Rick, Let's not forget that there are really two issues before us, not one; they are separate but also interrelated. The first is the process that was used. There are many ways to evaluate a process - static review, reliance on advice from experts, and others. One of these ways is by looking at the results the process provides. The first time we used this process, the result looked good at first, but turned out not so well. It would appear that the second time the result may again be flawed, judging by the result. The process needs serious review, based on the batting average to date The second is the suitability of the candidate himself. The first time we applied this process, folks trusted the committee and relied on its conclusions without resorting to much independent research. The second time some Board Members are a bit more wary. Had the potential negative information been available earlier, and not required individual Board Members to spend hours in searching, we might have been able to have this conversation in a more timely manner. I wish it had been so. Now we are faced with a painful question. Was the committee aware of the issues and concerns that have been presented today? If yes, can we explain why that information was not shared, and why the decision came out as it did? If no, can we explain why the committee did not find these items? Mike K1TWF Mike Raisbeck k1twf@arrl.net -----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2018 3:25 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:27490] Board Decision Folks, the Board has alreadyvoted and approved a motion that stated Dr. Michel was a suitable candidate andto tender an offer of employment, which has been done. I can’t imagine whatdamage it would do to the reputation of our organization if we backed off a joboffer, and furthermore, I don’t know to what extent Dr. Michel has possibly actedto his detriment in reliance of our job offer. The Directors, who signedthe confidentiality statement, had access to all candidate resumes of everyoneconsidered weeks before the final selection, ample time to do whatever due diligenceanyone saw fit, including dialogue with your colleagues on the CEO SearchCommittee. This debate should have happened weeks ago, in the Board room andbefore, not weeks later because you didn’t agree with the outcome in the Boardroom. Over the years, when I was aDirector, there were numerous significant motions passed by a majority of the Boardthat I did not agree with, and some of those I was very upset about, but Inever tried to torpedo the decision. Once the Board made the decision, I respectedit. We all should do the same. There was a process used that was approved bythe Board. The group carried out their assignment as the Board directed. A recommendationwas made and a majority of the Board voted to extend a job offer. We need torespect the process, and proceed with the Board meeting to elect Dr. Michel CEOand Secretary. 73 Rick – K5UR ... _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv