[ SHOWGSD-L ] Review Editor - from where I sit
- From: GretchAnya@xxxxxxx
- To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:42:55 EDT
My name is Becky Tsaros Dickson. I was an applicant for the Review Editor
position. I have purposely not participated in this discussion until now.
However, I have always hoped to be the Review Editor. That combined with many
private inquiries I have received regarding my experience with the process, as
well as Kerri Stalkerâ??s recent email, brought me to change my mind.
Below you will find much of my experience.
On Nov. 10, 2005, realizing that the Review was struggling (although, at
that time I did not know why), I mailed a preliminary packet of my work and a
letter to an officer-elect of the club. I noted that should things change with
Review management, I was available to help in any way I might be needed. I
received a reply thanking me for my offer and complementing me on my
considerable body of work. I never heard from anyone on this matter again.
Despite my offer, and with no further communication and apparently no
further evaluation of my ability to assist, at the January Board meeting, an
interim editor was appointed and Review Editor Gail Sprock resigned.
The January meeting minutes reflect that this took place in closed session,
so itâ??s unclear if the Board voted on the matter. I have no idea why I was
not considered to assist at that time. Unfortunately, the appointment of an
interim editor apparently gave her a major advantage in the balance of the
process. (One board member recently posted to the List that he voted for the
new
editor because she had five months experience already.) In the meantime,
learned that an RFP would be forthcoming, and I made plans to be ready to
submit a
proposal.
On the RFP process:
1 - Before the RFP was issued in 2006, a sitting board member called a close
friend of mine and told her to â??discourageâ?? me from applying because the
process was a done deal.
2 - I chose to ignore that advice and sent 19 copies of my proposal, one for
each board member and officer of the club. After the deadline for the bids
had passed, I received a call from a selection committee member, saying I
could not be considered for the position because they had not received my
packets. I was surprised at the confusion in the committee receiving my
proposal
because I took special pains to ensure that it went to all Board members well
in
advance; all 19 packets were mailed May 9, well before the July 3 deadline.
3 - Nowhere in the Review Editor RFP does it say how many copies of a bid to
send or to whom they should be directed. Because this was so important to
me, I made certain to send my proposal to the entire Board, so that they would
be able to familiarize themselves with my work. Oddly, I have received a
number of phone calls saying an officer of our club is criticizing me for
sending
my packet to the Board. It also seems strange that the RFP I received has
the word â??DRAFTâ?? across the top with a date of April 1, 2006, although I
didnâ??t
receive it until May 5, 2006. I e-mailed a committee member to be sure my
RFP was no longer a draft before I sent my bid; that member confirmed it was
now the RFP to bid on.
4 - I expected to receive some questions/interactions from the Review Editor
Search Committee regarding my submission. Since I did not receive any at
all, it is difficult for me to understand how the Board could have evaluated
me.
I submitted references, but my references later informed me they never
received any inquiries.
Two of my packets have since been returned to me from GSDCA officers. Both
are in immaculate condition, without a single fold or crease. Everything is in
the exact order in which I placed it, as though they were never read.
5 - The Boardâ??s documented policies and procedures says on Page 14 of the
online version that committee reports should be â??sent within one week of the
Board meeting or the requests will not be considered.â?? However, until the
Selection Committeeâ??s presentation at the Board meeting, it appears the
Committeeâ??
s recommendation and rationale were not reported to the Board.
6 - Instead, the Board was called into a closed session. When the Board came
out of closed session, a motion was made to approve the new editor and that
motion carried.
To my knowledge, the credentials and/or names of the candidates were not
discussed in any manner prior to the Board going into closed session. A motion
was made, and passed, to approve the new editor immediately after a closed
session. The only conclusion I can draw is that discussion of applicants and
credentials either never occurred, or occurred in closed session. Late last
week, I read a Board member's post to the List, which said it did occur in
closed session.
7 - After the vote on the new Review editor, a motion was made to eliminate
the restriction on showing. There was debate, which was based on whether to
do anything, and if so, what the â??anythingâ?? should be. The motion was
postponed indefinitely. A committee was then appointed to consider making a
recommendation regarding what to do. Since the Motion to Postpone passed,
there was
no further vote.
8 - Many posts have appeared on the List asking for the names and
credentials of the applicants. While I obviously cannot comment on any of the
others,
here are mine:
I am an award-winning writer and editor for a major U.S. newspaper.
Specifically, in my capacity as an environmental reporter, I helped ensure
that a
governor was not re-elected for a second term for the first time in New
Hampshire history.
Later, as an editor, my design skills made the paper, â??informative and fresh
to a degree we had never seen before,â?? according to my former boss.
9 - For the record, I have written at times for the Review since 1999
(including an article in May) and will continue to do so as long as I am
needed. I
am also advertising in the Review. I suggest we all do the same. Print
publications are a dying institution. This one deserves your support no matter
who
the editor.
10 - If the Board and the Club want to hire someone other than me, they have
every right to do that, and I will continue to support them, but I find
myself confused and disappointed at the way the application process was
handled.
I do not feel that my qualifications were ever fully evaluated.
Becky Tsaros Dickson
_www.GretchAnya.com_ (http://www.gretchanya.com/)
============================================================================
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:
