<< <i>Seems to me the more important issue here is the Board just willy nilly throwing their qualification list right out the window. >>
In defense of the decision, it is not uncommon for "On the Job Experience" to trump any specifically defined qualifications.
Zeroing in on one specific qualification as the determining factor on why someone should NOT be considered for the position simply does not make any sense. I once worked with a fella who appeared to be a bumbling idiot to everybody that had the "opportunity" to work with him. It turns out, he had a Law Degree and was technically qualified. He just didn't have a whole lot of common sense which, unfortunately, cannot be taught at any institution of higher learning.
I've also worked with folks who had no formal education at all but they did have the ability to "work" with others in order to accomplish specific tasks.
As for the decision to hire Ms. Kiick, I could understand the BOGs Comfort Level in offering her the position since all had worked with her or at least made professional contact with her in some capacity over the past 30 years. There's nothing more comforting to an employer than hiring someone they feel "comfortable" with in having the experience to complete the required tasks.
The thing that DOES bother me is the relationship between Ms. Kiick an the other ex ED's in this whole mess.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>I think it is unfair to Greg to expect him to provide his personal views on certain ANA activities on a public forum IF he knows such views may be in conflict with the positions the entire board has taken, particularly on contoversal issues. We are very fortunate to have Greg here responding as he does. NO OTHER SITTING ANA BOARD MEMBER has ever participated on this board continuously for even a few months let alone almost two and a half years as has Greg. Much that we speak about here is obvious to most of us and I am sure is also obvious to Greg. Some of what we speak about here may be incorrect and Greg is trying to point out those things. I tend to accept Greg's specific explanations to certain specific points because I do not believe Greg would delibertly mislead those of us who are ANA members. I have told Greg in PM's that in my opinion he needs to keep an open mind regarding ALL future activities of the ANA, and I believe that he will. The point is, don't knock Greg just because you don't like the way he is communicating to us here. He really could shy away and then we would know much less than we now know and most of that would be just rumor and not fact. Steve >>
Correct.
It's ok to disagree with what's said and a lynch mob mentality should be avoided at all costs. At least he's here. Like it or not.
And its good to remember that he is under a confidentiality agreement and as such, his "personal" opinions, stated on a public forum, could quickly remove him from the very Board he was elected to.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
You may be correct. I thought I recalled that Laura was banned (or bammed) a couple of years ago. But I could be wrong. It would be GREAT if she would post here to clarify the issue... >>
Laura posted under the name Legend. Is there a way to see if this name is still valid or active?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>I think it is unfair to Greg to expect him to provide his personal views on certain ANA activities on a public forum IF he knows such views may be in conflict with the positions the entire board has taken, particularly on contoversal issues. We are very fortunate to have Greg here responding as he does. NO OTHER SITTING ANA BOARD MEMBER has ever participated on this board continuously for even a few months let alone almost two and a half years as has Greg. Much that we speak about here is obvious to most of us and I am sure is also obvious to Greg. Some of what we speak about here may be incorrect and Greg is trying to point out those things. I tend to accept Greg's specific explanations to certain specific points because I do not believe Greg would delibertly mislead those of us who are ANA members. I have told Greg in PM's that in my opinion he needs to keep an open mind regarding ALL future activities of the ANA, and I believe that he will. The point is, don't knock Greg just because you don't like the way he is communicating to us here. He really could shy away and then we would know much less than we now know and most of that would be just rumor and not fact. Steve >>
I have to disagree with your comments. Greg is an elected official of the A.N.A. and as such should be willing to share his personal views supporting the action(s) he is (was) taking in the name of the ANA. It is thoughts like yours which leads to the lack of transparency that has become the mind set of the Board of Governors.
These secret meeting, behind closed doors, should be the exception not the norm of how business is conducted in the name of the ANA and if there is a conflict between the positions of the different members of the Board of Governors then the membership should be made aware of these differences so they can make an informed decision at the next ballot box. >>
I'm inclined to agree with you Caleb except that the veil of secrecy that the current BOG hides under is a veil supported by NDA's and violating those NDA's can result in expulsion from the Board, by the Board.
The membership of the ANA elects that board and if WE want them all fired, then WE need to fire them at the next election. However, WE obviously are not doing OUR Jobs. Yes, I voted AND I did NOT vote for any incumbents. (Except for Greg since he posts here.)
However it should be noted that not everyone running for the BOG has the qualifications needed to accomplish the job and simply replacing everybody could end up more of a mess than having transitional Governors. We'll have to see how Laura works out.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
The hiring of Ms Kiick may have been one of mere convenience for the BOG or perhaps she just knows where some of the skeletons are buried. Leverage can be more powerful then a college degree. A rubber stamp can also equate to job security. Maybe she really is the right person for the job.
Personally I have always felt this hiring stunk from jump street. The entire episode reeks of back door politics. Maybe that's just me.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>The hiring of Ms Kiick may have been one of mere convenience for the BOG or perhaps she just knows where some of the skeletons are buried. Leverage can be more powerful then a college degree. A rubber stamp can also equate to job security. Maybe she really is the right person for the job.
Personally I have always felt this hiring stunk from jump street. The entire episode reeks of back door politics. Maybe that's just me.
<< <i>The hiring of Ms Kiick may have been one of mere convenience for the BOG or perhaps she just knows where some of the skeletons are buried. Leverage can be more powerful then a college degree. A rubber stamp can also equate to job security. Maybe she really is the right person for the job.
Personally I have always felt this hiring stunk from jump street. The entire episode reeks of back door politics. Maybe that's just me.
MJ >>
I hope you are wrong but fear you are right >>
I may be wrong, but I believe that I read she was given a 3-year contract too. it almost seems like the current board feared they would get defeated in the election, but wanted to lock up the executive director position for whoever the new board would be.
Well....I've read this entire thread up to today. I've been contemplating finally joining the ANA because I would like to help support YN's. But after reading about this sad state of affairs, I'll pass.
I'm the Proud recipient of a genuine "you suck" award dated 1/24/05. I was accepted into the "Circle of Trust" on 3/9/09.
If you were disciplined at your job or laid off, would you really want your employer to make the details known publicly?
Companies and non-profits - including the ANA - don't disclose details on personnel matters.
Greg >>
Greg,
Are you serious? Is this your attempt at humor? Personally I don’t find anything about this situation humorous but sad if anything.
To the question that you posed, “If you were disciplined at your job or laid off, would you really want your employer to make the details known publicly?” the short answer would be no. But I would expect the Board of Governors to follow the Bylaw and personnel policy of the organization and be given the chance to having a fair hearing where I could be told what I did wrong and have the opportunity to defend myself.
Did you give Mr. Shevlin this “due process”? Did you object to the Board of Governors action(s) where Mr. Shevlin was not being treated fairly by giving him a hearing before termination? How could you or any other member of the Board of Governors make a decision to terminate without hearing first hand the opposing side of the facts?
Bottom line is you and the Board of Governors took disciplinary action in violation of the A.N.A.’s bylaws without proper due process and I hope you are personally and financially held accountable.
If you are willing to take disciplinary action without even letting the employee know what he /she is being accused of doing and then terminating his / her employment without even giving the employee a chance to confront his / her accuser(s) or to give evidence in his / her own defense, then you should resign from the Board of Governors along with the other members.
<< <i>"Perhaps the current BOG realized they really wanted a 'yes' person in the ED position and not a real leader/independent thinker..... >>"
I think you hit the nail on the head. The current board wants to run the day to day operations of the ANA, they don't want a true leader.
Cecilia - In the sense that the BOG wants the ED to execute their instructions, you're probably right the they want a "yes man". Not that the ED can't suggest alternatives, but the BOG does have the last say, as they should. And as for being a leader, the ED is in charge of the staff, but not the organization's policies and strategies. Please correct me if I'm wrong. >>
Andy,
Jeff followed all policies and procedures.
But, since you are so informed concerning the BOG can you tell me why 6 out of 9 Board Of Governors told Jeff he was doing a "good" to "great job" one week prior to being terminated? Does that make any sense to you?
<< <i>Shocked with the news when it hit my inbox. It doesn't create a positive image of the ANA in the numismatic market place which could impact future giving (donations). Can't imagine why anyone of numismatic prominence would want this Executive Director role now. Nonetheless I still support the FUNCTIONS of the ANA through my life membership. >>
This is the attitude all members of the ANA should have, in my opinion.
<< <i>Well....I've read this entire thread up to today. I've been contemplating finally joining the ANA because I would like to help support YN's. But after reading about this sad state of affairs, I'll pass. >>
Membership not required in order to help Contributions can be made directly to the ANA YN scholarship fund and the Florence Shook School of Education without any chance that monies for these worthy causes will be commingled with the general operating budget.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i>The hiring of Ms Kiick may have been one of mere convenience for the BOG or perhaps she just knows where some of the skeletons are buried. Leverage can be more powerful then a college degree. A rubber stamp can also equate to job security. Maybe she really is the right person for the job.
