidate, but it is equally important as an indicator that our selection process may have been less than ideal. With only 24 hours to consider the candidate before a vote was called, there was little time for anyone on the Board to do any crosschecking, all the more so because it was the 24 hours before the Board meeting, a hectic period that offers little free time. Furthermore, the presentation of only a single candidate deprived the Board, the ultimate deciding authority, of the opportunity to compare, contrast, and converge on the best candidate.
There is also the matter of fairness to the candidate. In gauging fairness, several questions arise:
·- Has Mr. Michel been made aware that the vote for him at the Board Meeting was far from unanimous?
·- Is he aware that there is continued concern on the part of a substantial number of Board Members?
· -Where is he in the process of disengaging from his current employer?
Please consider this material carefully. We need to take a step back before we make any commitments or execute any contracts.
Regards,
Tom Abernethy, W3TOM
Tom Frenaye, K1KI
Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT
Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF
Kristen McIntyre, K6WX
John Robert Stratton, N5AUS
Although not playing a part in the drafting of this memo, Southwestern Division Director Norton, N6AA, endorses its contents
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv