[Eg-oversight-board] Statement of Clarification

Wed May 18 11:01:34 EDT 2016

I've debated weighing in as a past board member not because I have nothing
to say but because I have enough to say that I fear it would be diverging
into too many related but tangential points.  However, I want to respond to
Andrea's comments because I agree with them very strongly and perhaps to
add just a little.

I don't think it's necessary but I will say that everything I'm about to
say is as myself, not as an employee of ESI.  I've been a community member
for eight years.  I've been part of a vendor for a few months.  One of the
first things said to me when I started discussing coming to work here was
that my involvement in the community was as a community member, not an
employee of ESI.  I had no obligation to carry an ESI flag in my community
discussions or volunteer work I did.  The only thing they asked of me was
that if my position might differ from ESI's for some reason that I make it
clear I was speaking for myself.  Since vendor roles are being discussed I
will make it clear I am speaking for myself.

I'm not unique in that I've been a customer in the Evergreen community and
now a vendor.  I am probably part of a small group though.  And I can
firmly say that conflicts are interest are possible as both customers and
vendors.  Trying to create a viable EOB or conference committee that has no
potential conflicts of interest would be a challenge of no small
proportion.  Nor would it be productive to cut ourselves off of some of our
most knowledgeable, engaged and long standing community members.  I know
that this has not been proposed but I fear that it is a potential subtext
that some may read into it.  A customer of a vendor is just as open to
conflicts of interest in promoting the interests of their vendors who they
can see as partners in their well being or acting in the interest of their
own organization when they are acting in a community neutral role.

I do have the greatest sympathies for the challenges of the conference
organizers.  It's a difficult position and they are having things thrown at
them constantly.  I do think we need to learn lessons from this and
appreciate Tanya bringing things forward so that we can formalize things in
such a way to make it easier for future local organizers working with the
conference committee.  Perhaps more of the work needs to be done in a more
transparent manner to the larger.  I've not worked on one of the organizing
groups and I'm sure that would create additional work and challenges,
especially when time is of the essence, but I think it's something to
consider.  Certainly, organizers should not have to feel like they are
caught between conflicting interests as I infer Tanya felt here.  This is
my inference so if I misconstrued that please correct me Tanya.  And
conflicting interests can take many shapes and not necessarily those of
vendors.

That brings me to the last point I wanted to echo from Andrea's email.

"Grace was not, in this case, acting as a vendor or in the interest of her
employer -- she was acting as a duly elected EOB member and and duly
appointed Conference Liaison.  I don't think that this rises to a conflict
of interest under the Rules of Governance; rather, it was an attempt to
ensure that all vendors were held to the same set of expectations."

I'm a bit upset that this even had to be said.  I'm not upset at Andrea.
I'm glad she chimed in as it mirrors my feelings.  I have had many reasons
to talk to Grace about community matters over the years.  I know that in
her role with ESI she staunchly defends ESI and promotes it. She is proud
of the company.  I also know that she polices herself to make sure that
when she is acting as a community member that she does not represent ESI's
interests.  I would take great exception to anyone who suggests she has
acted improperly in her role on the EOB or in the conference organizing.  I
could say more, a lot more, but I would probably be beating the same drum
repeatedly and I have a conference call to jump onto.

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Andrea Buntz Neiman <
aneiman at kent.lib.md.us> wrote:

> All,
>
> At its heart I think that this is a communication breakdown.  For many
> years we have been casual about things that perhaps should have been more
> strictly controlled, but we have been a small and mostly friendly community
> and we were able to get away with this.
>
> The points about communication are well-taken and I am hopeful that they
> will be addressed.  Obviously there are things that need to be more
> formally written down and communicated and I trust that the current Board
> will do their best towards getting this in hand.
>
> I respect the fact that Tanya has made her concerns known out of a desire
> to improve the project and the conference, and hopefully the EOB uses them
> to improve communication and coordination at future events.
>
> That said, I strongly object to the assertion that a member of the EOB who
> is a vendor cannot act as the Conference Liaison.  We have several current
> and former Board members who would fall under the designation "vendor", and
> to restrict activities or roles of duly-elected Board members because of
> their employer seems to me to be a dangerous precedent.  There have been
> multiple vendor-employees on the Board over the years and they have all
> served faithfully and honorably in the best interests of the project and
> the community.
>
> I understand that there is a long history in the library world of "vendor"
> being something of a dirty word, but we have a bit of a different dynamic
> here in the Evergreen community.
>
> All EOB members are *openly elected by the community* and entrusted with
> the ultimate financial responsibility and viability of the project.  If the
> community has elected an EOB member, that EOB member should be trusted to
> execute her/his responsibilities in whichever form they take.  Grace was
> not, in this case, acting as a vendor or in the interest of her employer --
> she was acting as a duly elected EOB member and and duly appointed
> Conference Liaison.  I don't think that this rises to a conflict of
> interest under the Rules of Governance; rather, it was an attempt to ensure
> that all vendors were held to the same set of expectations.
>
> Should the Board feel that the conduct of one of its own is so egregious
> that removal is merited (let me be crystal clear that I think this has
> definitely NOT occurred here), there is of course a procedure for that.
> Failing that, the Board should be free to determine its own representatives
> to committees, SFC, etc. as outlined in the Rules of Governance.
>
> I have every confidence that the communications issues will be resolved
> and we can all move forward in a spirit of cooperation.  I am of course no
> longer on the EOB but I'm happy to help in any way that is needed.
>
> A.
>
>
> Andrea Buntz Neiman, MLS
> Librarian II, Public Services
> Kent County Public Library
> 408 High Street
> Chestertown, MD 21620410-778-3636 x2115www.kentcountylibrary.org
>
> On 5/18/2016 9:01 AM, Grace Dunbar wrote:
>
> Hi Terran,
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Terran McCanna <
> <tmccanna at georgialibraries.org>tmccanna at georgialibraries.org> wrote:
>
>> For the benefit of the record, I would like to add two things to this
>> message that I feel were obfuscated:
>>
>> >>a.     On February 17, I was notified by the Board Secretary, Chris
>> Sharp, that Tanya had been going to him privately to resolve issues for the
>> conference and to deal with the SFC, excluding the conference committee
>> altogether.<<
>>
>> Chris Sharp was the designated liaison to the SFC at the time. The role
>> of SFC liaison is to facilitate communication between the SFC and other
>> parties that have to work with the SFC.
>>
>
> That's actually not true.  The stated role of the Representative to the
> Conservancy is to "instruct the conservancy on the project's behalf".  The
> role is for that person to communicate to the SFC *as directed by the
> EOB.*
>
>
>
>> >>b.     If the issues discussed between Tanya, Chris, and the SFC
>> included the PINES sponsorship issues or anything regarding the Emerald
>> Data sponsorships, I would point out that there is a potential conflict of
>> interest in that involvement since GPLS is Chris’ employer and Emerald Data
>> is their vendor.<<
>>
>> Grace neglected to mention that GPLS also has a current contract with
>> Equinox. Equinox is as much "our" vendor as Emerald is.
>>
>
> I think you're missing the point.  If the conference host felt it was a
> conflict of interest for me to be involved in sponsorship issues simply
> because I work for a competing vendor, I fail to see how it is NOT also a
> conflict of interest for someone else on the EOB to be asked to handle
> matters when they have a relationship with that very vendor.
>
> Grace
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eg-oversight-board mailing listeg-oversight-board at list.evergreen-ils.orghttp://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eg-oversight-board mailing list
> eg-oversight-board at list.evergreen-ils.org
> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board
>
>

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rogan R. Hamby, Data and Project Analyst
Equinox - Open Your Library
rogan at esilibrary.com
1-877-OPEN-ILS | www.esilibrary.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/eg-oversight-board/attachments/20160518/7edc5468/attachment-0001.html>