Personally I have always felt this hiring stunk from jump street. The entire episode reeks of back door politics. Maybe that's just me.
But, since you are so informed concerning the BOG can you tell me why 6 out of 9 Board Of Governors told Jeff he was doing a "good" to "great job" one week prior to being terminated? Does that make any sense to you?
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that some of them didn't want Jeff to feel like they were the ones that cost him his job. That, or they just didn't want to get into a debate over it. Call it selfish if you will, but it's human nature.
BTW, what made Jeff feel like he had to call around asking for opinions about his job performance?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Well....I've read this entire thread up to today. I've been contemplating finally joining the ANA because I would like to help support YN's. But after reading about this sad state of affairs, I'll pass. >>
Membership not required in order to help Contributions can be made directly to the ANA YN scholarship fund and the Florence Shook School of Education without any chance that monies for these worthy causes will be commingled with the general operating budget. >>
<< <i>But, since you are so informed concerning the BOG can you tell me why 6 out of 9 Board Of Governors told Jeff he was doing a "good" to "great job" one week prior to being terminated? Does that make any sense to you?
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that some of them didn't want Jeff to feel like they were the ones that cost him his job. That, or they just didn't want to get into a debate over it. Call it selfish if you will, but it's human nature."
So you are thinking that they were lying to him? That is even more pathetic. I don't think so, I think that they genuinely believed he was doing a great job (which he was) and told him so. Remember that it was a 4/5 vote. Two board members changed their mind in the last week.
"BTW, what made Jeff feel like he had to call around asking for opinions about his job performance?" >>
Jeff received an email that he was not supposed to receive. There is a standard group email for the board members to use, however, the ANA board chose instead to not use the standard email and secretly communicated with each other sending emails and excluded Jeff from the conversation. A board member inadvertently responded to the email and used the standard email that included Jeff. The board member soon sent out an apology letting the rest of the board know that Jeff read the email string that he was not supposed to see. As I said in a previous post, if Jeff had not seen that email string he would have been completely surprised (blind sighted) by the situation. When Jeff called one of the board members a response he received was "Jeff, I am not in the faction that is on a witch hunt to get you fired". That is when Jeff became concerned that his job may be in jeopardy and he decided to call all the board members. Jeff was only able to speak to 7 out of the 9 board members (one that was in the faction). Jeff still did not believe that the "faction on a witch hunt to fire him" would be successful in getting the two additional votes the faction needed. The same board member that said that Jeff was doing a good job one week prior and made the statement stating he was not in the faction, voted to terminate Jeff. Jeff was never given any reason why he was terminated.
<< <i>But, since you are so informed concerning the BOG can you tell me why 6 out of 9 Board Of Governors told Jeff he was doing a "good" to "great job" one week prior to being terminated? Does that make any sense to you?
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that some of them didn't want Jeff to feel like they were the ones that cost him his job. That, or they just didn't want to get into a debate over it. Call it selfish if you will, but it's human nature."
So you are thinking that they were lying to him? That is even more pathetic. I don't think so, I think that they genuinely believed he was doing a great job (which he was) and told him so. Remember that it was a 4/5 vote. Two board members changed their mind in the last week.
"BTW, what made Jeff feel like he had to call around asking for opinions about his job performance?" >>
Jeff received an email that he was not supposed to receive. There is a standard group email for the board members to use, however, the ANA board chose instead to not use the standard email and secretly communicated with each other sending emails and excluded Jeff from the conversation. A board member inadvertently responded to the email and used the standard email that included Jeff. The board member soon sent out an apology letting the rest of the board know that Jeff read the email string that he was not supposed to see. As I said in a previous post, if Jeff had not seen that email string he would have been completely surprised (blind sighted) by the situation. When Jeff called one of the board members a response he received was "Jeff, I am not in the faction that is on a witch hunt to get you fired". That is when Jeff became concerned that his job may be in jeopardy and he decided to call all the board members. Jeff was only able to speak to 7 out of the 9 board members (one that was in the faction). Jeff still did not believe that the "faction on a witch hunt to fire him" would be successful in getting the two additional votes the faction needed. The same board member that said that Jeff was doing a good job one week prior and made the statement stating he was not in the faction, voted to terminate Jeff. Jeff was never given any reason why he was terminated.
Cecilia Text >>
I would like to be able to say I'm shocked.................MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>But, since you are so informed concerning the BOG can you tell me why 6 out of 9 Board Of Governors told Jeff he was doing a "good" to "great job" one week prior to being terminated? Does that make any sense to you?
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that some of them didn't want Jeff to feel like they were the ones that cost him his job. That, or they just didn't want to get into a debate over it. Call it selfish if you will, but it's human nature."
So you are thinking that they were lying to him? That is even more pathetic. I don't think so, I think that they genuinely believed he was doing a great job (which he was) and told him so. Remember that it was a 4/5 vote. Two board members changed their mind in the last week.
"BTW, what made Jeff feel like he had to call around asking for opinions about his job performance?" >>
Jeff received an email that he was not supposed to receive. There is a standard group email for the board members to use, however, the ANA board chose instead to not use the standard email and secretly communicated with each other sending emails and excluded Jeff from the conversation. A board member inadvertently responded to the email and used the standard email that included Jeff. The board member soon sent out an apology letting the rest of the board know that Jeff read the email string that he was not supposed to see. As I said in a previous post, if Jeff had not seen that email string he would have been completely surprised (blind sighted) by the situation. When Jeff called one of the board members a response he received was "Jeff, I am not in the faction that is on a witch hunt to get you fired". That is when Jeff became concerned that his job may be in jeopardy and he decided to call all the board members. Jeff was only able to speak to 7 out of the 9 board members (one that was in the faction). Jeff still did not believe that the "faction on a witch hunt to fire him" would be successful in getting the two additional votes the faction needed. The same board member that said that Jeff was doing a good job one week prior and made the statement stating he was not in the faction, voted to terminate Jeff. Jeff was never given any reason why he was terminated.
Cecilia Text >>
First off not to be picky but, the correct term is blindsided not blind sighted. Secondly and I'm just playing devil's advocate and not taking a stand, but under Colorado law is it even required to give a reason? Other than as a courtesy that is?
<< <i>First off not to be picky but, the correct term is blindsided not blind sighted. Secondly and I'm just playing devil's advocate and not taking a stand, but under Colorado law is it even required to give a reason? Other than as a courtesy that is? >>
Colorado is an “Employment – at – Will” State but hopefully Jeff will let the ANA see that it is not black and white. If Jeff brings a suit then we and the ANA may learn that there are exceptions to the employment-at will doctrine such as contracts, the organization’s own “Personal Manual / Policy” or even the organization’s own “Bylaws”
<< <i> First off not to be picky but, the correct term is blindsided not blind sighted. Secondly and I'm just playing devil's advocate and not taking a stand, but under Colorado law is it even required to give a reason? Other than as a courtesy that is? >>
Please excuse my poor English.
Courtesy would be nice! But, the ANA is a Federally Chartered Non-Profit Organization and does have by-laws.
And, you also only have such a small fraction of the facts. I hope the entire membership will eventually know EVERYTHING that is/was going on!
<< <i>Well....I've read this entire thread up to today. I've been contemplating finally joining the ANA because I would like to help support YN's. But after reading about this sad state of affairs, I'll pass. >>
Membership not required in order to help Contributions can be made directly to the ANA YN scholarship fund and the Florence Shook School of Education without any chance that monies for these worthy causes will be commingled with the general operating budget. >>
The ANA has more money for YN's than they know what to do with. Why not donate to the scholorship fund that is set up for adults?
<< <i>First off not to be picky but, the correct term is blindsided not blind sighted. Secondly and I'm just playing devil's advocate and not taking a stand, but under Colorado law is it even required to give a reason? Other than as a courtesy that is? >>
Colorado is an “Employment – at – Will” State but hopefully Jeff will let the ANA see that it is not black and white. If Jeff brings a suit then we and the ANA may learn that there are exceptions to the employment-at will doctrine such as contracts, the organization’s own “Personal Manual / Policy” or even the organization’s own “Bylaws” >>
Jeff is well aware of the Policy manual and Bylaws.
<< <i>Just to be clear ... I have no idea of the reason(s) for the non-renewal. I wish Jeff the best as all of my interactions with him in the past support him being a kind, generous man who cares deeply about the hobby. >>
I completely agree, astrorat. Everybody was praising him as a person, but few, I believe, knew his business/leadership background (and perhaps simply believed his resume). >>
And they should believe his resume because everything on it is truthful. There were around 50 applicants, the board cut that down to 10 (of which the current ED was one of the 10), then the cut the pool down to 4, and hired Jeff from that pool. They took the best of the best, and he still is the best! Dirty Politics is the only reason he is no longer there.
