CA Department of Justice sends Vanguard second delinquency notice as of Aug 25, 2023

[HockeyDad]

18 minutes ago, Reggi93 said:

4. Lastly, I understand you're wanting to bring this all to light.  But your ego is a turnoff.  I don't care that you are tired, or numb, or feel like your website move should get more attention.  Do it for the work and less for your standing.  When you insert yourself and what recognition you think you should be getting for all of this, it's a turn off and makes me thing you are doing this more for your own grandstanding and less for the good of the organization as you claim.  

Thank you for saying this. I agree completely and you say it better than I could. Mr. Lester really should take this to heart. 

[scheherazadesghost]

19 minutes ago, Mello Dude said:

https://medium.com/mariposa-magazine/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-people-who-make-everything-about-themselves-1a0025cc8962

Advice from this person is shaky at best: https://medium.com/@tesiablake

I encourage all readers to attack the content and not the individuals.

[Mello Dude]

16 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Advice from this person is shaky at best: https://medium.com/@tesiablake

I encourage all readers to attack the content and not the individuals.

Why do you think this is about you?  Just curious.

[scheherazadesghost]

5 minutes ago, Mello Dude said:

Why do you think this is about you?  Just curious.

Because you've made similar points in threads where you disagree with me but seem unable to make viable arguments against my content.

And I don't take advice from writers like that. Stopped two decades ago.

[Mello Dude]

4 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Because you've made similar points in threads where you disagree with me but seem unable to make viable arguments against my content.

And I don't take advice from writers like that. Stopped two decades ago.

Never have an issue with your content only the context.

Sorry to hear that.  Many people don't seek help.

[Reggi93]

19 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Advice from this person is shaky at best: https://medium.com/@tesiablake

I encourage all readers to attack the content and not the individuals.

Nope....It was not an attack.  Just some advice that hubris and centering can deaden efforts and turn off audiences. 

BUT I will address Richard's "why" from a few pages back concerning Purging the leadership at SCV.  That is increasingly difficult from an outside position. Now, some may know the details better and I'm honestly glossing over this a bit for truncation but in 2018 when Cadets/GH blew up and DCI stepped in (something grossly missing here), I believe DCI mandated a restructuring of the BOD in order to maintain membership.  This is not something DCI does with every org as they did not require this of SOA and I can't speak to PIO or Troop.  Back to Cadets, Doug Rutherford stepped in as interim BOD Chair to start rebuilding the BOD and org.  What I don't know is who selected him.  Was it DCI? Was it a current member of the BOD?  Was it a collaboration between DCI and the "mandated to exit" board of directors?  Either way, without DCI's involvement, I doubt that BOD would have left en masse.  And that is the case at SCV, without a clear mandate by DCI for BOD restructuring at SCV, the existing BOD members that haven't left on their own accord will stay in place and build around them.  What I question is whether or not they have the knowledge and self awareness to expand their board with the CORRECT people and skill set. 

The alarming issue to me is the SIZE of their current board.  8 people is not enough.  They are most likely spread thin.  They need to be triple that if they are going to run 2 corps, bingo and whatever else they need to do to be fiduciarily responsible and fix the issues.  Running that small is just a way to let things fall through the cracks as they have been. 

[scheherazadesghost]

18 minutes ago, Reggi93 said:

Nope....It was not an attack.  Just some advice that hubris and centering can deaden efforts and turn off audiences. 

BUT I will address Richard's "why" from a few pages back concerning Purging the leadership at SCV.  That is increasingly difficult from an outside position. Now, some may know the details better and I'm honestly glossing over this a bit for truncation but in 2018 when Cadets/GH blew up and DCI stepped in (something grossly missing here), I believe DCI mandated a restructuring of the BOD in order to maintain membership.  This is not something DCI does with every org as they did not require this of SOA and I can't speak to PIO or Troop.  Back to Cadets, Doug Rutherford stepped in as interim BOD Chair to start rebuilding the BOD and org.  What I don't know is who selected him.  Was it DCI? Was it a current member of the BOD?  Was it a collaboration between DCI and the "mandated to exit" board of directors?  Either way, without DCI's involvement, I doubt that BOD would have left en masse.  And that is the case at SCV, without a clear mandate by DCI for BOD restructuring at SCV, the existing BOD members that haven't left on their own accord will stay in place and build around them.  What I question is whether or not they have the knowledge and self awareness to expand their board with the CORRECT people and skill set. 

The alarming issue to me is the SIZE of their current board.  8 people is not enough.  They are most likely spread thin.  They need to be triple that if they are going to run 2 corps, bingo and whatever else they need to do to be fiduciarily responsible and fix the issues.  Running that small is just a way to let things fall through the cracks as they have been. 

I follow and support the structure of the vast majority of your points. They are excellent. Please keep it up, as you seemed reluctant at first to hop in. 

Except critique on how messages in this thread have been delivered. It borders on telling women to smile more and is very reminiscent of the ways our own alum attempt to silence dissent.

Said another way, pushing back on the content feeds adversarial collaboration and growth of the activity during and after difficult times. That's what I'm pushing for.

Edit to add an article by David Brooks on adversarial collaboration:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/opinion/brooks-who-you-are.html

Edited August 30, 2023 by scheherazadesghost

[MGCpimpOtimp]

3 hours ago, Richard Lesher said:

Finally............... when Charles Frost resigned and they put out a new CEO search, it was an open application process. 

I applied and submitted my resume to the same Board President that brought me in back in 2016 to help get the board visibility after Jeff Fielder resigned. 

I was never interviewed. 

 

There it is, this explains SO. MUCH.

Just because you know facts and figures does not mean you will be a good leader of an organization. Your conduct and attitude on here is so unbecoming of someone who would be in that role and you continually prove on here that SCV's board did at least one thing right in not even giving you an interview.

Edited August 30, 2023 by MGCpimpOtimp

[Reggi93]

2 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

I follow and support the structure of the vast majority of your points. They are excellent. Please keep it up, as you seemed reluctant at first to hop in. 

Except critique on how messages in this thread have been delivered. It borders on telling women to smile more and is very reminiscent of the ways our own alum attempt to silence dissent.

Said another way, pushing back on the content feeds adversarial collaboration and growth of the activity during and after difficult times. That's what I'm pushing for.

Lets not tone police my tone policing.  LOL.  I believe that I'm NOT tone policing but simply offering some constructive criticism on how to gain some further support for his efforts versus alienating his audience.  As a woman, I'm certainly not leaning into the "you should smile more or wear more makeup" trope.  I'll gladly have that conversation with him though.  I stand by what I said. Centering is a turn off and he does it often.

[scheherazadesghost]

5 minutes ago, Reggi93 said:

Lets not tone police my tone policing.  LOL.  I believe that I'm NOT tone policing but simply offering some constructive criticism on how to gain some further support for his efforts versus alienating his audience.  As a woman, I'm certainly not leaning into the "you should smile more or wear more makeup" trope.  I'll gladly have that conversation with him though.  I stand by what I said. Centering is a turn off and he does it often.

You are clearly not alone in this thread.

I only continue to ask that readers try to keep in mind the vast amount of harm this organization has lobbed onto so many alum. It is very much at play here and across the many I've spoken to and disagreed with.

Edit to add: Further, the content that whistleblowers bring to light is already a turn off for most. The reaction to that cannot be separated from the reaction to the way the content was delivered.

Edited August 30, 2023 by scheherazadesghost