#passvotes When doing the right thing ain’t popular…
If you Tweet or follow Steve Jonesâ€™ blog, youâ€™ve already gotten the news that Steve will not be on the slate for the Board of Directors this year. It was a tough decision for the Nominations Committee to make, but I wanted to address some of the controversy before it boils over. I do, however, have a few caveats:
- As a member of the Nomination Committee, I can not (and will not) go into details about why we reached the decision we did; I want to be transparent, but I also want to protect the sanctity of the application process. I think the interview process should be private between the applicant and the Committee in order to allow applicants to express themselves freely without excessive public scrutiny, and;
- I donâ€™t want to start, or be dragged into, a PASS-versus-Steve discussion. I sat on the committee, and I was involved in the discussions behind the slate, and itâ€™s painful for me to read comments like â€śThe NomCom should be ashamed of themselvesâ€ť, or we were â€śsupposed to act professionalâ€ť. Itâ€™s very tempting for me to dive into the fray with both fists swinging, but to do so would either negate my first principle (I might say something I shouldnâ€™t), or prove the previous commenter correct (I would be ashamed of myself for stooping to that level).
So, how do I talk about this without talking about it? I guess Iâ€™ll start with what my intent for this post it; I canâ€™t discuss how or why we reached a decision about Steve (thatâ€™s not fair to him), but I do want to defend the professionalism and integrity of the Nominations Committee.
Just to restate the process for those of you playing at home:
- The Nominations Committee (NomCom) of PASS is charged with overseeing the applications process for building a slate of nominees for the Board of Directors. The NomCom is supposed to recommend the best candidates from those willing to run.
- The NomCom evaluated applicants initially on their applications, and identified 7 out of 9 applicants that we wanted to interview.
- The NomCom interviewed those applicants, and had several discussions of those interviews.
- The NomCom proposed a slate of candidates for the Board to approve, and the sitting Board of Directors had the option to approve or modify the proposed slate. They chose to approve it as it stood.
Steve obviously made the first cut on his application because we interviewed him. Since he didnâ€™t make the slate, you can probably surmise that something happened during the interview phase for a significant portion of the NomCom to not recommend him. Whatâ€™s being overlooked in the current controversy is that several other interviewees DID make the slate.
Thatâ€™s important; we applied the same rigor and professionalism in interviewing all of the candidates that we did to Steve, In fact, I can honestly say that we discussed Steve Jones MORE than any other candidate because we were all a little surprised at our own decision. We knew it was going to be unpopular with the community, and we knew that there were going to be questions about how we could exclude such a great guy like Steve (and to be clear, I do think Steve is a great guy; heâ€™s a great asset to the community and to PASS).
What could we have done? Should we have proposed a candidate simply because heâ€™s a popular choice? Should we have given him a do-over in the interview? Neither of those choices seemed professional or appropriate, and so I stand behind the decision to be consistent with all candidates, and I hope that most of you would have to come to the same decision if you were in my seat. If not, Iâ€™d hope that you understand that it was my desire to be professional and to have integrity that led me to this decision.