Comments
<< <i>Seems to me the more important issue here is the Board just willy nilly throwing their qualification list right out the window. >>
In defense of the decision, it is not uncommon for "On the Job Experience" to trump any specifically defined qualifications.
Zeroing in on one specific qualification as the determining factor on why someone should NOT be considered for the position simply does not make any sense. I once worked with a fella who appeared to be a bumbling idiot to everybody that had the "opportunity" to work with him. It turns out, he had a Law Degree and was technically qualified. He just didn't have a whole lot of common sense which, unfortunately, cannot be taught at any institution of higher learning.
I've also worked with folks who had no formal education at all but they did have the ability to "work" with others in order to accomplish specific tasks.
As for the decision to hire Ms. Kiick, I could understand the BOGs Comfort Level in offering her the position since all had worked with her or at least made professional contact with her in some capacity over the past 30 years. There's nothing more comforting to an employer than hiring someone they feel "comfortable" with in having the experience to complete the required tasks.
The thing that DOES bother me is the relationship between Ms. Kiick an the other ex ED's in this whole mess.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I think it is unfair to Greg to expect him to provide his personal views on certain ANA activities on a public forum IF he knows such views may be in conflict with the positions the entire board has taken, particularly on contoversal issues. We are very fortunate to have Greg here responding as he does. NO OTHER SITTING ANA BOARD MEMBER has ever participated on this board continuously for even a few months let alone almost two and a half years as has Greg. Much that we speak about here is obvious to most of us and I am sure is also obvious to Greg. Some of what we speak about here may be incorrect and Greg is trying to point out those things. I tend to accept Greg's specific explanations to certain specific points because I do not believe Greg would delibertly mislead those of us who are ANA members. I have told Greg in PM's that in my opinion he needs to keep an open mind regarding ALL future activities of the ANA, and I believe that he will. The point is, don't knock Greg just because you don't like the way he is communicating to us here. He really could shy away and then we would know much less than we now know and most of that would be just rumor and not fact. Steve
Correct.
It's ok to disagree with what's said and a lynch mob mentality should be avoided at all costs.
At least he's here. Like it or not.
And its good to remember that he is under a confidentiality agreement and as such, his "personal" opinions, stated on a public forum, could quickly remove him from the very Board he was elected to.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>19Lyds:
You may be correct. I thought I recalled that Laura was banned (or bammed) a couple of years ago. But I could be wrong. It would be GREAT if she would post here to clarify the issue...
Laura posted under the name Legend. Is there a way to see if this name is still valid or active?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think it is unfair to Greg to expect him to provide his personal views on certain ANA activities on a public forum IF he knows such views may be in conflict with the positions the entire board has taken, particularly on contoversal issues. We are very fortunate to have Greg here responding as he does. NO OTHER SITTING ANA BOARD MEMBER has ever participated on this board continuously for even a few months let alone almost two and a half years as has Greg. Much that we speak about here is obvious to most of us and I am sure is also obvious to Greg. Some of what we speak about here may be incorrect and Greg is trying to point out those things. I tend to accept Greg's specific explanations to certain specific points because I do not believe Greg would delibertly mislead those of us who are ANA members. I have told Greg in PM's that in my opinion he needs to keep an open mind regarding ALL future activities of the ANA, and I believe that he will. The point is, don't knock Greg just because you don't like the way he is communicating to us here. He really could shy away and then we would know much less than we now know and most of that would be just rumor and not fact. Steve
I have to disagree with your comments. Greg is an elected official of the A.N.A. and as such should be willing to share his personal views supporting the action(s) he is (was) taking in the name of the ANA. It is thoughts like yours which leads to the lack of transparency that has become the mind set of the Board of Governors.
These secret meeting, behind closed doors, should be the exception not the norm of how business is conducted in the name of the ANA and if there is a conflict between the positions of the different members of the Board of Governors then the membership should be made aware of these differences so they can make an informed decision at the next ballot box. >>
I'm inclined to agree with you Caleb except that the veil of secrecy that the current BOG hides under is a veil supported by NDA's and violating those NDA's can result in expulsion from the Board, by the Board.
The membership of the ANA elects that board and if WE want them all fired, then WE need to fire them at the next election. However, WE obviously are not doing OUR Jobs. Yes, I voted AND I did NOT vote for any incumbents. (Except for Greg since he posts here.)
