Members have called for an explanation of the events that led to SND President Matt Mansfield’s resignation, as well as the resignations of SND Foundation President Bill Gaspard, Publications Director Tyson Evans, and East Coast Metro Regional Director Jon Wile. We submit this with the hope that we can answer calls for transparency and move forward.
On April 17, SND’s president, in agreement with the executive committee, decided not to renew the contract of executive director Elise Burroughs. The director was not removed for cause. The president and the majority of the executive committee decided it was time for a new direction in one of SND’s two paid positions. (The issue of whether or not to extend the executive director’s contract is a personnel matter that cannot be discussed outside SND’s executive committee. This is language that is stated in the executive director’s contract.)
At the April 19 board meeting, Don Wittekind, a member of the executive committee and professor the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, presented SND with an offer to move the SND headquarters to their campus with a wide array of financial and strategic benefits.
These two issues became entangled when the parties at UNC, including two SND board members, became uneasy with the timing of the executive director search and potential move to UNC. Wittekind the first learned of the executive director search at the April 17 meeting. On April 18, he suggested to the president holding off on the UNC proposal until an executive director had been seated. Mansfield gave a verbal assurance to Wittekind and fellow UNC professor Laura Ruel that the existing executive director’s contract would be extended so the deal could go forward immediately.
On May 7, Mansfield had a phone call with the executive committee about whether the executive director search should go forward (Vice President Burton was unable to dial in) and they agreed that it should.
On May 8, Burroughs, Burton and Treasurer/Secretary Steve Dorsey toured the campus and reported back to the board. While touring the campus, Burroughs asked Burton if a decision had been made on her contract. Burton, who said she had been told by Mansfield that both Burroughs and UNC had been apprised of the decision to search for a new executive director, referred the question to the president.
On May 11, during the discussion on the UNC vote, a regional director raised the question of office staffing. In response, Mansfield sent a note to the board saying that the issue of office staffing, including the contract of the executive director, had not been resolved. He invited the board members to a phone call to discuss the issue. No one asked for the group call.
Later that week, the board unanimously approved the UNC proposal.
While the contract between UNC and SND was being written, the decision to move ahead on a new executive director was not disclosed to UNC, despite Wittekind’s position that the university would not enter into a six-year contract without an executive director in place. Mansfield acknowledges he should have told UNC immediately of the reversal.
On May 15, Burton submitted an executive director job description to the officers.
Wittekind learned of the change in direction in a thank-you note from Burroughs that mentioned the status of her contract was uncertain. In follow-up conversations with Mansfield and Burroughs, Wittekind and Ruel received conflicting accounts about the timing of the executive director decision. Burroughs asked for a call with Mansfield to resolve whether he was going to renew her contract or not.
On May 20, the executive committee met by phone to discuss the conversation Burroughs and Mansfield was to have the following day. The timing of the two announcements were discussed, and it was decided that the executive director search would not be publicly discussed until the deal with UNC was announced.
On May 21, Mansfield and Burton informed Burroughs that there would be no future negotiations for her contract beyond Dec. 31, and they discussed preliminary details of the search.
On May 26, Past President Gayle Grin learned in an unrelated conversation with Ruel that the school had not been told of the change in direction on the executive director until the day before. She apologized, telling Ruel that Matt had asked her to keep that information from them until the headquarters move was announced. That same day Mansfield sent a message to the executive committee saying he believed the UNC deal was in jeopardy.
On May 29, UNC sent an email to Mansfield raising concerns that his statements did not match up with those of other board members. He responded with an apology for the turmoil and expressed his desire to move forward with the deal. Later that day the board received a memo signed by UNC Dean Jean Folkerts stating that the offer had been suspended, citing a breach of trust. The memo asked the board to address this issue before resuming negotiations.
On June 1, Regional Directors Jeff Goertzen and Gordon Preece sent an e-mail calling for the president’s resignation, citing SND’s code of ethics. A slew of e-mails and phone calls went back and forth as board members debated whether Mansfield’s resignation would be the best course of action for the society.
On June 3, Burton called Wittekind to discuss the situation. She then confronted Mansfield with concerns he had been untruthful with her, deceived UNC and unduly strung Burroughs along. She stated that the professional relationship with UNC had been severely impaired; that the UNC professors who run SND’s multimedia programming were questioning their ability to remain on the board; that the 2010 workshop could be at risk and that his relationship with Burroughs had disintegrated to an unacceptable level. When asked her opinion on the call for his resignation, Burton said that if the matter came to a board vote, she did not believe Mansfield would have the votes. They weighed the impact of both outcomes to the society and Burton encouraged Mansfield to strongly consider stepping down.
On June 4, at Burton’s and Grin’s urging, Mansfield contacted Wittekind to set up a phone call to apologize. Grin also encouraged a heartfelt apology to all involved and asked that her signature be removed from executive committee emails affirming unwavering support for Mansfield. Mansfield, after speaking with Wittekind who also urged him to step down, sent his resignation to the board, effective June 18. Six board members sent e-mails promising their resignations if the president was not persuaded to return to office: Steve Dorsey, treasurer/secretary; Bill Gaspard, foundation president; Tyson Evans, publications director; Denise Reagan, education & training director; Jon Wile, regional director; Melissa Angle, regional director. Several more suggested Mansfield not step down while others maintained his resignation should stand. After a board call to discuss the matter, a motion came forward asking Matt to reconsider, and affirming the board’s support for his leadership. A vote on the motion was set for June 13.
On June 11, Mansfield and the officers discussed the implications of his resignation in a phone call with 13 past presidents.
On June 12, the day before the board was to vote on the motion of support, Matt reaffirmed his decision to resign, citing a desire to put the matter to rest.
On June 16, Foundation President (and past president) Bill Gaspard, Publications Director Tyson Evans, and East Coast Metro Regional Director Jon Wile resigned from the board. The three board members were among those who’d said earlier they would resign if the discussion ended in Matt’s departure from the board.
On June 18, Mansfield sent a letter to UNC taking full responsibility and asking the university to consider reopening negotiations with SND further down the line.
All, as we were preparing the statement to be posted here, it was prematurely released yesterday as it was still being edited. It’s difficult to derive a group statement from any large group as you can imagine. We’re also trying very hard to react in near-real time to a topic we all consider very important. Thanks for your patience.
Wow.
“We submit this with the hope…”
Who is the ‘we’ of this time line? Were the board members who resigned a part of the group that assembled this version of events?
It really seems like one phone call in the middle of May from Mansfield to UNC could have made this entire situation go away. Maybe the Society moves to UNC, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe UNC wants to wait until you get a new Executive Director so it’s pushed off for a few months.
And while it’s clear from the way that this is written that Matt deceived the UNC folks, that is by no means the only mistake or deception in this chronology. There are a ton of places where people just weren’t telling the truth. And there are probably an infinite number of places along this timeline where things could have easily been salvaged.
And instead, we get this mess. My question is who benefits?
Mansfield? No.
The membership? I can’t imagine how the membership benefits from this? Can someone explain to me how the membership benefits from this resignation and this drama?
UNC? They have a broken deal, how is this good for them or their students? I suppose the only people who stand to gain are the board members who remain after the bylaws are changed and the board is slashed and the officers who get to move up one spot.
Really no one benefits and the people who will get screwed out of all of this are the people who need SND the most, the young journalists and the small newspaper folks who get a wealth of experience, knowledge and training in their formative years.
You remember them, right? They used to be you.
First of all: Thanks to whoever put this version of events together. Secondly, a few questions: What was the timeline on the UNC deal? And was it possible to extend Elise’s contract just until the deal & move came to fruition?
Amazing how a tempest really can brew up in a teapot.
Seems really silly (more so in retrospect than as events were happening, for sure). But that’s how things go down sometimes.
I’m sure there’s more juicy detail to all this, but the basic facts finally appear to be out.
Going back to something Rob Schneider brought up in another thread: I agree that now is not the time for the remaining leadership to set about diddling the bylaws and setting strategic courses. That REALLY should wait until after the election.
There are things to be studied. Ideas to be heard and discussions to be had (and communicated). But I’m not certain I would want the organization, in its current state of disarray and disunion, to be moving forward on a lot of fronts just yet.
Clearly, there needs to be a reboot. Does the election itself represent that? Does the membership’s pulse need to be taken on what that reboot should be?
It would be interesting, as well, to get a perspective of all this from the Chapel Hill folks. (Not sure how that might be accomplished, but I’ll leave a similar comment on Charles Apple’s blog.) Are they willing to deal with anyone who’s left? Should SND be looking to another site altogether? I’m sure there’s plenty of colleges/universities out there who would love to jump in here…
Also, where does all this hubbub leave the planning for SND’s 2010 conference? What are the chances of teaming up with another similar organization, as was done in SNDVegas? Although the 2009 conference is still a few months off, I’m sure the planning for that is well beyond the executive level at this point. And I’d bet that some preliminary planning for ‘10 would need to be happening now or in the very near future, if only for some preliminary announcements at the conclusion of the Buenos Aires event.
Having lapsed in my membership and participation, largely due to financial strains, I had been hoping the next convention (and upcoming educational opportunities) might propel me to, first, renew my membership, and then become more involved in SND while delving into everything it has to offer its members.
So all of this leaves me wondering what kind of quality event(s) would together in the midst of, or so soon after, all of this mess?? I’m not saying it’s not possible, but…
Maybe there has always been some splintering at the exec level, and so this isn’t a genuine factor for such a concern. But it’s something I (and others, I’m sure) will have in the back of my head when I start reading (between the lines?) about any events for 2010.
Michael: This chronology was begun by Denise Reagan, who shared it with the full board yesterday. The executive committee, including the members who resigned, worked through the night on it. It was then brought back before the full board this morning for final revisions before it was posted here.
Rob: You’re right, No one benefits here. There are no upsides. We have let all of our constituents down, and we need to work harder than ever to make that right. “Moving up a spot” on the board means only bearing more of that weight. It’s extraordinary that 34 of our 38 board members are still willing to do that.
Dean: We do need to study the issues, solicit ideas and have meaningful conversations about where we go from here. However, I respectfully disagree that we can afford to wait three months to recenter and recommit to the strategic planning we began in April. The only thing worse than letting this mess happen would be letting it fester with little or no forward traction.
As to the subject of updating the bylaws, again there are issues about matters like succession and power of appointments that are central to ensuring we can function properly from an organizational standpoint. Bylaw amendments require a vote from the membership, so we need to start working through them now in order to get them before you on September’s ballot. If you have concerns about how that process -any process - is going to play out, please join a task and help steer the conversation.
Gina: We heard an exciting outline of the 2010 Denver program at the April board meeting. Damon Cain and his workshop team are real pros, it will be a no-miss event for sure. We typically start calendaring the upcoming year’s events in the fall, ideally for announcement at the annual workshop. Stay tuned, and let us know what kind of functions would mean the most for you.
The draft minutes of the April 19, 2009, board of directors meeting are posted in the members-only area of http://www.snd.org. As is customary, they will be approved at the next board meeting, Sept. 23, 2009, in Buenos Aires.
Also, following Buenos Aires, the next Annual Workshops will be Sept. 23-25, 2010, in Denver and Sept. 29-Oct. 1, 2011, in St. Louis.
Gina,
I can speak to the UNC position. Our dean, Jean Folkerts, had a great talk with Bonita Burton yesterday and remains open to continuing talks after a new executive director has been chosen.
In fact, here’s the text of the email she sent to Bonita today:
“We look forward to continuing our conversations. We highly value the work that SND has done in the past and the plans it has for the future. We hope that we will be able to construct a positive program that will benefit all of us and to which we can all contribute.”
We had a timeline that was published, then retracted so it could be edited. Correct? Who did that editing?
Did the vice president and soon-to-be acting president have a very heavy hand in the editing of that timeline? Because the new timeline sure seems to be a lot more critical of Matt Mansfield than the original one—or any original claims the board had made.
So why the fresh new spin, and why the fresh new spin that seems to be even more damning toward Matt, especially now that he has resigned? Certainly everyone says they want to move on, but this reeks of “Let’s move on, but let’s make sure everyone believes Matt was at fault and resigned out of guilt so we can look better going forward.”
As a former board and executive committee member, I can assure you—no WAY is Matt Mansfield the full-on villain in all of this that he is being portrayed as. Matt is taking the fall for something that the board and executive committee, especially, should be taking the fall for collectively. As president, Matt is the face of SND, but he did not act alone.
The timeline mentions Matt being untruthful and not giving full disclosure to UNC, the exec committee, etc. Was that truly done to deceive UNC? The board? The members? How about the conversations that took place behind the scenes, the backroom deals, between those calling for Matt’s resignation? Conversations that I’m sure included Bonita at some point? Aren’t those just as bad? Read between the lines very carefully in that new timeline, and you’ll see other things happening that are even worse than these resignation-worthy acts from Matt. As members, we are getting only one side of this story. Matt’s resignation column is polite to a fault. It’s professional. He’s not going to publicly throw those who have screwed him under the bus the way they’ve done to him.
Is Matt blame free? I don’t think so. He could have and should have handled it a little differently. But is it as bad as it’s being portrayed? No way. It never should have escalated to this point. And there’s a pretty clear reason it did escalate.
Bonita Burton is not without fault in this situation—far from it, especially as vice president and as an executive committee member. And especially if this situation has been one that she is using as a way to achieve quicker and further authority within the Society. If she personally had a hand in taking down the original timeline and editing it to reflect further negativity on Matt, then as a journalist who is a member of a Society supposedly run by and for journalists, I would say without question ...
... Bonita’s actions are positively conduct unbecoming of an SND leader. Actions speak loudly, and the actions we’ve seen are that while her words say her interests are in moving SND forward and working with Matt for a smooth transition, the underlying goal is that of a shark smelling blood in the water.
I believe her actions—or non-actions, as the case might be—are possibly on a greater scale, even, than anything Matt was accused of that led to his resignation. And be certain—despite the spin, this was a force-out, not a resignation. This was a ganging-up-on by some opportunistic people, and now it’s being aired publicly.
It’s been alluded to by others, and no one is flat-out saying it. I will. I have no agenda to push. I’m no longer on the board or executive committee. Matt worked with me in Munster for about 20 months at the start of my career, and since then we’ve been colleagues who see each other at workshops and judgings and nothing more.
I believe that if Matt Mansfield was pushed toward resignation by Bonita Burton and other members of the Society’s board, and that action caused his resignation, the resignation of other high-ranking board members and threats of resignation by others, that Bonita Burton should resign her leadership position with the Society for News Design effective immediately.
MattE (and a few others who’ve asked in various comments): As a point of information, the original time line was regrettably published prematurely. An early draft that was being discussed by the entire board of directors was shared, then an honest mistake was made and the file was published for a minute or two (long enough for RSS to kick in). Then the draft file was taken down.
As most people can probably imagine, gathering the complete string for a time line of this scope and scale, involving as many people and conflicting perspectives and memories, etc., takes a little time. Every effort was made to promptly repost a comprehensive and neutral version but it took much longer than we predicted it would (Dozens of hours were spent editing as quickly as we could, but everyone’s day jobs got in the way again. Darn volunteers). The file was reviewed by the entire board throughout the day Wednesday. Then, the executive committee –- the entire crew: Mansifled, Burton, myself, Grin, Angle, Evans and Gaspard –- worked until the wee hours today to incorporate all the edits and concerns raised through the course of the day and evening. Finally, the board of directors reviewed the file once again this morning, offering final edits, before the current version was (re)posted.
While there may be many questions left on many aspects of this situation as well as the time line itself, let me be clear: the premature posting of the file was an inadvertent and regrettable human error. The editing of the time line was a massive undertaking by a wide ranging group of professionals with participation and concerns from all quarters. Denise Reagan should be credited for wisdom, courageousness and undertaking the difficult task of assembling a first draft; the entire board added to various parts of the file; Bonita Burton served as moderator and manager of track-changes.
I hope this helps answer at least a few questions.
Regards,
Steve
Matt,
Dorsey has just answered your first question so I’ll move on to some other points.
To my knowledge Matt had no objections to what was added to the new draft.
Bonita has stated on a number of occasions that certain things weren’t handled properly and so other people are to blame for this mess too, not just Matt.
Matt has done a tremendous amount for SND over the years and I think most members realise he is not the “full-on villain”. But as president he is the main man and in his own mind he decided he couldn’t continue. He has said himself he is a strong character and so I don’t see how extra pressure from others would budge him that much on his decision. He put himself under enough pressure to do what he thought was best for SND.
After hearing what had happened I still felt Matt had more to offer SND over the next 6 months than without him. I backed him to stay but he made his mind up and I respect him for that.
I don’t really know what else happened between the lines here but I’m confident Bonita does not have some secret agenda to speed up her gaining more authority. In my opinion that doesn’t make sense when Matt only had 6 months to go anyway.
Matt is big enough to make his own decisions - surely it’s disrespecful to Matt to think that other people forced him out. If he didn’t think he had done anything wrong he would have stood his ground and got on with the job. I disagree that he was forced out.
It’s a massive blow that the other board members resigned and we can only hope they decide to return at some point. All of them will be greatly missed.
This was a fair timeline, written by Mansfield, Burton, Dorsey,
Angle, Tyson, Gaspard and myself. Writing that timeline was good for the 7 of us. We were brutally honest with each other. All through this every one of us thanked Bonita for moderating and incorporating our edits with her bandaged hand and slow left handed typing. We had to do this for transparency for the members.
During that the process, I had to admit for example, that sometimes I agreed with Matt because I liked him so much. I made mistakes that affected SND members because I did not initially listen my own ethical voice. And that lacked courage.
As part of the Executive Committee I really want to humbly apologize to you the members being part of this yuk.
You the members of SND are witnessing a the breakdown. And I really think we are now experiencing the possibility of a break through. It is indeed painful. And the biggest break though is the members have the board’s direct attention.
We really need to stop flinging accusations and honestly communicate with each other for the good of our organization. There is too much to do to confront the challenges of our news industry.
First off, many thanks to Don Whittekind and Bonita Burton for answering my questions from earlier so quickly.
Next, a few ideas that have been wandering through my brain today. Forgive me if they are repeats from others earlier as I haven’t yet read through some of the lengthier posts. Anyway, here goes:
When trying to figure out the best place to post the rest of this comment, I was wondering if it might not be a good idea to start an “idea chain.” At a time when I feel like the folks in charge of this organization are listening more intently than ever, SND might be best served by creating and promoting a central landing spot for all the ideas yet to come, then branch off from there as needed. (There’s quite a few branches that could be peeled from the comments made in the last few days, no doubt.)
***
In all honesty, news about the 2010 and 2011 conferences really made me feel optimistic about this organization’s future. Even though the time is yet distant, I see how they can do so much good. Central U.S. locations: Not so convenient for our international friends, true, but perhaps more easily attended by those from every corner of the U.S. So much potential ahead…
***
I’m also wondering, amid all the transition and metamorphosis that will be going on within this organization in the near future, if it’s not worth reaching out to other organizations for journalism professionals in as many ways as possible. For example, partner with other organizations to:
* Offer combined registration discounts. Such as… Join SND *and* NPPA for $120; join SPJ and get $40 discount on your SND membership, etc. Register and attend the ACES conference and get and additional $100 off the SND conference. And so on. You might even find your membership numbers increasing that way.
* Team up for workshops. SND can be valuable to more than designers. One of the biggest challenges I face as a design editor of two newspapers is that I can’t be two places at once. Which means I often need to rely on reporters to see the visual potential for their own stories, for photographers to see beyond the everyday centerpiece play. Off the top of my head:
>> Invite ACES to help put on a short course on alternative story telling for reporters. Educate them on the benefits of visuals while opening their eyes to different methods of presenting the information they’ve gathered.
>> Partner with NPPA to offer a workshop on photo illustration and art direction—and even better stuff I’m too tired to think of right now.
***
As newsrooms continue tightening, and everyone gets fatigued about having to do more with less, this is a golden opportunity get totally different skill-sets in the same room and help them—us—all learn how to talk to each other, interact and work together more effectively to turn out something much better than either could do alone or without the support of the other. I can’t imagine anything more valuable to ourselves, our publications and, most importantly, our readers.
Thanks for reading.
I agree with Alan: “It’s a massive blow that the other board members resigned and we can only hope they decide to return at some point. All of them will be greatly missed.”
And Gayle, thank you. As I have told others in SND, we need to learn from this and move on. “What does not kill us will only make us stronger.”
Outstanding ideas Gina. And you’re right, there have been a lot of strong suggestions offered on these threads - in the past 24 hours, I’ve compiled a document that’s five pages long,
Thank you to all who took the time today to post here, email, DM and call me with your ideas about how to rocket-fuel SND forward. We must be relentlessly optimistic about our future. Creating a forum dedicated to member ideas is a must-do for us. Stay tuned, and keep the good thoughts coming.
I guess—and this is a question for the society as a whole — what concerns me today is this question, unparsed and taken in its entirety:
Why should we as a society let this all blow over and naturally start moving forward, when we as a society did not afford to Matt Mansfield the luxury of letting it all blow over and naturally start moving forward?
I have another important question.
What are the details of this portion of the timeline?:
“(Burton) stated that ... the 2010 workshop could be at risk ...”
Why was the 2010 workshop at risk? Is there not a board member from the Denver Post, host of the 2010 workshop? What are the details of this portion of the timeline? Who said it was at risk—and what, pray tell, does the Denver 2010 workshop have to do with ANY of this?
I’m all for moving forward when the time is right. But we’re not there yet. There’s still too many questions unanswered.
I second Josh’s comment. Why should we let this all blow over now when Matt Mansfield didn’t get the same opportunity? Many mistakes were made. More people were at fault.
And the 2010 workshop question was a good one from MattE. I wondered the same thing when I read it? Was something being used as leverage to get Matt Mansfield to resign?
I read the 2010 workshop comment as an ‘if, then.’ So if Matt stays, then support for the workshop in Denver will be withdrawn.
If there is even the possibility that the fairly elected president of the society was pushed to leave using a threat of loss of a workshop, then the problems with this situation are much more troubling and run much deeper than I ever imagined.
What could Matt misleading UNC, intentionally or not, have to do with the Denver workshop in 2010? This requires an explanation of how these dots connect.
I think Mr. Goertzen has some explaining to do. He was the first one to call for Matt to resign.
Just thought I’d pull this down from earlier in this string…
Bonita said this when I inquired about the status of the 2010 workshop:
“We heard an exciting outline of the 2010 Denver program at the April board meeting. Damon Cain and his workshop team are real pros, it will be a no-miss event for sure. We typically start calendaring the upcoming year’s events in the fall, ideally for announcement at the annual workshop. Stay tuned, and let us know what kind of functions would mean the most for you.”
No other comments were made to bolster or dispute this information.
I would love for someone from the Denver Post to chime in on this if they have knowledge of the situation.
Not that I’m running around trying to be a private dick, but ...
CAN WE GET SOME ANSWERS, BOARD???
Were threats made that SND Denver would not happen if Matt Mansfield remained as president?
If so, who made those threats initially and who supported them and who brought those threats to the board as a larger group?
And if those threats were made, WHY were they made? Were they made in order to pressure the president to resign since losing a workshop site would be a massive burden to bear for the Society?
And if the above is accurate from an internal board standpoint, what does the site chair of the 2010 workshop have to say about any of this?
And if any of the above was brought to the board, but is NOT TRUE—i.e. board members were told that SND Denver was at risk, but it wasn’t REALLY at risk, then who led that “Denver might pull out” stampede, why did they lead that stampede and what is being done in order to hold that person accountable the same way the president was apparently made to be held accountable though his resignation?
Folks,
Just to clarify. The Denver 2010 workshop was never in jeopardy and was never an “if, then” issue with Matt’s resignation. Bonita, Damon and I have had extensive talks about the statement of the 2010 workshop that was mentioned in the chronology. It was an assumption made by Bonita based on circumstantial evidence in emails and discussions with other board members. She has since cleared the air with both Damon and I on this matter. The 2010 SND workshop is a 100 percent go. Bonita may have more to say on this.
And as for the letter asking for Matt’s resignation that Gordon and I submitted. We did that on our own personal convictions based on the facts that we knew. It was our right as board members to do so. It was, by no means a personality conflict or a power struggle. I’ve been a board member since 1998, and I’ve never had any ambition whatsoever to move up the ladder.
I am and always will be good friends with Matt. He and I have had numerous phone conversations these past couple of weeks and we are still very good friends. Although the SND board is like a second family to many of us, it’s not about our friendships. It’s about being a board member. If I had put my friendship with Matt first, I would never have written that letter asking for his resignation. As I see it, we’re board members first and friends second.
There have been hundreds of emails, phone calls and blogs surrounding this whole fiasco. And no matter what any of us write or try to explain, we will never satisfy 100 percent of the masses.
I certainly hope that with the vacancies that have become available on the SND board that we will see some of you (our members) step up with fresh ideas and perhaps even volunteer to become a board member yourselves. SND is a great organization and we will get through this crisis and hopefully become a stronger organization in the process.
“It was an assumption made by Bonita based on circumstantial evidence in emails and discussions with other board members.”
She may have cleared the air with you guys but what about the damage done to Matt? I’m not buying anything coming out of Orlando right now.
I’m glad the Denver 2010 workshop was never in jeopardy. It shouldn’t have been. But it sounds like Matt was told that it was in jeopardy. Would he have resigned if he had known that it wasn’t? If there wasn’t anything on the record about Denver 2010 being in jeopardy, it shouldn’t have been used to pressure him, either.
And while this may be a call for more people to play a more active role in SND, I haven’t seen anything to suggest there should be any vacancies in the first place.
I agree with everything Jeff Goertzen has said. It is time to move on. It does not benefit SND in any way to continue this debate. Let’s not get side tracked… this whole thing has nothing to do with SND Denver, never did. Keep in mind these discussions are between a very small group of us. The other 1500+ members out there are only interested in a strong healthy organization to represent them, educate them and support them. That is what we must concentrate on. Our vice president is not ladder climbing or seeking to benefit in any way from this. I can not think of anyone who would put themselves through all this if it could have been avoided. What she has been is strong and diligent seeking information and advice from all sources, both sides and from 15 past presidents. I applaud her strength at a very difficult time.
Jeff and Gordon, I appreciate the company line. As former board members alongside of you, I appreciate your stances.
But with this all coming ironically around the 37th anniversary of the Watergate break-in and arrests, we, as journalists, are trained to sniff out some of the BS. And while there is a small group of us being vocal about it, I can promise you a much larger group of members is right there with us—and some current board members and past presidents, as well, though they’re perhaps wisely playing the role of Switzerland in all this.
The calls for unity and moving on serve a great purpose—the SND board moves forward hoping everyone just forgets about all of this. Yay, SND! Please send your dues!
But we want to know, point blank, that the new leadership can be trusted. And the more of this stuff that starts to leak out, the more shady it all really looks. Sorry. Again, perception is reality until you prove us otherwise. The burden of proof is on you, the board. Not on us, the members. The customer is always right.
Matt resigned because the accusations were that he was being shady. Sounds to a lot of us—whether we’re vocal about it or not—that there was a lot of other shady stuff happening on the board at the same time. In situations like that, I say apples for apples. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.
This isn’t as simple as posting that we should move on and build a better SND for the future, because now that so many of us have seen the Wizard, we may not wanna go down the Yellow Brick Road with some of you guys out of sheer trust, let alone fork over our membership dues to a Society that is without question more messed up now than when this whole debacle broke in the first place.
To borrow from Christian Slater in “Pump Up the Volume”: “Remember, my dear: I can smell a lie like a fart in a car.” Because I’m a journalist. If we all just let this go and drink the Kool-Aid, we have no business being in newspapers, anyway. I want the damn truth, and I’m not alone. I don’t want the spin.
Something stinks in this whole situation, and I will maintain forever that if it just all goes away right now, the dues-paying members of the Society for News Design have NOT BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH behind all of this. Plain and simple.
(By the way, the unofficial count of metaphors in this post is 72, proving that I haven’t lost my sense of humor in all of this.)
Can we please stop all the finger pointing and conspiracy theories?
The bottom line is that Matt Mansfield was the president and all this happened on his watch.
Whether he was the sole source of all this fallout isn’t for me to judge, but he IS responsible. When you’re the top guy that kind of thing comes with the office, and he’s being honorable by taking responsibility and falling on the sword. “The buck stops here,” as Harry S used to say.
I’m not interested in your theories of who you think stuck the knife in his back.
So he’s out. He’s devoting himself to his job in higher education. He’s moving on. Thanks for the dedication.
Yes, he did a great job for SND. He’s an icon in the business. We all agree.
Now stop the bickering.
Move on.
Get over it.
In the spirit of moving forward, let me ask, am I the only one who thinks a 38-member board is REALLY unwieldy? It’s no wonder the lines have been drawn on this thing. Getting 38 people to agree on anything is impossible 99 times out of 100.
Not to mention the expense of hotel rooms, air fare, meals and whatever other expenses SND reimburses these people for every time they set foot inside an SND function.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the board doesn’t have a lot of talented, smart, passionate people on it who clearly care a lot (and some of them maybe too much) about SND.
What I am saying is that 38 people is WAY too many folks to be on the board of such an organization.
Look at any corporation’s board of directors and tell me how many members there are. A half dozen? Ten? Twelve…maybe?
Close to 40?
Uh…no.
Since we’re talking about looking at bylaws, I’d encourage someone to take a hard look at pairing this number down DRAMATICALLY.
And while I see the value in having active members of the organization hold some of those board seats, I’d also encourage SND’s leadership to reserve a few seats for people who are from outside this insular little design community we’ve set up. People who bring different, but relevant viewpoints to the table.
I think that might be a healthy thing since some of us are apparently too close to all the inner workings of the machine to see the larger picture.
My two cents.
Respectfully John, while I agree with almost everything you have said… I must say… as a board member i have never been reimbursed one cent since joining the board.. for anything.
Let me clarify this to Mr. Telford and others: SND asks for board members to pay for their own travel, meals, hotel rooms and tuition for events.
I have been to quick courses in Nashville and North Carolina, a board meeting in Orlando, hosted meetups in New York and DC, and am attending the annual workship in BA. Board members also pay for their memberships and the majority of us, if not all of us, have made donations to the SND Foudnation. The Society has not comped any events or reimbursed me for anything this year. My organization hasn’t paid for much either during these financial times. So be careful on throwing those stones.
John:
Please note: SND board members pay for their own expenses to all SND events and board meetings. They do not get free registrations to workshops or reimbursement for hotel rooms, airfare or meals. Some board members are lucky enough that their employers pay for some of these expenses, but not most of us. About the only time a board member is reimbursed for expenses is if he or she is speaking at a Quick Course, just as we reimburse non-board members for this service.
I agree that the board is large. We have talked several times about redesigning the board structure for this very reason, so this move to discuss it now is nothing new.
Also, not all 38 members of the board are voting members. Some report to a voting member of the board. For instance the individual Quick Course directors report to the Education and Training director. That’s me. The editors of each of the publications report to the Publications director. That was Tyson Evans.
One of the reasons that the board is so large is all of the regional directors who represent different geographic areas around the world. The past wisdom has been that it might be difficult to get these folks to volunteer so much of their time if they did not have a board position. And we do need representation from each of these areas. The question is—what form should that take?
In fact we need more people on the ground in each geographic area helping organize meet-ups, writing about what’s happening in their neck of the woods, hosting events, leading chats, creating new ways to engage members and finding new ones.
But I do think a change in board structure is a good idea.
Just wanted to clarify a few things.
Thanks.
I hate being lied to.
It stinks and sounds high-schoolish and childish. Only the “in” crowd gets to know the truth. Maybe a few other people should be leaving instead of Matt or at least along with him. I think it’s time for lots of new blood to REPLACE the fumblers we’re left with. Sure there have been power struggles. The whole story stinks of it. Maybe it’s time for elitism to be leveled.
It sounds like more people than just Matt were told that the Denver workshop was in jeopardy, and at a time when votes for and against Matt were being counted among board members and his fate hung in the balance.
Misunderstanding or no, it sure looks like the workshop was used to influence the position of board members. And even worse, the UNC deal and the multimedia workshops also appear to have been used as leverage against the president by the vice president. Look at the full paragraph about the workshop that was agreed on by the board in the time line. It goes beyond just Denver.
“She (Burton) stated that the professional relationship with UNC had been severely impaired; that the UNC professors who run SND’s multimedia programming were questioning their ability to remain on the board; that the 2010 workshop could be at risk and that his relationship with Burroughs had disintegrated to an unacceptable level. When asked her opinion on the call for his resignation, Burton said that if the matter came to a board vote, she did not believe Mansfield would have the votes.”
Stay and we will lose the Denver workshop.
Stay and we will lose the multimedia program.
Stay and we will lose the UNC deal.
Stay and we will vote you out, because the board will chose these things over a president who has admitted he made a mistake and mislead people.
These are not my facts, they are the board’s facts as presented to us.
In this thread Jeff Goertzen said, “Just to clarify. The Denver 2010 workshop was never in jeopardy and was never an “if, then” issue with Matt’s resignation.”
But the time line constructed and approved indicates Bonita said “the 2010 workshop could be at risk.” So the potential loss of the Denver workshop was a misunderstanding? We would never really lose the Denver workshop, it just seemed that way when the decisions about Matt were being made?
In an article on Poynter’s website Jean Folkerts, the dean of UNC’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication said “As soon as they solve their internal problems, we are going to be talking with them again ... We have no interest in dictating who the people are at all, we just want to know who the people are that we’re working with.”
But the time line says Bonita said “the professional relationship with UNC had been severely impaired.” So we won’t really lose the UNC over Matt because they never made it a condition of continued talks? This was also just a misunderstanding? That happened at the same time as the Denver misunderstanding? That coincided with the reamping up of pressure on Matt to resign by the vice president?
Intentionally or not, Matt misled people. It cost him the support of the board and ultimately his presidency.
How can these misleading statements at such a critical point in this whole episode be viewed somehow differently when they were used to give the impression it was either Matt or the Denver workshop? Matt or the UNC deal? There is not room for a double standard.
What will happen now?
If we remember anything from all the times, such a shakeup has happened in a political party or organization etc. we’re getting closer to the next round of resignations.
Same pattern goes every time:
1. President/Chairman/Candidate comes under a lot of pressure and finally resigns for the ‘good of the cause’ - normally with a few hints about who stabbed them.
2. The second-in-command enters the scene and tries to put out the fire and move on. This is of course impossible when the former president had a lot of support.
3. The new President/Chairman/Candidate realize that he/she simply cannot get the organization moving as long as people has their eyes fixed on what really happened.
4. Eventually the new president is under even more pressure than the former resigned president ever was, and New President finally resigns - also for the good of the cause.
5. In order to be able to move on, we’re getting in a compromise-candidate. Either an old respected figure dug up from somewhere to ensure stability - or a new person who wasn’t part of the initial conflict to create a ‘new start’.
6. Either way that person won’t last long. Being elected as a compromise was never the best scenario. No resignation should be needed - this person will be happy to make it for one period and get the label of ‘Saviour of Organization’.
7. If a new strong leader with widespread support is ready by now, the organization will be back on track. Everything will be forgotten in time.
8. If the former factions are still fighting the crisis will be extended. Members will probably get tired of the powerstruggling and leave. The organization is doomed but can live on for years with factions battling each other to death. The fight won’t be of interest to anyone outside the organization.
Can this pattern be avoided?
I’m not sure, but my best bet is for people to rewind a bit, and start all over before the resignations took place. Show some courage and do not care if it’ll make you look foolish. This will truly be for the good of the cause.
I have never seen that happen, though. Most people will rather lead themselves and everyone with them heroically out from a cliff than back up, swallow some pride, and start again from where things got ugly.
John,
Gordon’s right on (and Denise too, she beat me to the punch as I was writing this). I feel compelled to chime in just to be clear, and also to honor the commitment (and, literally, investment) made by a parade of board members over three decades, many of whom have served in multiple roles for numerous years and paid for their involvement entirely or primarily out of their own pockets. It’s worth noting that additionally many board members have found spontaneous occasions in recent years to generate significant donations to the SND Foundation (outside of the annual art auction).
SND does not reimburse board members or even officers, to attend board meetings and annual conferences, it pays for the travel and lodging of office personnel only, and then only sparingly and with deliberate purpose.
In addition to their personal time, board members (or their employers or sponsors, if they’re lucky, and in fewer and fewer cases these days) cover the cost of annual dues (each board member needs to be an SND member in good standing), their travel, lodging, food, and even conference registration. Heck, I can recall one year in particular when I was a relatively new board member, I’d brought nearly ten staff members with me to the annual conference arranging for payment of their registrations and mine, I was a speaker, I was editing and producing Design Journal, serving on the board, and I’d even rented recruiting space on the convention floor—and I was *still* charged a separate fee for the business luncheon (it wasn’t included in my convention floor rental/registration package). So, to be clear, there are *no* reimbursements to board members* – there are not even corners cut or exceptions made. Nor would we as board members want or expect any.
The reward for being a board member is doing a good job and helping move the Society forward; leaving it better than you found it; ultimately, paying it forward.
*The only exception I can imagine is when a board member might be invited as a speaker on a Quick Course as Denise has already noted, where they would be reimbursed as any other speaker would be.
Hoping this helps,
Steve
I appreciate the “can’t we just move along” sentiment expressed by several here. I’m usually that guy.
But I’m trying to reconcile a few things, not the least of which is this: we just set a pretty clear bar for SND’s leaders and I think the height of that bar is irreproachable conduct with the members, other board members and officers of the society. What has become evident to me over the last couple of days is that in this whole giant mess, there was a lot of poor conduct going on.
The Denver thing troubles me and it should trouble anyone else who is a reader of the English language. That what appears to be a lie was used to bludgeon another officer over the head into resigning makes me want to throw up.
Gordon, I find it fascinating that when a small minority of folks on the board wanted action (and, let’s be clear, the number of people calling on Matt to resign could apparently be counted on one hand), it was a big deal. And now when those of us in the membership look up and think the whole thing stinks to high hell, we should “keep in mind these discussions are between a very small group of us.”
Don’t insult me.
I don’t know why people do some of the things they do. I’m not a mindreader. I don’t know why Bonita took the course she did and I really don’t care all that much.
What I care about is that anybody—the membership of SND, the dean of the J-school at UNC or my boss—looks at SND and says, “That is an honorable organization, worthy of my support.”
With Bonita Burton in charge of SND, I’m not sure that claim can be made.
“Bonita Burton is not without fault in this situation—far from it, especially as vice president and as an executive committee member”
“With Bonita Burton in charge of SND, I’m not sure that claim can be made.”
Well, as Bonita’s husband, I find some of the comments on this board extremely insulting, considering Bonita has been handlng this debacle at home while recovering from HER FINGERS BEING CUT OFF her right hand and major SURGERY to REATTACH them from an accident - and none of you should be claiming that the 20+ hours a day she’s devoted to cleaning up this mess could be matched when she should probably be resting.
Her actions have been selfless to SND. You all should wish to respond with the same.
Jason, we all feel very badly about Bonita’s injury. Sincerely. It’s horrifying.
It also has nothing to do with this conversation. To my knowledge, Bonita hasn’t called “Time Out” yet, though no one would blame her if she did. Her predecessor wasn’t afforded a time out when things got messy. Instead, he was just asked to resign.
There are countless others of us whose actions have been selfless to SND. And for those of us absolutely offended by what has happened internally, we merely want answers.
We didn’t ask for this to happen. We’re not to blame for the timing of it. We just want some truths to come out.
I commend and respect your sentiment, but with complete deference to the horrible and unfortunate incident and its consequences, this is not about that.
And at the same time, I understand your perspective and would say that, if the tables were turned and BONITA had been apparently forced to resign, and there was an equally-selfless uproar on her behalf, there is a pretty good chance you would have a different opinion here. I know as a husband that I would.
With that said ... The people whose opinions are ringing the loudest—on both sides of this issue—have been nothing but selfless to SND for years, and in some cases, decades.
And honestly, seeing people willing to take a stand to save SND, to steer SND forward correctly, with an understanding of what happened in the past two weeks, and a desire to discover what happened and hold the people accountable—for better or for worse—who were involved in this debacle, in many cases putting SND ahead of personal and career interests, is selflessness defined.
Jason, I think everyone feels horrible for what happened to Bonita’s hand and the surgery and subsequent rehab she’ll have to endure. That’s really a horrible situation for anyone, let alone for someone who designs and edits for a living and someone who is also a mom.
And certainly the timing of the injury couldn’t have come at a worse time.
I suspect the same fire that is keeping Bo working 20+ hours a day on this is the one that has enflamed so many of us as well.
And while we feel sorry for what’s happened, that unfortunately doesn’t mean that we agree with everything that’s been done over the past few months or that it should change the way we feel about the organization we love and how it should be run in the future.
I’m so sorry that anyone has called into question the amount of dedication and volunteerism behind making this organization function in big and small ways in addition to planning and running large- and small-scaled events, offer resources, training, etc. There’s always room for improvement, to be sure. But it pains me to think that any of the board/officers (past and present) would suddenly feel as though what they have given has gone unnoticed. It hasn’t.
