A thread for posts that have hijacked another thread...

[William Magee]

Cool.

Tell him congrats on his appointment for me. He'll certainly be an asset to the Board and the various professions it governs.
Although it is unfortunate that CLSA's recommendations for the appointment were sideswiped by some, lets say, less than honorable methods. Certainly another undeserved black eye. At least we can thank ACEC for making a great recommendation in place of CLSA's bloodied attempt.

[mpallamary]

I am unfamiliar with the issues you are referring to. Can you clarify?

Thanks.

"Although it is unfortunate that CLSA's recommendations for the appointment were sideswiped by some, lets say, less than honorable methods. Certainly another undeserved black eye. At least we can thank ACEC for making a great recommendation in place of CLSA's bloodied attempt."

[E_Page]

I was at the BoD meeting where they voted on who to endorse for that position. The single most relevant factor in sinking the CLSA endorsement is that they did not really make an endorsement for the individual they thought would have been the best candidate. They endorsed all three who were seeing the endorsement. To anyone seeking guidance through the endorsements of professional organizations, that sends the signal that "We're way too scattered to make any real decisions and didn't want to hurt any of these guys feelings, so just pick one."

I know that someone else is likely to counter that view with an explanation that the vote was so close that it indicated that the CLSA BoD felt that they were all equally qualified. To that, I would say, tell yourself what you want to justify the outcome and cast blame elsewhere. The CLSA had a responsibility to clearly identify one candidate to endorse. If the vote was truly a 3-way tie, then they should have allowed each candidate a few more minutes to further highlight their qualifications and then held another vote, and kept up the voting until one candidate garnered more than the others.

Prior to that meeting, I would have considered any of the three who were seeking the endorsement as qualified and would have been pleased to see any of the 3 on the BPELSG. But that was the meeting where the organization imploded, and the meeting degraded to a showcase of adolescent behavior. It was the same meeting in which Dorothy announced that she and her organization were severing their ties with CLSA. Prior to that announcement, the atmosphere had been tense. Afterward, it became a den of screaming infants. There was a lot of yelling, f-bombs flying from several directions, unsubstantiated accusations, and motions for the ouster of individual members and chapters without reasons being stated.

During that prolonged outburst by several Directors, two of the candidates for the BPELSG endorsement, IMO, showed that they did not possess the proper temperament that one in such a position of authority should have. I respect both as surveyors, but was sorely disappointed in their behavior that day. One went off on a profanity-laced diatribe for several minutes in which he stated that he may quit the CLSA himself. The other suggested that it was time to bifurcate CLSA geographically into North & South components, but that he'd keep Bakersfield with the North because he likes some of those members. Both of those men are knowledgeable, and I'm sure are fine surveyors. Both have given a lot of time and effort to the CLSA over many years. But unfortunately, threatening to quit or suggesting breaking up the CLSA as you are asking for its endorsement to such an important position of influence over our profession are disqualifiers IMO.

Only one of the three maintained his composure through the entire meeting, and had, while the screamfest was still in full swing, made a very responsible plea to all members to stop fighting over what was done and move forward to work on those things agreement could be found on and get CLSA moving in a direction helpful to all surveyors. I don't know that this candidate is the best surveyor among the three. In fact, I suspect that both the others have more diverse backgrounds, making either more qualified in that regard. But this candidate, although he held strong opinions about the issue that led to the melee, kept his composure and showed himself to be one of the few adults in the room as so many others had lost their own composure.

From my vantage point, it appeared to me that the Ex Comm had completely lost control of the meeting for a time, had tenuously regained control so that the candidates could each make their statements and a vote be taken, but then decided that since the vote was fairly close, to avoid the possibility of losing control once again, decided to endorse all 3 rather than recast the vote. That 3-way endorsement so diluted the effect of a real endorsement that the Governor's office had to have found it easier to simply look to other organizations rather than try to sort out CLSA's punt of the matter.

I don't know if there were any other factors as Mr. Magee alludes to. If so, I doubt that they made the difference, and possibly only underscored the issues why CLSA abdicated its responsibility to endorse the one most qualified candidate seeking its endorsement. I hope that when the opportunity comes to CLSA to offer an endorsement for a position on BPELSG that the directors are not so consumed with emotion over internal politics that it precludes them from being able to make a sensible decision, as it did in this instance.

[Administrator]

May have to go members-only...

[mpallamary]

Fine with me. The greatest thing we can all do is to strive for transparency. Those with strong opinions about the inner working of CLSA should reveal themselves so that the rest of us can appreciate the basis for your opinions, insight, background, and objectives. It is not uncommon for folks to disagree with me. That being said, they know who I am and how to find me.

[pls7809]

Completely agree with Evan on this.

[pls7809]

What was Mr. Magee responding to with his post in Mike's other thread about the unlicensed practice case? I saw zero relation in his post with the rest of the thread.

[E_Page]

It was a post mentioning Steve Wilson's appointment to the Board. I believe that particular post was relegated to permanent oblivion in the internet ether because there was also a comment speculating on the true identity of Mr. Magee.