However it should be noted that not everyone running for the BOG has the qualifications needed to accomplish the job and simply replacing everybody could end up more of a mess than having transitional Governors. We'll have to see how Laura works out.
The name is LEE!
Personally I have always felt this hiring stunk from jump street. The entire episode reeks of back door politics. Maybe that's just me.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>The hiring of Ms Kiick may have been one of mere convenience for the BOG or perhaps she just knows where some of the skeletons are buried. Leverage can be more powerful then a college degree. A rubber stamp can also equate to job security. Maybe she really is the right person for the job.
Personally I have always felt this hiring stunk from jump street. The entire episode reeks of back door politics. Maybe that's just me.
MJ >>
I hope you are wrong but fear you are right
<< <i>
<< <i>The hiring of Ms Kiick may have been one of mere convenience for the BOG or perhaps she just knows where some of the skeletons are buried. Leverage can be more powerful then a college degree. A rubber stamp can also equate to job security. Maybe she really is the right person for the job.
Personally I have always felt this hiring stunk from jump street. The entire episode reeks of back door politics. Maybe that's just me.
MJ >>
I hope you are wrong but fear you are right
I may be wrong, but I believe that I read she was given a 3-year contract too. it almost seems like the current board feared they would get defeated in the election, but wanted to lock up the executive director position for whoever the new board would be.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Whose fault is that? >>
If you were disciplined at your job or laid off, would you really want your employer to make the details known publicly?
Companies and non-profits - including the ANA - don't disclose details on personnel matters.
Greg >>
Greg,
Are you serious? Is this your attempt at humor? Personally I don’t find anything about this situation humorous but sad if anything.
To the question that you posed, “If you were disciplined at your job or laid off, would you really want your employer to make the details known publicly?” the short answer would be no. But I would expect the Board of Governors to follow the Bylaw and personnel policy of the organization and be given the chance to having a fair hearing where I could be told what I did wrong and have the opportunity to defend myself.
Did you give Mr. Shevlin this “due process”? Did you object to the Board of Governors action(s) where Mr. Shevlin was not being treated fairly by giving him a hearing before termination? How could you or any other member of the Board of Governors make a decision to terminate without hearing first hand the opposing side of the facts?
Bottom line is you and the Board of Governors took disciplinary action in violation of the A.N.A.’s bylaws without proper due process and I hope you are personally and financially held accountable.
If you are willing to take disciplinary action without even letting the employee know what he /she is being accused of doing and then terminating his / her employment without even giving the employee a chance to confront his / her accuser(s) or to give evidence in his / her own defense, then you should resign from the Board of Governors along with the other members.
Just my two cents on the subject >>
For a kid, you're pretty danged smart Caleb!
I agree! Caleb definitely "GETS IT"!
Cecilia
<< <i>"Perhaps the current BOG realized they really wanted a 'yes' person in the ED position and not a real leader/independent thinker..... >>"
I think you hit the nail on the head. The current board wants to run the day to day operations of the ANA, they don't want a true leader.
Cecilia - In the sense that the BOG wants the ED to execute their instructions, you're probably right the they want a "yes man". Not that the ED can't suggest alternatives, but the BOG does have the last say, as they should. And as for being a leader, the ED is in charge of the staff, but not the organization's policies and strategies. Please correct me if I'm wrong. >>
Andy,
Jeff followed all policies and procedures.
But, since you are so informed concerning the BOG can you tell me why 6 out of 9 Board Of Governors told Jeff he was doing a "good" to "great job" one week prior to being terminated? Does that make any sense to you?
Cecilia
<< <i>Shocked with the news when it hit my inbox. It doesn't create a positive image of the ANA in the numismatic market place which could impact future giving (donations). Can't imagine why anyone of numismatic prominence would want this Executive Director role now. Nonetheless I still support the FUNCTIONS of the ANA through my life membership. >>
This is the attitude all members of the ANA should have, in my opinion.
Cecilia
<< <i>Well....I've read this entire thread up to today. I've been contemplating finally joining the ANA because I would like to help support YN's. But after reading about this sad state of affairs, I'll pass.
Membership not required in order to help
<< <i>The hiring of Ms Kiick may have been one of mere convenience for the BOG or perhaps she just knows where some of the skeletons are buried. Leverage can be more powerful then a college degree. A rubber stamp can also equate to job security. Maybe she really is the right person for the job.
Personally I have always felt this hiring stunk from jump street. The entire episode reeks of back door politics. Maybe that's just me.
