SEPTEMBER 2003

Dwight "Clint" Moore,
Delegate 1989-2003 (Former Delegate as of 7/1/03)

As a departing member of the House of Delegates, after 14 years of service to the HoD, I was saddened and very disappointed to read in George Eynon's March column of The Delegates' Voice that both past Presidents, Robbie Gries and Ray Thomasson, had communicated with George that they were in favor of continuing the use of executive session in the officer nomination and honors & awards deliberations of the Advisory Council & Executive Committee. Undoubtedly, there are other present and former AC and EC members that would prefer to say what they choose to say about nominees in these councils, and have it protected by executive session too. Where's the honor and integrity in that? Having served with George on the Advisory Council concurrently for three years (1999-2002), I can attest to what George says were disappointing occurrences of so-called leaders making negative comments about other members under consideration for AAPG's highest offices and awards. Sadly, whether done to torpedo a person's chances of selection, or as an honorable statement to call attention to a supposed candidate's weakness, the resulting negative effect on the member's chances were indistinguishable from either intent.

Too many members become leaders on AAPG governing bodies and seem to forget the Golden Rule, upon which our Constitution's Code of Ethics is built - "do unto others as you would want others to do unto you". It's simple, basic, and of the highest honor and integrity, but seemingly too often forgotten in AAPG leadership discussions when it comes to these types of selection decisions. It should never, ever, have ever been forgotten, but it has and will be again in the future, unless you act to change it.

When former President and AC Chairman Gries opposed limiting executive session in her e-mail to George, her justifications for executive sessions were, according to George: 1) "we can avoid gossip and misquoting and misunderstandings", and 2) "statements made which strongly questioned the member's merit did not sway the majority...decision to give the award", and 3) "the AC is not required to go into "Executive Session. They choose to..." and lastly 4) "in my experience on the AC, I have been very fortunate to have not heard anyone making...an "assassination of character".

Certainly, a higher standard should be required to forever preserve the confidentiality of executive sessions, than she would suggest. Clearly, 1) all that she cites has been happening for years, and the only way to address future situations is to open rumored statements to full scrutiny AND potential grievance procedures filed by the victim, 2) it was frustrating for George and I to watch as negative statements about someone always seemed to sway the votes against them, in the three years that we served on the AC, 3) AAPG "old boys club" secrecy traditions are hard to change, and too often our leaders need "help" in the form of new bylaws in preventing future abuses, and 4) one person's ear may hear "an important truth" while the next person suspects it to be false and thus an "assassination of character". The point is that the many AC meetings that George and I attended contained far too many negative comments, and we eloquently objected to them when they occurred, but the damage had already been done.

Simply put, all future, potential derogatory comments yet to be spoken in AC and EC executive sessions will not be answered for, unless the confidentiality of all those spoken comments is removed, following the public release of the names a few months after selection.

Without this important protective amendment, every single member in AAPG is at risk of being skillfully and deftly "blackballed" from receiving fair consideration for an AAPG officer nomination or award.