From the back row, I agree 100% with Jim.
In person sounded good up to even a few weeks ago, however now we are seeing counties going backwards and closing up shops again, more people gathering, spreading this thing around, etc, etc.
From just having gone through the EMCOM Director search and holding all the interviews via ZOOM, I believe we (the committee) were all comfortable, and confident in our decisions. I honestly feel you get a better understanding of the person when they are in a more relaxed environment than sitting across from you at the table. I don't see a real difference in the two positions from a hiring standpoint. I have hired many over the years that "performed" great during the interview only to find they were not quite worthy of the Oscar after some time. I have also found some of our best employees are those who interviewed the worst.
I would rather see us all safe, sound, *and ALIVE* in January when with luck we can all offer a *proper* "welcome to the family" for both of these new folks. As my friend and fellow troublemaker Mr. Cooper once said, "OK you can toss the tomatoes now" or something like that.. Mark, HDX Pesky VD from the NW On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 1:50 PM James Tiemstra <k6jat@comcast.net> wrote:
For the record, I can no longer refrain from making the following statement: I do not understand why the Board is insisting on conducting in-person interviews in Denver since the risks appear to far outweigh the unarticulated benefits.
First, ignoring the nationwide pandemic for the moment, separately scheduled interviews in a remote location would be a push from a cost-benefit standpoint, but to encourage our leadership (and the candidates) to unnecessarily expose themselves to a highly contagious and lethal virus for just the opportunity to possibly interview up to four masked candidates in-person, rather than by video conference, seems foolhardy at best.
Second, providing for two modes of interviewing introduces an inherent element of unfairness to both the candidates and the Board members, especially if you believe that there is some significant, intangible benefit to the in-person process.
Third, believing that we can effectively mitigate the risks is willful blindness. If we think that traveling first class rather than coach on a two to five hour plane flight with a hundred passengers and a Covid closet for a restroom marginalizes the risk, we have another thing coming. And, of course, flying requires passing through airports, and driving still requires the use of unknown public facilities; not to mention whatever conditions might exist at the airport Marriott which is in the business of hosting travelers from all over, and where all of our attendees will be exposing each other to their travels.
Finally, there are a host of state and local orders, protocols, requirements, guidance and conditions that make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for some to attend even if they wanted to. Anyone who's had a recent Doctor's appointment will know how difficult a time the medical profession is having, how serious they are about this virus and how hard it is to get medical attention.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a frequent flyer in several programs, and I love to travel as much as anyone. However, this is not the time to take needless risks or unwittingly cause ourselves harm. This is a time to err on the side of safety, especially where there can be little cost and no risk while still meeting our objectives.
Please be safe everyone es 73,
*Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT*
*Pacific Division Director*
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