MJ >>
Not just you. K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that some of them didn't want Jeff to feel like they were the ones that cost him his job. That, or they just didn't want to get into a debate over it. Call it selfish if you will, but it's human nature.
BTW, what made Jeff feel like he had to call around asking for opinions about his job performance?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>
<< <i>Well....I've read this entire thread up to today. I've been contemplating finally joining the ANA because I would like to help support YN's. But after reading about this sad state of affairs, I'll pass.
Membership not required in order to help
<< <i>But, since you are so informed concerning the BOG can you tell me why 6 out of 9 Board Of Governors told Jeff he was doing a "good" to "great job" one week prior to being terminated? Does that make any sense to you?
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that some of them didn't want Jeff to feel like they were the ones that cost him his job. That, or they just didn't want to get into a debate over it. Call it selfish if you will, but it's human nature."
So you are thinking that they were lying to him? That is even more pathetic. I don't think so, I think that they genuinely believed he was doing a great job (which he was) and told him so. Remember that it was a 4/5 vote. Two board members changed their mind in the last week.
"BTW, what made Jeff feel like he had to call around asking for opinions about his job performance?" >>
Jeff received an email that he was not supposed to receive. There is a standard group email for the board members to use, however, the ANA board chose instead to not use the standard email and secretly communicated with each other sending emails and excluded Jeff from the conversation. A board member inadvertently responded to the email and used the standard email that included Jeff. The board member soon sent out an apology letting the rest of the board know that Jeff read the email string that he was not supposed to see. As I said in a previous post, if Jeff had not seen that email string he would have been completely surprised (blind sighted) by the situation. When Jeff called one of the board members a response he received was "Jeff, I am not in the faction that is on a witch hunt to get you fired". That is when Jeff became concerned that his job may be in jeopardy and he decided to call all the board members. Jeff was only able to speak to 7 out of the 9 board members (one that was in the faction). Jeff still did not believe that the "faction on a witch hunt to fire him" would be successful in getting the two additional votes the faction needed. The same board member that said that Jeff was doing a good job one week prior and made the statement stating he was not in the faction, voted to terminate Jeff. Jeff was never given any reason why he was terminated.
Cecilia Text
<< <i>
<< <i>But, since you are so informed concerning the BOG can you tell me why 6 out of 9 Board Of Governors told Jeff he was doing a "good" to "great job" one week prior to being terminated? Does that make any sense to you?
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that some of them didn't want Jeff to feel like they were the ones that cost him his job. That, or they just didn't want to get into a debate over it. Call it selfish if you will, but it's human nature."
So you are thinking that they were lying to him? That is even more pathetic. I don't think so, I think that they genuinely believed he was doing a great job (which he was) and told him so. Remember that it was a 4/5 vote. Two board members changed their mind in the last week.
"BTW, what made Jeff feel like he had to call around asking for opinions about his job performance?" >>
Jeff received an email that he was not supposed to receive. There is a standard group email for the board members to use, however, the ANA board chose instead to not use the standard email and secretly communicated with each other sending emails and excluded Jeff from the conversation. A board member inadvertently responded to the email and used the standard email that included Jeff. The board member soon sent out an apology letting the rest of the board know that Jeff read the email string that he was not supposed to see. As I said in a previous post, if Jeff had not seen that email string he would have been completely surprised (blind sighted) by the situation. When Jeff called one of the board members a response he received was "Jeff, I am not in the faction that is on a witch hunt to get you fired". That is when Jeff became concerned that his job may be in jeopardy and he decided to call all the board members. Jeff was only able to speak to 7 out of the 9 board members (one that was in the faction). Jeff still did not believe that the "faction on a witch hunt to fire him" would be successful in getting the two additional votes the faction needed. The same board member that said that Jeff was doing a good job one week prior and made the statement stating he was not in the faction, voted to terminate Jeff. Jeff was never given any reason why he was terminated.
Cecilia Text >>
I would like to be able to say I'm shocked.................MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
<< <i>But, since you are so informed concerning the BOG can you tell me why 6 out of 9 Board Of Governors told Jeff he was doing a "good" to "great job" one week prior to being terminated? Does that make any sense to you?
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that some of them didn't want Jeff to feel like they were the ones that cost him his job. That, or they just didn't want to get into a debate over it. Call it selfish if you will, but it's human nature."
