Jump to content

Santa Clara Vanguard 2024


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Robert's Rules and engrained nepotism can prevent this. I'm already not thrilled by the recent additions to the board.

no, but there are ways. it happens in the corporate world all the time. even in the marching arts. ignore...make feel uncomfortable...demand accountability publicly....all kinds of ways to make someone decide it's not worth it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring the optics of the situation, CEO Russell Gavin responded in a way that would make even Baghdad Bob proud. Well, the DOJ letter is a little misleading (great - irritate the people who hold your fate in their hands, always a good idea). Well, “delinquent” doesn’t mean “suspended” or “revoked” (great, now we play word games).  Well, the accounting software update ate my homework. (Hoo boy.)

it would have been so much better to say, yup, we screwed it up, but it’s fixable and we will fix it. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

no, but there are ways. it happens in the corporate world all the time. even in the marching arts. ignore...make feel uncomfortable...demand accountability publicly....all kinds of ways to make someone decide it's not worth it.

I’m not sure how from an HR standpoint, if it even applies; to make moves to change personnel.  In my positions in corporations, a way to eliminate people was to declare their positions was “being eliminated”.  Their role or job was no longer necessary.  It also meant that position could not be resurrected.  It had to be creatively brought back.  It just couldn’t be exactly like it was and could not be too similar.  If a “Director” was eliminated, a “Senior Manager” could be fill the old role.  So maybe roles could be eliminated and replaced differently, to get a change of personnel.  I don’t know how that might work obviously, just kind of spitballing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LabMaster said:

Belief in the CEO is one thing, but with his statement that the docs were being submitted within days, and reaffirmed they’d be submitted; has he been mislead since it appears the submissions have not happened?  If that’s true, then the situation is even more disturbing.  What is possibly preventing or inhibiting the doc submissions for compliance? The perception is that the docs can’t be delivered that show compliance.  The future of the SCV org remains in jeopardy. They have had a lot of time to correct it.

He said in the article; "bad choices and bad luck".  None of this should have ever happened and, of course, until they are in  full compliance their charitable status is in jeopardy.  I have witnessed wild management incompetence in both the public and private sector, and their new CEO's comments are plausible.  He's only been there for four months and I'm optimistic he's telling the truth.

CA hasn't pulled the plug and I don't believe they will ultimately do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, greg_orangecounty said:

CA hasn't pulled the plug and I don't believe they will ultimately do so.

If they didn't have millions of dollars of Bingo income, I'd probably agree. However that's a BIG FISH for regulatory officials, so I'd put it at very likely they will pull the plug if VMAPA doesn't follow their requests to the letter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

Ignoring the optics of the situation, CEO Russell Gavin responded in a way that would make even Baghdad Bob proud. Well, the DOJ letter is a little misleading (great - irritate the people who hold your fate in their hands, always a good idea). Well, “delinquent” doesn’t mean “suspended” or “revoked” (great, now we play word games).  Well, the accounting software update ate my homework. (Hoo boy.)

it would have been so much better to say, yup, we screwed it up, but it’s fixable and we will fix it. 

lawyers probably approved every word said

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LabMaster said:

I’m not sure how from an HR standpoint, if it even applies; to make moves to change personnel.  In my positions in corporations, a way to eliminate people was to declare their positions was “being eliminated”.  Their role or job was no longer necessary.  It also meant that position could not be resurrected.  It had to be creatively brought back.  It just couldn’t be exactly like it was and could not be too similar.  If a “Director” was eliminated, a “Senior Manager” could be fill the old role.  So maybe roles could be eliminated and replaced differently, to get a change of personnel.  I don’t know how that might work obviously, just kind of spitballing here.

the CEO can't just eliminate people from the board however. i've seen numerous examples of how people on boards were marginalized til they just walked.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...