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
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.