So you are thinking that they were lying to him? That is even more pathetic. I don't think so, I think that they genuinely believed he was doing a great job (which he was) and told him so. Remember that it was a 4/5 vote. Two board members changed their mind in the last week.
"BTW, what made Jeff feel like he had to call around asking for opinions about his job performance?" >>
Jeff received an email that he was not supposed to receive. There is a standard group email for the board members to use, however, the ANA board chose instead to not use the standard email and secretly communicated with each other sending emails and excluded Jeff from the conversation. A board member inadvertently responded to the email and used the standard email that included Jeff. The board member soon sent out an apology letting the rest of the board know that Jeff read the email string that he was not supposed to see. As I said in a previous post, if Jeff had not seen that email string he would have been completely surprised (blind sighted) by the situation. When Jeff called one of the board members a response he received was "Jeff, I am not in the faction that is on a witch hunt to get you fired". That is when Jeff became concerned that his job may be in jeopardy and he decided to call all the board members. Jeff was only able to speak to 7 out of the 9 board members (one that was in the faction). Jeff still did not believe that the "faction on a witch hunt to fire him" would be successful in getting the two additional votes the faction needed. The same board member that said that Jeff was doing a good job one week prior and made the statement stating he was not in the faction, voted to terminate Jeff. Jeff was never given any reason why he was terminated.
Cecilia Text >>
First off not to be picky but, the correct term is blindsided not blind sighted. Secondly and I'm just playing devil's advocate and not taking a stand, but under Colorado law is it even required to give a reason? Other than as a courtesy that is?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
When it comes to anything related to the business aspects of numismatics, nothing shocks me anymore.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>First off not to be picky but, the correct term is blindsided not blind sighted. Secondly and I'm just playing devil's advocate and not taking a stand, but under Colorado law is it even required to give a reason? Other than as a courtesy that is? >>
Colorado is an “Employment – at – Will” State but hopefully Jeff will let the ANA see that it is not black and white. If Jeff brings a suit then we and the ANA may learn that there are exceptions to the employment-at will doctrine such as contracts, the organization’s own “Personal Manual / Policy” or even the organization’s own “Bylaws”
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> First off not to be picky but, the correct term is blindsided not blind sighted. Secondly and I'm just playing devil's advocate and not taking a stand, but under Colorado law is it even required to give a reason? Other than as a courtesy that is? >>
Please excuse my poor English.
Courtesy would be nice! But, the ANA is a Federally Chartered Non-Profit Organization and does have by-laws.
And, you also only have such a small fraction of the facts. I hope the entire membership will eventually know EVERYTHING that is/was going on!
Cecilia
You might turn on your PM function.
Caleb
<< <i>Cecilia,
You might turn on your PM function.
Caleb >>
Sorry, I do not know what you mean by PM function.
(not so good with computers)
Cecilia
<< <i>
<< <i>Well....I've read this entire thread up to today. I've been contemplating finally joining the ANA because I would like to help support YN's. But after reading about this sad state of affairs, I'll pass.
Membership not required in order to help
The ANA has more money for YN's than they know what to do with. Why not donate to the scholorship fund that is set up for adults?
<< <i>click on the PROFILE button between customize and search near the top of the page. Scroll down to "Allow Private Messages" and turn it on. >>
Done, thank you!
Cecilia
<< <i>
<< <i>First off not to be picky but, the correct term is blindsided not blind sighted. Secondly and I'm just playing devil's advocate and not taking a stand, but under Colorado law is it even required to give a reason? Other than as a courtesy that is? >>
Colorado is an “Employment – at – Will” State but hopefully Jeff will let the ANA see that it is not black and white. If Jeff brings a suit then we and the ANA may learn that there are exceptions to the employment-at will doctrine such as contracts, the organization’s own “Personal Manual / Policy” or even the organization’s own “Bylaws” >>
Jeff is well aware of the Policy manual and Bylaws.
Cecilia
<< <i>
<< <i>Just to be clear ... I have no idea of the reason(s) for the non-renewal. I wish Jeff the best as all of my interactions with him in the past support him being a kind, generous man who cares deeply about the hobby. >>
I completely agree, astrorat. Everybody was praising him as a person, but few, I believe, knew his business/leadership background (and perhaps simply believed his resume). >>
And they should believe his resume because everything on it is truthful. There were around 50 applicants, the board cut that down to 10 (of which the current ED was one of the 10), then the cut the pool down to 4, and hired Jeff from that pool. They took the best of the best, and he still is the best! Dirty Politics is the only reason he is no longer there.
Cecilia