Read on Twitter
Well then, let me share a quick story.
The year was 2009. I am on the phone in a group interview with the NomCom to run for the BoD. https://twitter.com/AirborneGeek/status/1335800873365233667
The year was 2009. I am on the phone in a group interview with the NomCom to run for the BoD. https://twitter.com/AirborneGeek/status/1335800873365233667
Interviews are usually (not always) cordial. You are asked questions for a variety of reasons. Discussions follow. Nothing atypical, right?
Well, not that day. That is the only time I have argued with someone interviewing me.
Well, not that day. That is the only time I have argued with someone interviewing me.
How would that happen? Good question!
Having already served since January on the BoD, I was asked my opinion on something strategic we could do staring in 2010. You know, a fair question to ask a sitting BoD member.
Having already served since January on the BoD, I was asked my opinion on something strategic we could do staring in 2010. You know, a fair question to ask a sitting BoD member.
My reply was "we should have a membership chair, a director focused solely on increasing our membership numbers."
And then, out of nowhere, my opinion was challenged.
I was told how HQ was already doing everything necessary for membership. It was baked into every portfolio.
And then, out of nowhere, my opinion was challenged.
I was told how HQ was already doing everything necessary for membership. It was baked into every portfolio.
I was told my opinion was wrong. And that it showed how I wasn't in touch with the BoD mission, nor with HQ.
In short, I was being told I shouldn't be allowed to be on the slate.
In short, I was being told I shouldn't be allowed to be on the slate.
Now, if you know me, you might know I don't take kindly to people treating me poorly. This was a f'n interview, not a performance review. I was asked an opinion, I gave one, and then I was attacked. WTAF?
Things went sideways from there, as the voice kept arguing with me on anything I would say. I lost my patience. Eventually, the call was over. I figured I was done.
Within an hour I got a call from the NomCom chair. He asked me if I was having a bad day. I said "not until I got on that call". He thanked me, and told me that no sitting BoD member had ever been refused to be on the slate. And I was not going to be the first.
And that's how I got on the ballot in 2009, and elected a short time later.
And that's when I understood how things really operate at the BoD level. No matter what great idea you might have, if you didn't have support from HQ, it would never get done.
And that's when I understood how things really operate at the BoD level. No matter what great idea you might have, if you didn't have support from HQ, it would never get done.
In other words, the BoD wasn't in charge. We've never really been in charge. As a result, over time, the fractures that exist between community and directors widens. You wonder why things happen, or don't happen? So do we.
We fight to make change as best as possible. But it's a huge game of PASS Survivor. And you think you can work with it, manage it, and still move the community forward. But at the end of the day, well.
We didn't.
We didn't.
"Assume good intentions" was the phrase we would use. And I believe we all did just that.
But we were manipulated at times into making the wrong decisions.
But we were manipulated at times into making the wrong decisions.
Many times we were asked to vote on something with little or no information. We would press for details and be told "we just need you to vote yes".
Eventually, we rebelled. We would vote "no" and force the issue.
Eventually, we rebelled. We would vote "no" and force the issue.
Over time, though, it became clear the workaround was to feed us data that supported a specific outcome. If you asked for more data you were told there wasn't enough time. There would be discussions, of course, but the end result was almost always known.
Towards the end for me I decided that if I didn't have the data, or didn't feel it was the right choice, I wanted it to be known that I was voting with what I felt was right, not with what I was being manipulated to think was right.
The BoD has been served by many good people over the years. And we've taken your criticisms. Some were deserved. Some were not. And some were because we ended up making the wrong choices, based upon bad data.
We didn't get to this point because of bad intent or gross incompetence from the BoD in general. Keep that in mind over the next few days and weeks.
I have more stories and examples to share, but not tonight. And I didn't do this to point a finger at anyone, or make things worse.
Mistakes were made. Promises broken. Nothing nefarious to my knowledge.
I know I tried my best. I believe others did, too. Nobody wanted this to fail.
But it did.
I know I tried my best. I believe others did, too. Nobody wanted this to fail.
But it did.
We are data professionals though.
We know how to reboot, recover, and rebuild.
That's what we will do.
We know how to reboot, recover, and rebuild.
That's what we will do.
End of line.
