[EricH]

Therein lies the issue. Dan's qualifications are known in MI, especially given that list he gave of his experience. Therefore, the FiM board would have known about them. They chose to do the following, if you take Dan's statements at face value:

1) Choose not to put him in a position he was qualified for, and volunteered for, instead offering him another.

--If there was another qualified individual, this is not an issue.

2) For no apparent reason, and more importantly without telling him, change the second assignment to another one.

--This is and isn't an issue. It isn't if there was a more qualified individual. It is because they didn't tell him when the change was made. FTA involves travel to New Hampshire in February. That's going to cost you, especially if you have to cancel it in mid-late January.

3) When he requested a reason for 2) above, tell him nothing. And, when requested by a VC to do a job he was qualified for, an FiM board member said they had someone, apparently rather rudely.

--If you do have someone, fine. But at least be gracious.

4) After further requests for reasons, tell nothing.

--I don't know about you, but if I am qualified for a position and I don't get it, for no reason specified, I'm going to be confused and hurt. I don't care if the reason is the generic rejection letter that "we're going with someone else". ANY reason is better than none.

5) After a letter is sent to FRC HQ, and various others in MI, repeat 4).

6) Allow said individual to volunteer again, but fail to contact regarding position when it can be a fairly vital one, even to say, "No, thanks."

--Again, even letting him know that you don't want him in that position is better than nothing.

7) After the letter in 5) is made public, effectively tell the individual to get out of there.

--This is the only one that I can understand. Sometimes, if you can't solve a problem and others are getting wind of it, and it's that bad of an issue, you sometimes have to agree to disagree, which can involve one or more leaving, under their own power or not.

In short, FiM made one comparatively small mistake--not telling the volunteer that there had been a change. They compounded it by not responding with even a dummy reason that he wasn't told, and becoming somewhat ungracious. As I said before, if they'd just talk with Dan about the reason, a lot of issues could be solved.


By the way, I would be interested in hearing the other side of the story, if it is deemed appropriate by the FiM board to release it. I like to try to get both sides of any given story, if it's involving accusations, direct or indirect, and if both sides post it publicly.


Remember when the FiM idea was first released? Then and later, during the assessment of the first year, several people brought up that they didn't really have anything against it, except the secrecy that had shrouded the starting*. When you have something that you'd expect to be somewhat open be kind of secretive, it raises questions. Questions want answers. In fact, FRC was asked to be a little more open not too long ago, and about 4 of the mentors to sign the letter are from MI teams. Perhaps that same letter should be sent to the FiM board.

*The point system was also brought up, but that isn't relevant here.