***
As someone sitting in the back of the bus here, I’ve been wondering if it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world for the board to extend Matt an invitation to return to finish out the rest of his presidency. Maybe you can even get the rest back to finish out their terms as well. Figure out what went wrong and fix it, fix it, FIX IT! Replacing Matt in even the best of circumstances would prove difficult, and faced with the current situation, exceedingly taxing on a lot of levels. I don’t know any of them personally on any level, but what filtered in from SND before — from “Design,” the web site, SND Boston (the one and only journalism conference I’ve ever been able to attend) — these people care. Letting such a dedicated and talented group of individuals who have been among those shaping this organization for the past several years walk away feels wrong.
Mistakes were made, clearly, and it’s been noted that none of this was personal (though maybe for some of those who haven’t interjected yet feel otherwise). Plus, it seems like UNC really just wants to know what’s coming down the pike in a reasonable timeframe. The argument for new blood might is well heard. A wave of change is most definitely upon SND; there’s no denying that. But scraping off such a valuable layer and putting it aside feels like a huge waste. Besides, I’d be willing to be that even the “old blood” has an entirely new perspective on this organization after this week.
***
Bonita’s husband’s comment brings up something that has been in the back of my mind since this all unfolded. With a couple of remarks made in aside comments within the last couple of days (and just now quite directly) that she is recovering from an accident, the timing seems unfortunate for Bonita to jump in and take the helm. I don’t know her, so I would preface this by saying that I’m not in any way trying to stoke to political fires here, nor undercut her ability to take it on. I simply understand she’s endured/enduring something very terrible. I would venture to say that what’s happening in SND right now likely isn’t helping, and what she understood she was taking on when talking to Matt about his resignation maybe has morphed into a much larger task through the course of this week.
So I would pose this as a genuinely straightforward, honest question to Bonita: Are you truly up for it?
Michael,
You wrote, “Intentionally or not, Matt misled people. It cost him the support of the board and ultimately his presidency.”
I won’t dispute the first part. But as to it costing him the support of the board? We’ll never know. It never came to a vote.
I do know that four of the six voting executive committee members supported Matt. I know that at least four others not on the executive committee supported him in board wide notes. At least a half dozen board wide notes from overseas either supported him directly or asked the board to slow down, take a breath on this matter.
On the other side, there was one voting member of the executive committee member who supported resignation (the other, at the time, agreed that Matt had culpability but in a public note did not support his removal), the two members who sent the note asking for the resignation and at least one of the board members from UNC (and I assume the other, but I can’t remember anything specifically being said). If there were others who supported resignation they registered that through other channels, meaning not through board wide notes.
So yes, to Cavendish’s point, it appeared to be a minority of board members. But I confess I don’t know where the other 15-20 stood.
Those who felt Matt should resign, while clearly small in number, were also feeling like those supporting Matt would change their mind as they learned more. I’m not sure what more could have been said than what we heard on June 4 board call which was full and frank.
So many of us were disappointed we never got this to an actual board meeting and vote. We lobbied Matt but for a number of reasons he affirmed that his resignation would stand.
Ok, I’m willing to concede I made an assumption regarding reimbursement for board members that turned out to be false, but to be clear, I wasn’t trying to “throw stones.”
I was simply pointing out that a 38-member board seems more than slightly unwieldy.
In some ways I’m glad the board members have not been reimbursed for these expenses as doing so would quickly add up to serious dollars.
On the other hand, it seems like asking a lot of someone to not be reimbursed for the expenses they incur in service to an organization.
Which leads me back to the real point of my initial post which was having such a large board seems more trouble than it’s worth on a lot of different levels.
Perhaps if the board were smaller with a more varied makeup, as they are in most organizations, things might work a little more efficiently, the potential for petty, insider bickering might be lessened and SND could actually afford to pay for the expenses of it’s board members.
I am no longer a journalist. No longer a designer. But, your honor, I ask for a little latitude here.
About two months ago I was speaking with a former colleague and the subject of SND came up. With many newspapers cutting expenses he was lamenting the fact that the $105 now came out of his wallet. I mentioned I was thinking of joining again. I felt the need to stay connected to my first love. I had worked at newspapers for 20 years and had given many hours to SND—as a regional director, marketing and membership chair, contest coordinator and facilitator and workshop and Quick Course speaker. I have flown from coast to coast touting SND’s virtues.
You can imagine how I feel now after peering in the windows of the front office.
Seriously, I have this question: What the hell is going on?
Strike that, I’ve read enough over the last two days to get the general idea.
And, in my opinion, the idea is NOT:
1. The size of the board. That’s off-point, John. That’s for later. The house is flooding and you’re telling us the sofa is in the wrong spot.
2. It’s not about tragic accidents and a husband’s chivalry. It’s nice. It’s heart-warming, but that’s a Get Well card.
3. It’s not about whether someone got their feelings hurt (I read this one at VizEds) at judging because everyone didn’t think Link was as great as its creators did. That’s way off point. Go to a trophy shop and buy yourself something nice.
No, it’s about honesty and the reputation of a good man. I know Matt professionally. We’re not friends. We’re not enemies. We just know each other. What appears to be happening to him is a coup d’état.
So, my question is this: Why would I join SND now? What does the organization have to offer if not truth and justice and a voice I can trust? Sell me. Recruit me. Pretend I’m a new member writing a check and reading all this for the first time.
What am I to believe?
Am I to believe that I should move on and not worry about what’s happening behind the curtain?
That’s a joke. And kind of dumb.
Sorry Greg, I disagree to a point. I think the size of the board is a small microcosm of what’s wrong.
There are too many people, too close and too involved in the minutiae to see the broader picture.
The dedication many have shown to this organization over the years is admirable until it turns into finger pointing, back biting and conspiracy theories.
We’ve always known how incestuous this business is, but it’s so ridiculous at this point it’s laughable.
The Watergate break-in has actually been mentioned here as though this event is somehow remotely connected to what’s going on in SND.
Really? Seriously? Watergate?
If that seems like rearranging the furniture then you’ve missed the point.
I didn’t mention Watergate. My point is simple: The truth is out there and right now we’re getting bits and pieces. This looks bad for SND—from the inside and outside.
Let’s solve that problem first. Let’s get to the bottom of that first.
Then, when we have the whole story and order is restored, let’s move on to other things, like the size of the board or why you have such a fascination with my sofa.
Just to keep everyone current, I am officially going by “Gerg” now.
It sounds more European.
Dude…I know you didn’t mention Watergate. You’ve got to read ALL the posts here. Are those MMA boys you hang out with now using your head as a punching bag?
When are we going to see you and Schneider square off in the octagon anyway? My money’s on you incidentally.
I mentioned Watergate, John. With good reason.
Because that situation was filled with a bunch of sneaks and outright freaking liars. And journalists stood up and demanded the truth and uncovered it.
And I smell a lot of similarities in this situation.
Yeah—the president made some mistakes. So our answer now is to leave some other people in place who committed atrocities equal or greater than the one the president was forced to resign over? That’s why I mentioned Watergate. Someone’s gotta take a stand against situations like this, or we have no business calling ourselves a society of journalists. We’re just a bunch of artists who want to decorate and make things pretty. I don’t care about pretty. I care about journalism and truth.
And dammit, again—the truth is not being told here and I’ll be damned if I am gonna sit by and just shrug and say I’m powerless to do anything about it when I know justice is not being done.
But you’re right—this isn’t about Watergate, it was just a clever analogy I made.
There are people who KNOW the truth. They’re not telling us. They’re intentionally treading careful lines so far. They know who they are, and they know they have information that would look a lot more damning toward remaining factions than anything that caused the president to resign.
Perhaps we’ll never hear those things. I hope we do. Because without their insight, this could eventually turn into Milton Waddams burning Initech to the ground. Got a stapler I can borrow, John?
I think it’s best to keep sharp object like staples away from you for a little while, Matt.
I’ve said my peace, more than I ever intended to say, so I think it’s time I go back to decorating and making things pretty.
“Gerg,” I think that sofa would look better over there against the wall. Perhaps some new fabric for the upholstery is in order too, and maybe some throw pillows to top it off.
It’ll look divine.
I so badly want to see this conversation shift from the ping-pong match of blame to a constructive dialog of how to rebuild our beloved Society.
I want this to happen so badly that I spent 15 hours making all the board members’ painstaking revisions to this chronology. I was as detailed and straightforward as I could be in my own additions, including the paragraph I wrote about the concerns I raised in my very difficult talk with Matt on June 3.
But if we can’t begin to reform and reunify until more questions about my role in this are answered, I will do my best to address them.
Yes, this has all played out against the backdrop of a physically agonizing time of my life. I’ll admit to many moments in which I tried to convince myself the ethical dilemma facing SND wasn’t significant enough to warrant a further drain on my energies. I trusted Matt to resolve it. I wanted to spend the next few months getting through the pain, getting back to work, learning to care for my kids again. I’d was saving all my time off for Buenos Aires.
Once the UNC memo hit the board, I leapt to Matt’s defense. I authored a “we stand by our president” note on behalf of the executive committee. I phoned Matt immediately after the resignation request was emailed, assuring him we’d stave it off together. I called the aggrieved board members and tried to broker an apology that would suffice. I organized the June 4 conference call. And even though Matt had lost my personal trust by then, it was me who suggested to Tyson that his motion be crafted as an affirmation of support in order to head off a motion to remove.
Enough with the insinuations that I improperly coerced Matt into stepping down. As more pieces of information fell into place, I had major concerns. He heard me out. He heard us all out. It was his choice to step away before the board vote on his leadership. Is this the outcome I wanted? No. Not for SND, not for me personally. Did I agree with those who believed the situation would severely worsen if Matt remained in office? Yes.
That conclusion was reached after a mighty struggle with my conscience, a sense of loyalty to my president, a duty to the members who had elected me, a desire for friendship (Matt was not only my boss in San Jose, he was my next-door neighbor) - and the long-term prospects for SND as I saw them from my perspective as vice president.
I had grave concerns for SND beyond the issue of why the president was untruthful with me personally. Denver was briefly one of them, because another board member asked me how the event would be impacted if Jeff Goertzen were to resign. Jeff was in the hospital when Matt and I talked on June 3. I reached Jeff on June 6 and he assured me there was nothing to worry about. I emailed the executive committee that day, a week before the scheduled vote, to say I’d saved that concern from needing further discussion. It never came up again.
