[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: New Review Editor
- From: Wasatchgld@xxxxxxx
- To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 01:04:41 EDT
I don't think the Board is considering the change "to suit one specific
person",
as so many are implying. Susan, and the others who DID apply, did it in
spite of the rule. As far as I know, Susan did not ask for the rule to be
waived; she has not appealed to the list; does not have a vote to change any
rules; and was not part of the original negotiations where the rule was
put in place. As a matter of fact, from what has been posted, I'm not
sure the Board was seriously considering anything more than a change
in wording - but now that it has been so prominently thrown out for
public scrutiny I think they do need to reevaluate whether it is needed,
and whether it should apply to Susan and any future candidates.
Businesses reevaluate and change provisions, requirements and benefits
all the time. They'd never hold onto employees or contractors if they fired
everyone and made them reapply every time they made a change! I've
passed up jobs where I work because they required the applicant to be
available for rotating shifts or extensive travel. The people who got the
position never had to actually do that, but they were willing to take the
risk, while I was not. We all make our choices.
I've never met Susan, and only know her from the list and a few
emails, but I've been impressed with the way she stepped up to help
Gail at a difficult time and with the great job she's done so far. What
I think would be unfair and unethical would be to insist a limitation be
applied to her if the current Board reviews it and decides it isn't
necessary
I get the feeling that friends of the other applicants, or potential
applicants,
who didn't get the position are looking for ways to 'punish' the one who did!
There were some strong candidates who did apply for this position, the Board
considered their qualifications and made their decision. We need to
accept their choice and give Susan our support! There is no excuse
for all the sour grapes!
Janice
In a message dated 8/8/2006 9:38:56 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
cyndyinseattle@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
This is akin to making a job offer to someone, and changing the
qualifications after the fact to suit the candidate selected. In the corporate
world,
this is not only immoral, it is also illegal.
I believe as a non profit we are required to use certain guidelines and
follow certain rules when we issue RFPs. I just want to make sure by changing
the
rules we do not negate the terms of the RFP or violate the RFP process. I am
not an attorney, just a former non profit executive.
Cyndy
============================================================================
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:
