[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: inclusion, not exclusion...
- From: "Nancy Harper" <nancy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pruett@xxxxxxxxx>, <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:25:08 -0400
Dear Laurie,
You should know that the closed session was to PROVIDE PRIVACY AND PROTECT
the various people that had applied for the position of Review Editor. It
is not good practice to discuss the various attributes or weakness of
candidates in public by virtue of produced minutes. Nor is it considered
fair or responsible to publicly "compare" the qualities or lack of
qualities in various candidates in public. . These are only some of the
reasons that people are interviewed in private. Each candidate was
evaluated carefully, the various qualities of each was an open book to the
Board, but it is not necessary or warranted that this should be the case to
everyone. I don't know of any organization that interviews applicants in
public.
The committee chair was very responsible in her report to the Board and she
was also very through. After the Chair's very complete and comprehensive
report which, included details and explanations as to why one candidate
showed certain skills as proven by the candidates own presented work, the
Board did vote and the vote is one of public record, or will be upon
approval of the minutes. I don't think anyone of us would want our
evaluation and the comparison of our skills to others , discussed for all
the world to see which just might include why we were not as qualified as
another. Some candidates could consider this damaging to their
professional reputation. Please do not misinterput, this is not to say that
any candidate said such a thing, we were just aware that public disclosure
is not appropriate.
Ron was the owner of an Executive Search Firm for 25 Years. Under no
circumstances would a candidate, for any position, be subjected to the
results of his/her interview and the subsequent resulting evaluations being
made public! . I have also been a Human Resource Director of a major
Hotel Corporation. A candidate should always be assured that his/her
evaluation is confidential - I have been in court with Company Attorney's
on this very subject. It is important for the membership to know that the
discussions on the Review Editor were professional, considerate and fair
minded. All Board Members voted their conscious. There was no agenda in
the consideration, only each Board Member voting as they saw fit after full
disclosure was given by the Committee Chair who herself has vast experience
in the field.
It is my hope that this explanation erases any and all speculation regarding
the process by which the Board was educated on the qualifications of each
candidate for the position of Review Editor. The final candidates were
considered carefully by all the Board Members, that is what we are there for
and in my personal opinion each Board Member acted responsibility and did
what they thought was best. In the end, the recommendation of the
knowledgeable Committee Chair apparently made the most sense to the
majority.
Nancy Harper
Board Member
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurie Pruett" <pruett@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 3:40 PM
Subject: [ SHOWGSD-L ] inclusion, not exclusion...
>When I=20
>was on this board, I argued heavily not to have closed sessions. They =
were=20
>used then to only discuss personal business such as a complaint against a =
=20
>member. Club business should be discussed in open sessions. Again, =
just my=20
>opinion.
I agree - there was no need for the Review discussion to be secret. We =
shouldn't have a club where some are privy to information and some are not =
unless the discussion is personal in nature and can affect someone's =
reputation - like an ethics complaint, for example. This was simply a =
selection process where there was more than one qualified candidate for =
the job and the membership deserved to hear the board's deliberations. =
Had that happened, we wouldn't be arguing about what was said when or who =
voted how because there would be no confusion over what was secret and =
what wasn't.
JMO...
Laurie
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2006. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any
kind are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of
the Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - URL temporarily deleted due to AOL issues
============================================================================
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2006. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - URL temporarily deleted due to AOL issues
============================================================================
Other related posts:
