gaz wrote:Psamathe wrote:9 months 6 days 5 hrs 2 mins and 23 seconds
Is he pregnant?
I thought it was a Donnie Darko reference, but that's 28:06:42:12
To answer the OP question - when he's ready to leave or gets forced out, whichever is sooner.
gaz wrote:Psamathe wrote:9 months 6 days 5 hrs 2 mins and 23 seconds
Is he pregnant?
SA_SA_SA wrote:As this thread was meant to be a simple question to begat a simple answer so as I know how long I might have to wait to rejoin in any form if needed for Touring rides etc, can I request that the mods move all the unrelated stuff be moved to a separate thread.
JohnW wrote:Is it right for us to be personal about him? He came to CTC through the process of applying for a job, and the Chair and his accolytes appointed him.
JohnW wrote:Policy is decided by the chair and executive board (or board of trustees, or whatever they're called), and they have the power to restrain or sack the CEO if they're displeased or disobeyed by him; he's an employee.
mjr wrote:..............I'm not saying this has happened here, but when an organisation suffers so-called "executive capture", then the CEO and other executive officers can divert and frustrate attempts by the board or membership to do that, including such dirty tricks as refusing to put motions on agendas (ruling them out of order when it's debatable, or other rule-wonkery), failing to implement resolutions, putting meetings at unsuitable locations or times that make it difficult for most to attend, persuading friendlier candidates to stand for the board and helping their campaigns........................................
mjr wrote:.................................seeking to ban critics from communication channels without premoderation and starting disciplinary proceedings against members who are critics. Basically, marginalising the democracy and picking off any critics that unlurk, one by one. In that situation, the board and membership no longer have effective power to restrain or sack the CEO - or even direct them, really....................
JohnW wrote:In the light of what you say mjr, there'd be no point in submitting a resolution to next year's AGM for PT's removal?
JohnW wrote:Is it right for us to be personal about him?...
thirdcrank wrote:...
The normal procedure would be for the head of any organisation to announce they planned to go so arrangements could be made. Any prior discussion would surely be confidential and it would be a breach of personal confidence to blab about it. This is another way of saying that if any forum member knows, they are unlikely to post. So this question is indeed simple, in the sense of naïve, or it's mischievous.
mjr wrote:..........And I emphasise again that I make no specific comment on CTC, but my comments above are based on my experiences with various other organisations where I feel the members lost control. I think we don't value democratic member control highly enough at the moment.
Si wrote:................I would suggest that it is incorrect to attack individuals, whether it's people on here attacking PT or it's PT attacking PB, etc. We do not want threads to be about sticking the boot in to people on a personal basis.
However, it should be perfectly fine to criticise policy. ..............................
JohnW wrote:Si wrote:................I would suggest that it is incorrect to attack individuals, whether it's people on here attacking PT or it's PT attacking PB, etc. We do not want threads to be about sticking the boot in to people on a personal basis.
However, it should be perfectly fine to criticise policy. ..............................
I think that about sums it up.
Psamathe wrote:JohnW wrote:Si wrote:................I would suggest that it is incorrect to attack individuals, whether it's people on here attacking PT or it's PT attacking PB, etc. We do not want threads to be about sticking the boot in to people on a personal basis.
However, it should be perfectly fine to criticise policy. ..............................
I think that about sums it up.
Trouble is, that makes it acceptable for PT to publish personal attacks online but can't take criticism (online) back. I think he set the "standard" with his personal attacks.
To be honest it's totally inappropriate for CTC CEO to launch into online personal attacks on others, the sort of thing that should have resulted in disciplinary proceedings (if the CTC was any sort of responsible employer).
Ian
JohnW wrote:Psamathe wrote:JohnW wrote:
I think that about sums it up.
Trouble is, that makes it acceptable for PT to publish personal attacks online but can't take criticism (online) back. I think he set the "standard" with his personal attacks.
To be honest it's totally inappropriate for CTC CEO to launch into online personal attacks on others, the sort of thing that should have resulted in disciplinary proceedings (if the CTC was any sort of responsible employer).
Ian
Oh absolutely Ian - two wrongs don't make a right - and an ethical executive/management/trustee board could come down on a CEO who did publicly launch personal attacks, with dismissal being an option. However name-calling and personal attacks began long before this thread. We don't what's been said to who and by whom behind closed doors over the last few years and in these situations. Maybe a CEO isn't the villain of the piece - or at least not the sole villain......