This was my approach in working through this process with Matt and the executive committee: I was brutally candid. I was very honest about how I felt. I did not exaggerate the severity of any of the realities we would have to work through if he remained on the board. I never withheld information or shared details of our leadership conversations beyond the group. I always took my concerns about Matt directly to Matt, even when doing so was uncomfortable and excruciating. Even as my support shifted, I kept him informed of my thinking and maintained an open dialog. I did not express my opinion to the board or enroll anyone to vote against him.
Say what you will about whether you agree with my position. But I did not sandbag Matt Mansfield.
Now. You want to know if I’m someone you can trust to be your president. Here’s what you should know about me as you weigh that between now and the fall election:
• SND is an organization I love, and to which I owe much of my career. It was through SND that I learned the principles of strong design, got my first professional break, and met the generous geniuses who still serve as my mentors today.
• I am relentlessly optimistic about SND’s future.
• I am not focussed on my rights as a vice president without a president. I am focussed on my responsibility to you.
• I will keep working in spite of distractions.
• I will keep working in spite of defamation.
• I have a clear perspective on the urgency to master both print and digital design skills. In Orlando, I’m at ground zero for centrally-designed pages, painful staff reductions and the Wild West environment of web and mobile design. My full-time job is preparing visual journalists for a digitally-centered future .
• I have a strong track record of organizing talent and unlocking the potential in others.
• I believe great lives are produced by the commitment to great causes.
SND is a great cause. I’m committed to her. Email, call, post here with questions/thoughts about how you’d like to see me go about doing that.
Thank you, Bonita, for your candor here. I appreciate you putting your convictions on the record.
Bonita is entitled to her opinion. But I object to at least one of her characterizations:
Other than Bo, I heard no board members express concerns that the situation would worsen if Matt remained in office. It is also still not clear, after many e-mails and phone conversations, what those realities would have been, precisely. Bo has acknowledged the threat of losing the 2010 Denver Workshop was pure speculation. The possibility of being blackballed by UNC also seems to be without merit, according to quotes from the university’s dean in this week’s Poynter article.
Matt was vilified and asked to resign his presidency not because of malice or willful deception, but for his well-intentioned missteps. Similarly, I don’t believe Bonita harbored ill-intentions. But nonetheless, in her crusade to convince Matt and others that his departure was the only path forward, she presented these outcomes as inevitable.
Frustratingly, throughout this debacle, individual perceptions have far too frequently been reported as irrefutable fact. Bonita’s speculations carried weight, even if she didn’t intend them to. She engaged in “saving” SND prematurely and maybe pushed it further off the cliff in the process.
I think accountability and culpability for the past month need to be shared by all involved. That is one of the reasons I submitted my resignation.
In regards to what seemed to have started this whole mess, the North Carolina situation ...
Is there anyone on the board that will deny this?
The original proposal from UNC included the following very important passages:
“SND will hire its own staff and be solely responsible for handling all aspects of the employment relationship ...”
and
“The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill will ... reach an agreement with SND that ensures its independent status.”
Those are actual portions of the original proposal to SND as made by UNC. Those are indisputable facts.
That being the case, then why was there a big honkin’ deal made by anyone to begin with over the executive committee decision to renew/not renew/extend the executive director’s contract?
UNC had already apparently said in its original proposal that those kinds of issues were SND’s problem and didn’t wish to be involved. And the “independent status” portion would seem to indicate that UNC believed it shouldn’t get in the way of SND’s internal decisions, anyway.
Yet when decisions were made regarding SND employees, all of a sudden UNC has something to say about it?
If that’s the case, they shouldn’t have had anything to say about it—that’s counter to the original proposal.
Rather, board members from UNC had something to say about it. I will submit that I’m not even sure board members from UNC should’ve been taking part in any negotiations at that point. They brought the original proposal to the board, and after that, that’s where it should have ended. Much like at the judging, if you work for a paper and one of your paper’s pages is up for a medal discussion, you’re dismissed during that conversation. That clearly not only didn’t happen, but the North Carolina situation was used as leverage against the president.
Can anyone speak about this?
Tyson: That characterization is accurate. I was far from alone in that belief.
In asking him to resign, Jeff and Gordon cited our code of ethics, not well-intentioned missteps.
I never said that resignation was the only path forward. Some realities were uncertain, others were definite.
Matt and I talked through them all. He concluded resignation was the best path forward. I agreed.
I sincerely believe you should step aside and take care of yourself. You are too close to a decision a majority of the members dislike. They are bound to see you as the agitator, not the mediator. You have overstepped your role and need a personal reality check. Take a leave and recover and review and let others who have no dog in the fight move us forward. You are tainted at this point and dramatically hampered physically. Sorry, but I’m just being brutally honest.
As the person who brought the UNC offer to SND, I need to address Michael’s comments that Bonita used our negotiations to pressure Matt.
If you need clarification, Bonita was absolutely correct in her assertions on the UNC situation. Matt’s inability to deal with us honestly did indeed severely impair our professional relationship. And yes, Laura Ruel and I finally reached the point where we could not negotiate with Matt. The fact is, we could no longer trust him, and we told the officers this. In a phone conversation with Matt, I told him this personally, so Bonita’s input only echoed what Matt already knew.
Laura and I decided against sending resignation letters to the entire board, as others had done, because we did not want to make threats. However, we told the officers that if Matt returned, we both had no choice but to resign from the board. My resignation would have been immediate, and Laura would have finished the competition year in fairness to the Best of Multimedia Design entrants.
We simply could not do business a leader who would not deal with us honestly, or an organization that would not hold him accountable. Matt did not make a mistake. He made a decision. And that decision was to purposely withhold key information from a potential partner during business negotiations. And as you saw in the timeline above, he instructed others to follow his lead. We gave Matt multiple opportunities to be forthcoming, and each time he refused to do so, more trust was lost. If you want to question any of these statements, just know that Matt read the above timeline before it was posted.
Our dean offered UNC office space and services that amounted to about $15,000 a year, guaranteed for three years. For the next three years, SND would pay $5,000 annually for these services - a fraction of our current costs. In addition, UNC would allow SND to use its labs, video cameras and other equipment for co-branded training sessions that no other organization could match. In return we asked for only one assurance: We wanted to know who the executive director would be before signing a deal. Matt did not honor that simple request. To this day, I still don’t fully understand why.
So did Bonita mislead Matt by telling him all these things were in jeopardy? Absolutely not. She told him the truth.
Michael also quoted Dean Folkerts as saying that UNC is still very interested in working with SND. That’s true, and Bonita’s willingness to take the unpopular stance and reveal the deception and cover-ups is the reason why. Bonita threw aside her initial distrust of our position and asked tough questions to all involved. And when those questions revealed uncomfortable truths, she acted on them.
Thanks for the insight, Don.
Care to answer the question that I posted in regards to the original UNC proposal about UNC leaving it up to SND how it was to be staffed? And letting SND act independently?
Because if those two statements are accurate and black and white, then I still don’t understand the issue.
The exec committee made the call to retain Elise through the end of the year, while conducting a search for a new executive director. The exec COMMITTEE. Right? This was known and agreed upon? Per that proposal from UNC that SND would handle its own staffing and remain an independent entity, it sounds like making an exec director change is perfectly within SND’s rights on this one. Regardless of your personal opinion or Laura’s personal opinion.
And then secondly, would you care to address the question of whether or not it’s even proper that you, as UNC employees, had anything to do with the negotiation or vote to bring SND to your campus?
Because lemme tell ya a story. I was once told that as an SND speaker at a workshop, my registration was covered. I got to the workshop and was asked for fork over $395 because I was a board member and couldn’t profit by being on the board. Nevermind the fact that the entirety of my workshop was spend in my room working on my presentation and I attended two sessions—my own and Chip Kidd’s, which I was doing as a favor to the publications team to do a video interview with Chip following it. In no way did I “profit” from being a board member. But I could reasonably ascertain that SND coming to the campus of UNC, where you work and live, helps YOU profit. You’re on the board. You and Laura should have recused yourselves from participation out of fairness. As board members, you should have merely brought the proposal forward as middlemen and then left it behind. SND’s Code of Ethics would support that. I just wonder why that didn’t happen.
Point being—yeah, everyone’s pissed that Matt wasn’t as forthcoming as they wanted. That’s the big one that caused all this, and that’s the focus. But many more of you have done things that are just as bad.
Bonita said: “I so badly want to see this conversation shift from the ping-pong match of blame to a constructive dialog of how to rebuild our beloved Society.”
*** Duh. You’re in the crosshairs. Best of luck rebuilding a Society that many believe is in turmoil from actions you had a direct hand in. You’ll be rebuilding it with a lot fewer members come renewal time.
Bonita said: “I want this to happen so badly that I spent 15 hours making all the board members’ painstaking revisions to this chronology.”
*** I thought it was stated that the executive committee, as a group, wrote the chronology. Was it, indeed, just YOU? If not, why are you bringing up your own personal hard work on it? We all get it. Many of us have served SND as volunteers. That’s not what’s at issue here. You don’t have to convince us that you’ve put in a lot of hours for SND. I have too. So have many others—including some who won’t be putting in any more volunteer hours thanks to this situation, which is a shame. As a member, I lose out in that deal, which is why I’m willing to take up this fight.
Bonita said: “Enough with the insinuations that I improperly coerced Matt into stepping down.”
*** So in your mind, you didn’t “improperly” coerce him into stepping down—but you DID coerce him into stepping down, correct? Just in a way you believed was proper? And if you claim you had nothing to do with Matt stepping down, then how would you respond to the questions of how you treated the UNC falling-out? Was that not built up by you, others on the board close to the UNC deal and those who were in the Matt-should-resign camp as being a bigger issue than it actually was? The UNC j-school Dean says it wasn’t a major issue—which would jibe with the school’s original line in the proposal that SND would be responsible for its own staffing. But if we’re to believe the chronology, this was a major issue as described by you and others that ultimately led to Matt not being able to be saved. RIGHT??? Because if so, that appears to be massively over the top at best, and severely shady by you and others on the board at worst—up to and including as bad as what Matt is alleged of that led to his resignation.
Bonita said: “That conclusion was reached after a mighty struggle with my conscience, a sense of loyalty to my president, a duty to the members who had elected me, a desire for friendship (Matt was not only my boss in San Jose, he was my next-door neighbor) - and the long-term prospects for SND as I saw them from my perspective as vice president.”
*** We’ve been asking for the whole truth and no more spin. This isn’t helping.
Bonita said: “I had grave concerns for SND ... Denver was briefly one of them, because another board member asked me how the event would be impacted if Jeff Goertzen were to resign. Jeff was in the hospital when Matt and I talked on June 3. I reached Jeff on June 6 and he assured me there was nothing to worry about. I emailed the executive committee that day, a week before the scheduled vote, to say I’d saved that concern from needing further discussion. It never came up again.”
*** Wait a second. Wait a second. Wait a second. Let me get this straight. DENVER WAS NEVER AN ISSUE??? EVER? Who was the board member who asked how SND Denver would be impacted if Jeff were to resign? And why, again, was Jeff going to resign? We see in your chronology that Jeff and Gordon Preece submitted on June 3 their recommendations that Matt resign. Can we be led to believe that Jeff and Gordon threatened to resign their board positions if Matt did not resign??? DID THEY RESIGN AND PULL BACK THEIR RESIGNATIONS AFTER MATT AGREED TO STEP DOWN? That’s a serious question that needs to be answered, and you may have done it for us above. BUT FOR THE BETTER PART OF FOUR DAYS, AT LEAST, DID YOU USE THE THREAT OF THE DENVER WORKSHOP BEING CANCELED AS ANY KIND OF LEVERAGE??? Because I’ll tell ya what, Bonita—through that paragraph above, holy cow ... the conclusion I’m drawing is this: “Someone says Jeff’s thinking of resigning. Another person asks if Jeff resigns, what does that mean for Denver? Nevermind the fact Jeff isn’t the site chair for Denver; Damon Cain is, and he’s not on the board. You let on for several days that if Matt doesn’t resign, Jeff will resign and that COULD mean bad things for Denver, the year you’re president. And then after four days, when there was nothing to fear anyway, and without ever, apparently, talking to the workshop chair for Denver, you tell the board that you singlehandedly ‘saved’ the Denver workshop.” That’s the conclusion I draw. Is that accurate? Because if it is, this is where I have wondered, as have many, many others, how anything Matt did is worse than other acts committed by you and other board members during this whole process. That ALONE is as bad as what Matt is accused of, and worse for YOU, because it can be reasonably assumed by many that you were using that for personal gain or to help push Matt out the door. Regardless of what you will tell us. That’s a major strike against you when it comes to the Society’s ethics policy, no question. If there is a different spin on this, we’d love to hear it.
I know this looks like a witch hunt. It’s not. People just want the truth and they want to have the Society do what’s right. There are too many of us out there who don’t believe what’s just and right has taken place. That may be unfixable by now. But it doesn’t mean we want to sit back and just accept it, knowing that there is more injustice out there on your very board that is not being properly brought to our attention. And it’s our right to hear it, for better or for worse.
Hi Matt,
Happy to answer your questions.
1. We told Matt Mansfield that if the executive director was to be replaced, we wanted that process to be completed before UNC entered into an agreement. This is a person we would be working closely with for at least six years, so we wanted to have a chance to meet them. We did not ask for any control over who the person would be, an in fact declined offers from Matt to be on the search committee. The selection of an executive director is SND’s business.
2. I asked our dean to consider bringing SND to UNC and I helped work out the details of the offer. When the offer was ready, Dean Folkerts asked me to present the offer to SND at the Orlando board meeting. After the initial proposal, the details were handed to Louise Speiler, our associate dean for Professional Education and Strategic Initiatives, who was working with Elise Burroughs on the contract. I felt comfortable with my role in the process and still do.
To now in the public comment area I’ve mentioned only things that the whole board knew or could have ascertained by putting together communication that went to everyone.
I am breaking from that a bit, however. Bonita had an opportunity to address the Denver workshop issue and, while there was a lot of heartfelt candor in her note on many topics, I feel like she failed to represent this one honestly and completely.
The loss of the Denver workshop was cited often as a potential outcome in discussions and e-mails. A couple days ago, I heard that it originally might have come from a conversation between Bo and Gordon Preece, who along with Jeff Goertzen of Denver, originally called for Matt’s resignation. Gordon, we were told, was thinking out loud.
And that’s fine. People are allowed to speculate. But during the course of our conversations about the downsides of Matt staying on, this was never described as spitballing from a conversation that never involved Denver.
No. We didn’t ask Bonita directly if Denver threatened to pull out. She’d had conversations with UNC that Don’s note confirms and we knew she’d been talking to a lot of people. We didn’t have reason to think she didn’t have direct knowledge.
In fact, she told Tyson Evans that UNC wouldn’t do business with Matt or anyone who supported his tactics and that Don was so shredded that UNC was likely a dead deal. She added that Denver had “similar issues.”
That sounded like someone who knew something, not someone who was thinking out loud. So, yes, it was weighed heavily.
On June 6, Jeff sent a note to the whole board letting us know he was recovering from surgery and just getting caught up on all the e-mails that had been sent. In it, he said: “I, for one, have no intention of resigning from the board. There’s too much work to accomplish.”
Later that day, Bo sent those of us who had been discussing this an e-mail that said you “saw today that I was able to save Jeff and the Denver workshop.”
What else were we to believe other than she had talked to Jeff and kept him from resigning and took Denver off the table as an issue?
That was the end of that until I wrote Damon Cain, Jeff’s boss and a co-chair of the workshop just a few days ago. It was in response to his many comments over all of this mess and it seemed like he was just getting caught up on a lot of it. For someone who was thinking about walking away from a workshop, that didn’t add up.
So, in addition to answering a couple direct questions he posed, I asked him how close we were to losing Denver if Matt didn’t resign. His response was: “Denver 2010 was never an issue, and would never have been used as a pawn. I hope that wasn’t misrepresented.”
I sent both Bo and Jeff a note outlining all of the above and asking for a clarification. Bo didn’t respond to me directly, although she did later to Damon and the executive committee when I sent this information to them. Jeff did respond to me and we had a call where he said that he’d not talked to Bo about this, not authorized her to say anything and felt like she’d gotten him into hot water with his boss.
Don Wittekind said in his note: “Matt did not make a mistake. He made a decision.” Bonita, in my opinion, made a decision too. She decided that an extra log on the fire would help. And when Jeff’s note came out her only choice was to make it seem to us that she’d managed to salvage two potential disasters she’d been telling us could happen.
She clearly has a different take on this.
Don said: “Laura and I decided against sending resignation letters to the entire board, as others had done, because we did not want to make threats. However, we told the officers that if Matt returned, we both had no choice but to resign from the board. My resignation would have been immediate ...”
So you didn’t want to make a threat, but were comfortable ... making a threat? But it’s OK, because it was just to the officers and not to the whole board? This doesn’t help your cause, Don! Now you’ve given us the perception that you and Laura were going to hold the Matt situation over the exec committee’s head until you got the outcome you were looking for—Matt’s resignation—and as UNC employees, if you resigned from the board, certainly the fear could be put into the exec committee that UNC’s offer would go away with you guys, even if you never said that. Not to mention Quick Courses that you’ve both run, the SND.ies, etc.
This is precisely why I bring up my questions about whether you and Laura should have been completely looped OUT of the UNC-SND negotiations after you brought the proposal to the board. You two personally had much to gain by the relationship and therefore should have been out of the conversation and out of the room.
Don: I appreciate your thoughts in response to my post and all the time you used to try to put this deal together for UNC. I can imagine how exhausting and frustrating this whole process has been for you, when all you were trying to do is something for the benefit of the SND membership.
It’s good to know the potential loss of the UNC deal and loss of you and Laura as board members was true. I appreciate you did not want to use this as a threat. But the fact something is true makes it no less of a threat. Given what had transpired, I don’t think anyone would blame you for your stance.
I do find it perplexing that fact is not included in the time line of events as outlined above. Something like “Burton informed the executive committee of Don and Laura’s intention to resign, ending the possibility for the UNC deal, if Matt continued.”
All of Matt’s supporters who said they would resign are included in the time line. But your possible resignations seem to have been omitted, which makes me wonder what else has been left off.
Again, I’m not blaming you for wanting out after everything that happened. I’m trying to understand how this all fits together.
You can imagine that since your stance that you would pull out was real, it becomes all the more confusing when it is coupled with the loss of the Denver workshop.
Burton said “that the UNC professors who run SND’s multimedia programming were questioning their ability to remain on the board; that the 2010 workshop could be at risk.”
Two things: one real, one perceived. Both presented as consequences of Matt continuing.
When Bonita reached Jeff and found out all was fine with the Denver workshop, what did she do? Bonita says, “I emailed the executive committee that day, a week before the scheduled vote, to say I’d saved that concern from needing further discussion.”
This is also not in the time line, which leaves the document’s last point on Denver as “... that the 2010 workshop could be at risk.”
And her statement to the executive committee does not set the record right. She did not say, “Sorry, I was misinformed about Denver. That was never in real doubt.” She says, “I’d saved that concern from needing further discussion.”
She says she saved the Denver workshop. That never needed saving.
I have no doubt about how hard Bonita has worked to help SND through this mess. I do not question her love of the society or her dedication. I never questioned those qualities in Matt, either. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t both make mistakes in this process. Mistakes that go to the core of our ethics code. Mistakes that require honesty in their resolution and a correction of the facts when you know an error was made.
Bo. I love you and because I love you I have to say this. Your comments aren’t good for you, they’re not good for SND and they’re not good for journalism. You’re the leader now. We’re looking up to you. We’re looking for a president who brings serenity over dissension. We’re looking for a president who knows that what is best for SND isn’t always best for them. Matt Mansfield knew this and because he knew this he resigned. Matt gives us hope that people care enough to own their mistakes and do what is right and that is why people still respect him. There isn’t enough hope in our lives right now, not at our jobs, not in our industry, not in our leaders and not in the future. We’re looking to SND for hope. You’re the leader now. Be the president SND needs. I trust in you. I have always known you to have the character to do what is right.
Thank you Yuri. I hope there’s enough detail here now that we can get back to business. We had a very positive, constructive conversation as a board yesterday. We are unified and determined. We have exciting initiatives under way that you’ll here more about in coming days. I have nothing but the brightest hope for our future.
I appreciate the lovefest here, but I would have assumed that part of getting back to business includes answering some important questions above. Those are still being skipped over. Will we EVER get answers to those? Because if not, I can do better things with my day and I can toss my dues renewal notice in the trash. If we WILL hear some answers, then maybe my $110 membership dues can be saved. Lord knows SND needs it.
And if it’s not gonna be answered directly, I might as well just bring it right back to the surface.
This DENVER 2010 thing ... this is a big freaking deal.
