| First of all, in retrospect, was it a mistake to adopt the structure in 2005? Did we get our money's worth out of the extra burden of two directors? If so, why are we abandoning it? If not, why did it take six-plus years to figure this out?
There were two events that precipitated the move. One was Pudvah's decision to take a new job with Radio Vermont/WDEV. He'd been in talks with WDEV since sometime in the fall, and in January he notified the library's Board that he was leaving. The other event, as reported the Times Argus:
According to Sales, while she was out on maternity leave, the board of trustees hired a consultant to examine the leadership structure of the library.
The consultant recommended that the library do away with the dual director model and return to a single chief executive or head librarian.
...Board Secretary Marialisa Calta said the dual director model was "clunky," and that the restructuring will streamline the organization and possibly save money.
One executive instead of two? I'll bet it will "possibly" save money. But wait a minute: This all happened while Sales was on maternity leave? Yep.
When Sales returned, she learned of the restructuring and decided to resign. ...[she] would have been required to apply for the new position.
"I was a little disenchanted by the process," Sales said.
Well, yeah. An employer can get in hot water for taking away a woman's job while she's on maternity leave. If this wasn't illegal, it was a skin-of-the-teeth, carefully-crafted procedure designed to meet the letter of the law while violating its spirit. Board President John Page, perhaps in a nod to any employment attorneys tuning in, was careful to note that Sales and Pudvah "resigned on their own free will."
But while Pudvah resigned to take a new job, Sales is unemployed. She may have resigned on her own free will, but was she really given a choice?
How did all this play out? Which came first: the realization that the dual model was "clunky," the hiring of the consultant, Pudvah's pending departure? The Board isn't saying.
Page declined to comment on when exactly the consultant was hired to look at the leadership structure, who the consultant was or when the restructuring recommendation was made.
"I;m not going to comment about that," Page said, because it involves an "internal personnel matter."
Bullfeathers. The hiring of a consultant, the identity of the consultant, and the timing of the recommendation are only tangentially "personnel matters."
Unless, of course, it would make the Library look really bad. Or even make them vulnerable to a lawsuit from Sales. Say, for instance, it went like this: Pudvah let people know he was planning to leave. A consultant was hired, and produced a report that provided cover for the forced departure of Sales by effectively eliminating her job.
That's a worst-case interpretation. But the lack of transparency by the Library Board lends itself to unfavorable interpretations.
Public institutions that use public funds have a responsibility to answer for their decisions to the public. The Kellogg-Hubbary Library Board is, so far, failing to meet this obligation.
|
