Take it to the Board they did. Here is the outline version of their decision:
One possible candidate applied past the deadline. Deb motioned that the application was ineligible and Roman seconded the decision.
Board Member
Bill Frye Yea
Hilary Yeager Yea
Erin Walsh Abstain
Kelly Carrone Yea
Deborah Dennis Yea
Ned Depew Yea
Roman Kuchera Yea
Leif Hartmark Absent
An email should be sent to this person to clarify the board’s decision.
Let me point out several things here for realities sake. Deb Dennis, who motioned to deny me the opportunity to run despite conflicting information, never met with me and never talked with me. She likely learned everything she needed to know from Frye and Kuchera. Whether what she learned was an accurate accounting or not I don't know. It really doesn't matter because either way it really doesn't speak well for Ms. Dennis. Kuchera knew that I had been given conflicting information. Apparently it didn't matter to him. Erin Walsh knew I had been given conflicting information. That Erin "Je Recuse" and J'abstain Walsh abstained knowing the truth is yet another instance of the banality of evil that seems so characteristic of modern and postmodern bureaucracies, economic or political or cultural. Hillary Yeager never talked to me. Kelly Carrone never talked to me. Ignorance is bliss? Ned Depew knew that I have been told that the Board had extended the date on which applications could be turned in. I hope he got something in exchange. The email that was supposed to be sent to "clarify" the decision came only after I requested one from Frye and didn't "clarify" anything. It just muddied things since the minutes emphasize that my application was "late" while the email emphasized membership issues. I have, by the way, asked for the fuller annotated minutes in order to clarify these issues but have yet to receive them from Karen Roth. Finally, let me note that I wasn't even invited by those who tried to bully me out of submitting my application or those ignorant of the real facts to attend my own execution. No noblesse oblige in evidence among these "elites" I am sad to say. Anyway, all of these actions speak volumes about members of the Board and how the Board works.
It is now deja vu all over again. I decided to rejoin the Corporation hoping I could vote. I was told no though I have asked the GRC to review this decision since I am an employee who has had the hours to vote since 2012 since I have worked at least seventeen hours a week since then. But then bureaucracies have a one size fits all mentality though one size never fits all. They sent me an email saying they would. The subject line of the email, however, had this little gem in it "re: disgruntled employe". Reality check, I was a member by this point and only apologists, polemicists, demagogues, and ideologues would mistake facts for disgruntlement. I was told by management, however, that I could run for Board. So I pulled out my old application and submitted it. It was put up on the Board board. In quick succession, however, it was taken down by god knows who though I have my suspicions. I have asked Karen Roth, one of the members of the Board Nominating Committee for clarification on who removed it. I got an email from Roth asking why I submitted an application dated April of 2015. I responded that I turned it in on 22 November because I intended to run for the Board on 30 November. Roth put the application back up online and presumably on the Board board though I looked for it there on several occasions and found it was missing in action. Soon Roth wrote me again saying I couldn't run because oops she made a mistake. I wasn't a member in early November, she said, so fait accompli. Technically, speaking, Roth is right. However, I am again appealing the decision for the same reason I am appealing my disenfranchisement. I have had my three hours of work a week since 2012. Roth, by the way, knew I had been given information by members of the Board indicating that the date for handing in Board applications had been extended during my earlier attempt to run for the Board. She even told me she didn't see a problem with allowing me to run because of this information. When the Board took their action, however, she apparently did nothing to clarify the issue.
Will this deja vu of conflicting information, dirty little secrets, inconsistencies, and dirty little lies given to me once again turn out any different this time than the first? I doubt it. Banality, dirty little secrets, and dirty little lies are deeply seated and deeply embedded in the Board bureaucracy at Honest Weight as I have noted in previous blogs. And they wonder why apathy is even higher at Honest Weight than it is in the US at large. I know if I lose my appeals to bureaucratic banality I won't be doing much at Honest Weight beyond my job ever again though I could always run as a write-in candidate. Four strikes and you really are out.
Postlude
The GRC never acted on my appeals. All very revealing of how power works at Honest Weight. Can you say absolute power....
No comments:
Post a Comment