Electing the right - or the wrong - CEO for the ARRL has serious consequences. After being in office for fewer than 3 weeks, I had to answer questions from members who wondered why Dr. Michel was "not re-elected" using the semantics that we prefer to use. It was tough. All of us will need to stand for re-election, or give up our seat. All of us will need to support our position to membership. The criticism about hiring Dr. Michel was sharp - and I'm still hearing it, even though I was not on the board at the time.
This message explains my reasoning – something I hope all of you will read completely before you vote. I will make a redacted version of this message public, as I anticipate that the tenure of the intended candidate will be a hot topic among many of our perennially dissatisfied members.
THIS WILL BE THE THIRD CEO THE BOARD hired with ESSENTIALLY THE SAME PROCESS AND IT IS ANOTHER CLOSE CONTEST.
The 8-6-1 vote in Denver to move forward with our next CEO is not acceptable. It is a divided board, there is no consensus. One vote, one election, could flip the electorate next January and the Board could fire the CEO. It is too tenuous a situation.
At no time, was there discussion of a convened board consolidating our multiple interviews with candidates. Other than for those on the hiring committee, our times were much too short and constrained – 10 of the 15 directors were only allowed 20 or so minutes with the four final candidates and were not offered the opportunity to submit written questions.
The Hiring Committee did not do what hiring committees where I have participated throughout my career. There were no published questions with allocated scores or written responses from candidate, simply, from the perception of the board, a black box where several candidates popped out.
How do we know that our candidates can even write a cogent sentence without written questions and answers? That level of interview is expected at the C level, yet I find no written words from our chosen candidate except profane complaints about American Express and other amateur radio operators.
It has become clear to me that the ARRL board is not a board of equals – in this case, the hiring committee placed constraints on the rest of the board speaking with candidates. Criteria was notprovided that eliminated the vast majority of candidates who applied. This turned into a subjective popularity poll, not an objective, repeatable, defendable process - which is likely the reason for all the secrecy.
Let me be clear - without the benefit of a full-on discussion with this board about what we need in our next CEO and whether this process that is currently near completion has delivered the result we need, I am not able to perform my fiduciary duty of care without complete information about a candidate, and certainly don't have it from this process about this candidate. This process is absent due diligence required by deliberation according to the resolution creating the committee in January, in terms of timing and reporting to the full board. This is yet another transparency issue!
We should have been openly discussing candidates with one another all along so that we could arrive at a better choice than a bare 8 vote majority.
Our leaders should be encouraging - not stifling - the necessary dialog.
The fear of some looming lawsuit has been given as a reason for limiting communication. This is, at best, an uninformed, unfounded, and greatly overblown paranoia. At worst, it is a directed strategy to limit board access to information that will reveal the full stories, with all their pros and cons, about the candidates, and which would undoubtedly lead to the emergence of a clearly superior candidate. Either way, these restrictions on communication have resulted in complete suppression of our opinions and the individuality that our members expected when they sent us here, as well as the benefits of collegial collaboration that those same members expect from us.
We, as a board, have been in this exact position before. At it's July 2018 meeting, the board elected to proceed into the negotiating phase with Dr. Michel - on the narrowest of margins, without the benefit of full-throated board discourse. Consider the ramifications of that selection and look at where we are today. We have the same split board we had in 2018. Why should we expect a better outcome today than we experienced following our actions two years ago?
Consider that 7 of us voted for candidates other than David Minster.
I was concerned about our selection process from the moment it was started in January.
I took an opportunity to speak with Steve West W7SMW, a Maxim Society member, who was on the Board of Directors at Cisco, a $50B company, and was on the search committee to replace John Chambers, Cisco's Founding CEO.
"The most important thing," Steve said, "Is to find a candidate that the entire board can support publicly to lead the stockholders." I then arranged a meeting between him and Rick Roderick - I'm certain he told Rick the same. In our case, our stockholders are our members and contributors. This should have raised a flag to improve communication with the hiring committee and the Board. Apparently, it had no effect.
With one change of heart tonight, the rules allow that narrow majority offer a final opportunity to change this decision. The seven opposing votes could allow ONE person to change this selection.
ARRL is fortunate to have an active board - a board that wants to do the hard work of driving necessary change. But that potential cannot be realized in our current climate of limited access to full information and suppression of healthy dialog. Compartmentalized organizations are one reason the ARRL membership is not growing - members don't trust us.
Why are we, once again, in this split vote situation? It's because some of our colleagues are not convinced of the strength of the candidate who garnered the majority of votes by the slimmest of margins. This is not the point at which the matter should be considered decided. We have to delve deeper and reconsider our vote tonight.
If we want to go forward with the strength of unity on our side, we need to explore, listen, learn, and be willing to adapt our perspectives and positions. We have the opportunity to act tonight to make this needed change.
The Candidate – my observation
Why I didn't vote for Mr. Minster
The membership deserves better than yet another executive with NO LEADERSHIP HISTORY in the ARRL or the amateur community. We need a leader who has demonstrated a commitment to the betterment of amateur radio and the ARRL. We need a loyal and longtime contributor, not an opportunist appearing out of nowhere in a flash of sparkle and smoke.
1. Volunteerism, the need for a servant leader
Mr. Minster has never volunteered for any ARRL positions. He now offers to work for a salary.
I asked all candidates similar questions, seeking the quality of “servant leadership” as defined by Robert Greenleaf. I found this in two candidates, but not Mr. Minster.
According to his answer to my question, “What have you done to help or volunteer for the ARRL?” I found that the candidate we are voting on tonight has never held an ARRL appointment and his involvement with ARRL is nonexistent.
When I asked him, “What have you done to contribute to amateur radio?” his answer was “I’ve given people Bonaire on satellite.”
2. Skills
We need a leader who can help us turn a corner and guide the League with fresh new vision.
The skills learned in the retail jewelry industry DO NOT play well into a 501(c)(3) charitable membership organization. We heard it in the interviews. PROFIT and COST CONTROL are NOT as important as the mission of the ARRL. The mission to further amateur radio must not be sacrificed to put money in the bank.
We heard about plans focused on short term, tactical actions, not a strategic direction for the future of amateur radio and the League.
Mr. Minster's idea was "more video" and "grow the brand" with little detail.
In Minster's interview, I heard of a history of a profit driven manager cutting budgets and people, not one of shared vision and collective success or a culture of empathy and support for individual growth and achievement.
We heard for the first time from
an individual we don't know, a stranger to ARRL, seeking to take advantage of
an immediate opportunity, not a long-time friend of the organization whose
motives include demonstrated love for and loyalty to all of amateur radio and
the League in particular.
As we realized when we hired the last CEO, there were a number of political diatribes on social media that the CEO had posted that were offensive to membership.
This candidate has a number of postings using expletives that will haunt us – I've attached one that reflects on his temperament under pressure and, hopefully, doesn’t predict how he will treat ARRL Staff. I'm sure membership will find and produce the others I've seen.
You can verify this is unretouched and current at: https://twitter.com/david_minster/status/1164307098131243008
Further, there is a web site that collects employee opinions about their employers. Several of our candidates were reference, but by time frame and by position. Here is a link about what employees thought about the CEO at his prior positions. Note the comments during his tenure:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Scott-Kay-Reviews-E274514.htm (August 2013 - Feb 2015)
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/David-Yurman-Reviews-E39047_P15.htm (2001-2012)
We can do better. And, we must. Or, as one of our interviewees with a Ph.D., a professional consultant and business analyst said, "Without major changes, the ARRL won't last another 10 years. And without the ARRL, amateur radio will follow."
“Ego can’t sleep. It micro-manages. It disempowers. It reduces our capability. It excels in control.”
― Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness
I'll speak with you in a bit.
73,