Friday 2 March 2012

1 March 2012

From trustees 1 March 2012

“We shall all miss the applications of your talents…etc.
So, despite reservations and reluctance, we have concluded that we should switch the emphasis of the Society’s style to that typical of (but, we hope, more relaxed than) a scheme of delegation system in a business. There, the individual is free (and expected) to act proactively in accordance with the scheme of delegation and his role description, but not to step outside their limits, except to make sure, in close cooperation with his colleagues, that role descriptions and actions bridge gaps and do not create them. Otherwise, the individual must look upwards for authority rather than assume it. As luck would have it, your role up to the AGM is the first to which we have to apply this change of emphasis.

…Before you cease to be an officer, we think it wise to do everything we can to complete the process of learning to do without you in your pivotal role as secretary. Accordingly, it is our collective wish and decision that your duties henceforth shall be confined to those set out in the job description for LPC coordinator as already agreed with you. In so far as not already done, other arrangements will be made in respect of the work you wanted to finish off.

This means that, with the exception of LPC data, you shall not have access to the Society’s computer systems, data or documents, except as expressly agreed with any two of the five trustees, in respect of the specifics of occasion, purpose or duration, other than as an ordinary user of one of the networked PCs at Taylor House. As such a user, you will not have the rights of an administrator, it being the trustees’ security requirement that, among other things, there shall be no access from locations remote from Taylor House.

Whilst detailed, these requirements imply nothing in respect of you personally: they are merely the manifestation of our change of emphasis and of basic security procedures, the fundamentals of which are clarity of responsibility and capability. They will enable us to hold properly accountable the successor to your role as IT guru.”


Initial reaction – discarded as just sounding peevish
Thank you for explaining your thinking on the roles of secretary and computer consultant at Taylor House.

You have made it clear that the role of secretary will be limited to doing exactly what the trustees say, and there will be no place for applying initiative, developing ideas or acting on the sense of personal responsibility that used to be inherent in the work I did.

Regarding the computer system, you have decided you want an IT manager, not someone able to develop and implement systems, write programs, choose equipment, anticipate and rectify problems, and do all this in consideration of the long-term and financial interests of the Society.



On deliberation:

Tone – both patronising and domineering, with hard decrees ineffectively garbed in circumlocution and sweet pacificatory nothings. Also downright rude, considering they are addressing a senior officer and the Vice Chairman of the Society.

Substance – the decisions outlined here breach the agreement issued to Dave on 10 February 2012 with regard to computer access.

Meaning – Rogerson wants rid of DCB. He also intends to establish iron control over all Society business [back to the power theme]. Under this regime there will be no room for ideas, initiative and sense of personal responsibility.
The last paragraph is a lie: it is all about getting rid of Dave.

What to do – possibly consider writing back in term such as: ‘Thank you for your letter. Discounting its verbosity and disingenuous patter, I gather clearly enough that you wish me to keep away from Taylor House. However, your “requirements” are in blatant breach of the statement you issued to me on 10 February 2012, in which you assured me of full access to the PNFS computers.’
I’m not sure about adding ‘As you have broken the agreement between us in this respect, I may seek advice on whether its other conditions remain valid.’

I was tempted to add ‘I also wish to put on record that I find the tone of your edict downright discourteous to myself as a senior officer and the Vice Chairman of the Society’ – until it occurred to me that they would say Dave was in no position to complain about rudeness.

As to the implications for any other officers with ideas, initiative and a sense of personal responsibility, these may be best raised at the officers meeting on 9 March.  

No comments:

Post a Comment