leftism wrote:Mick has up until recently been voting on behalf of absent technical committees. Therefore he has had a defacto position on the board of directors for many years. There are many examples of this where Mick has twisted the rules in order to increase his level of control over the ICU...
Being chairperson of a technical committee doesn't make you a director of the ICU.
leftism wrote:Can I ask you Herby, what you hope to achieve at an EGM. Do you want to:
a)Disband the current executive
b)Forgive and forget Mick’s transgressions and reinstate him as our CEO
c) A + B
If you do want to disband the current executive, I’d like you to ask yourself how long you think Mick has been acting independently of any board control? 4 years? 8 years? And who was in charge back when he started this behavior? If you choose the unruly child analogy, then we should punish the parents. But who were the parents during the formative years of Mick’s career? My point is that we shouldn’t punish those who have tried to change Mick’s behavior, we should punish those who nurtured and formed this behavior back when Mick didn’t know any better.
If what you say is true about the steps taken by the directors / executive to reign in Mick, then I ask the following questions:
a) If Mick refused to comply with reasonable requests, why isn't one of the charges brought against Mick, one of insubordination?
b) how many formal verbal and written warnings has Mick been given in the past two years? Was it explained to Mick what the consequences would be of disobeying reasonable requests from the directors / executive?
c) How much time was Mick given to change his behaviour (of 20 or so years) to the behaviour that the current executive would like to see from him?
It's worth pointing out that there are quite a number of new faces on the executive appointed a relatively short period before Mick's suspension.
My support or lack of support for the current executive depends on the answers to the above questions.
