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 already voted and approved a motion that stated Dr. Michel was a suitable candidate and to tender an offer of employment, which has been done. I can’t imagine what damage it would do to the reputation of our organization if we backed off a job offer, and furthermore, I don’t know to what extent Dr. Michel has possibly acted to his detriment in reliance of our job offer.

The Directors, who signed the confidentiality statement, had access to all candidate resumes of everyone considered weeks before the final selection, ample time to do whatever due diligence anyone saw fit, including dialogue with your colleagues on the CEO Search Committee. This debate should have happened weeks ago, in the Board room and before, not weeks later because you didn’t agree with the outcome in the Board room.

Over the years, when I was a Director, there were numerous significant motions passed by a majority of the Board that I did not agree with, and some of those I was very upset about, but I never tried to torpedo the decision. Once the Board made the decision, I respected it. We all should do the same. There was a process used that was approved by the Board. The group carried out their assignment as the Board directed. A recommendation was made and a majority of the Board voted to extend a job offer. We need to respect the process, and proceed with the Board meeting to elect Dr. Michel CEO and Secretary.  

73
Rick – K5UR

 ...
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv