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
o   On 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
o   Much 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  The plan, subsequently withdrawn after considerable member society opposition, would have allowed the Directors’ positions to be somewhat more separated from the membership at large.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
o   While 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
o   His academic career seems unremarkable as measured by several metrics, including PhD students graduated, and number of publications authored

·        His dealings with his students
o   There 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
o   Searches 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