If what Bill is saying is true, and if what he’s saying came from Damon and Jeff is true, then it’s so crazy and ironic to me that this whole story now comes back around not to UNC, but to Denver’s workshop.
Flat out: Did you use the Denver workshop as a means to a different end? Were you untruthful, intentionally or otherwise, about the Denver workshop? If so, you need to offer your resignation the same way Matt was asked to. And if it was merely a misstep, well, could Matt’s actions on the UNC deal not be taken the same way—as “missteps”?
Either way, this needs to be explained—not glossed over by saying there’s enough detail to get back to business.
Because the details we’re hearing now mean you’re as much at fault for things as Matt, and as acting president, you should be asked to the same as he did for the good of the Society.
And by the way, Bonita. Was there an official board meeting yesterday? If so, will the minutes of it be posted on SND’s site, as is for all official board meetings? Or was it merely a conference call? If so, who was involved? The devil is in the details.
That’s not exactly answering what Yuri, Michael, MattE and Bill have brought up.
What you can’t seem to do is what you insisted Matt Mansfield do, own up. You are all about how perfect you are and now you are president and folks should just follow. I think that is a faulty assumption. You have offered us no reason to follow you. Once again, please get a reality check. You grossly mishandled a tricky situation. Own it.
To piggy back a bit off of MattE’s comments…what do the bylaws say about conference calls and e-mails? In most government dealings a city council, say, can’t have more than X number of people together at once without it constituting a meeting, which should be on the record and available to the public. There was recently a case in Missouri about whether or not e-mails were public record since they are being sent with tax-payer funded equipment, etc. Yes, I know most of you OWN your computers, but getting back to the number of people in a room…It’s not uncommon for board business to be done entirely by e-mail because you are rarely all in one room at once. So, at what point do the e-mails to all 38 board memebers, regardless of participation, become a meeting?
I encourage all SND members to read this link. It’s a summary that simplifies many of the questions from this thread.
http://www.sportsdesigner.com/1/2009/06/snd-questions-for-the-weekend.html
At one point—if memory serves through all this reading—wasn’t there a “vote of confidence” raised about Matt?
If true, are we at the same point in the process where another vote of confidence could be called for the new leadership?
If the board is happy with today’s leadership and its actions then maybe we just need to accept that and let future elections decide who leads SND.
Great idea!
Or if you want to do something positive for yourself check out this link with other organization options.
http://visualeditors.ning.com/profiles/blogs/renew-snd-membership-and-what
Taking my own advice that I just dished out, I’m going to get back to the topic at hand.
Everything that you have read down to this point… not helping.
I agree with some of you and I disagree with some of you. I hate what has happened and I like what is occuring in front of me even less.
To the current board members who are continuing to carry on the conversation here? Why? If you feel like you have stated what you believe is factually correct, then shut it down. Talking further won’t change anyone’s mind at this point. Either they believe you or they don’t.
To the SND members that are threatening to take your ball and go join the photoshop club. Feel free to go join that organization. I’ve never viewed SND as an either/or. I’m a member of ONA as well but that doesn’t keep me from being in SND.
That said, I’ve never hired anyone from ONA or from the photoshop club. Everyone I have ever hired came through SND in some way or form. That’s both print and digital. And I’ve made some kickass hires along the way. All thanks to SND.
The best thing any of us can do is maintain our membership in the organization and VOTE in the upcoming elections. With more offices open, I suspect there will be a much different approach to the election process this year (i.e.: you won’t just be voting for a secretary and shuffling everyone up a ladder).
This is a critical time in the history of our industry and our organization. Walking away now just doesn’t make any sense when all of you have a voice in the direction of SND and your voice will be heard very shortly.
The great thing about how all of this has played out is the election will be much more than a popularity contest. You now know how many in SND will act in office. Even if they aren’t in office, you can go back and see how they’ve reacted to things as they’ve happened here. Don’t like who you see? Start rallying for change. Is it time for new leadership? You’ll be the ones who decide that.
But don’t throw your membership away because you don’t like who’s in office. This new group will have a few months to show you what they can do. If you don’t like what you see, bring someone else in.
I know that won’t make you feel any better right now. It doesn’t get you the advanced training that you are requesting or put the board back together or fix the friendships that have been lost through this. But if you’re looking to shape the future of the organization, this is your chance.
It’s almost July. In a couple of months we will have the most important election in this history of this organization. You’ll need to be a member if you want to be part of it.
I agree, Chris.
Hence, “rallying for change.” It wasn’t time for new leadership. That got forced on us for stupid reasons by opportunistic people who took advantage. And to be blunt, when called on it, those people aren’t stepping up to honestly answer the questions, let alone acknowledge that a good chunk of some pretty perceptive and smart journalists are asking.
I suppose the answer right now from the people who are being called on the carpet the same way Matt Mansfield was called on the carpet is to just shut it down and run and hide and if they ignore it long enough, maybe it’ll go away.
We weren’t looking to reshape the future of SND. It got reshaped for us, and apparently through a pretty solid double-standard. So you’ll pardon me if I say that I don’t want to wait for it to blow over and then vote later. I want some answers now, and I’m not alone. I’m just yelling the loudest.
The great thing for the people that I would like to see held accountable is that, yeah—by ignoring all this, eventually I will just shut up and go away. And then you can go about things a little more peacefully. But in the long run, if you can look yourselves in the mirror and say that tack is what’s best for the future of SND, then so be it.
But you’d be absolutely wrong.
Chris, my friend, I agree with much of what you say, especially about the importance of voting and engaging.
Although I’m sure everyone on the the board is exhausted and frustrated, I don’t agree with the desire to shut down the difficult dialogue.
Board members have had several weeks to discuss these issues behind closed doors, and presumably, to ask their own questions. But, clearly, there is a significant number of members who are very unsatisfied with the way this was “resolved”.
Remember, this is all fairly new to most members. And, frankly, some of the answers (and lingering questions) have been slow to bubble to the surface.
Asking these questions does not necessarily make one anti-SND. In fact, I’d argue that thoroughly clearing the air might be the first step toward repairing the organization.
Many people seem to want/need these answers before they decide what to do next—including how to approach the upcoming election.
SND Members, Region Directors, Board members, those on the executive committee, UNC president.
I completely agree with MattE.
There are ways to shut down this debacle and one of them isn’t ignoring the folks who grandstanded, pushing a really good president out the door with cowardly crowing behind the scenes.
A bright light heals, darkness kills. Shine the light. Heal the festering wounds. Strengthen. For anyone who isn’t up to completing moving forward on the real changes that are needed, think about your own commitment to the group.
The dialogue shouldn’t be shut down. But if the parties in question have truthfully answered the questions that have been asked of them, then there is no reason to discuss the issue further. To do so will be seen by most as an admission of guilt.
I’m calling for people to say what they in their hearts believe to be the truth and then turn their attention to putting this organization back together again with the knowledge that an election is right around the corner and you can all have your final say in that forum—a forum that actually can change things.
Questioning the leadership of this organization should never be seen as anti-SND. However, actively recruiting people to other organizations as a replacement for SND, well that’s pretty clearly not trying to help put the group back together again.
That said, I’ll leave this discussion to those who feel that something fruitful will come of this. My time will be better served organizing meetups and recruiting new members.
And filling out my ballot in the fall.
Chris, again—I agree. Actively asking people to quit SND and go join something else instead ... ehhh, maybe not the best way to go.
But at the same time, the board’s party line seems to be: “Let’s rebuild SND, let’s work together, let’s move past this bad situation that none of us wanted, and let’s look forward to the fall when we can vote!”
It is all very pat-the-little-dummies on the head and tell them it’ll all be all right-ish.
I’ve asked for answers to a lot of things, and I’ve really only heard the party line. So until I get some answers, until some people stand up and start taking some accountability for their actions, then I might not be sending people to other organizations, but I sure as hell won’t be recommending them to SND, much less recruiting them. And that is truly a shame because I have done more than my fair share of recruiting on behalf of the Society.
I’m leery of keeping some of this going, but I am curious about something.
There is a pointedness in nearly all of this aimed very squarely—and vehemently —at Bonita Burton. Particularly from some long and high-standing members of the organization I assume may be well plugged in with all the parties involved.
Some of the damning descriptors —“cowardly crowing,” “ganging up,” “oportunistic” and so on—suggest knowledge beyond what’s been offered up in writing here (comments and official SND communications).
Perhaps I’m just a very bad lawyer, but I don’t quite see anything in the “court record” so far that would turn the boil up so high as it is (setting aside the botched handling of information from the outset). I see problems and mistakes aplenty, but I honestly don’t see the smoking gun or the knife with fingerprints on it. (That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, I’m just sayin ...)
So my question is this: Are there members who have heard more or know more than what has been posted online about all this? There has to be more background or knowledge for such certain anger to be so specifically focused.
I’m not a plugged-in guy. I’m not doubting anyone’s statements at face value. I’ve got no history with Matt (E. or M.) or Bonita one way or the other. I’m forming some of my own opinions based on what I can most confidently take as “fact” from all the information here. Just seems like there is more “stuff” involved here. And it’s angry stuff.
And I do agree this is not the time to walk away from this organization. If one blow-up is all it takes to kill it, then shame on every one of us.
And that, Deano, is why I’m asking—nay, EFFING BEGGING—for answers.
The latest SND president was the boss.
“On April 17, SND’s president, in agreement with the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, decided not to renew the contract of executive director Elise Burroughs. The director was not removed for cause. The president and the majority of the executive committee decided it was time for a new direction in one of SND’s two paid positions. (The issue of whether or not to extend the executive director’s contract is a personnel matter that cannot be discussed outside SND’s executive committee. This is language that is stated in the executive director’s contract.)
So there’s a dead end to one big question that seemed to bother board members Laura Ruel and Don Wittekind (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Did they blame Mansfield for that. Did the board members have an alliance with Elise Burroughs? Did they try to queer the deal with UNC?
So they threatened to leave the board, but not in writing. And, in the same sentence, threatened the UNC deal, which the dean of their university wasn’t too happy about.
Sounds like everyone else wanted to be the boss, too.
It looks like the president was not allowed to pursue his own timing and activity without the interfering pursuits of a group of directors, the executive director, the executive committee, the vice president, past presidents and UNC agents on the board all wanting to be in charge, and calling and e-mailing each other and when it got confusing, they starting pointing fingers at each other.
What a mess. So Gordon Preece and Jeff Goertzen called for Matt’s resignation. Have we heard from Goertzen? Do we know what he really thinks? They charged ethics. This after Bonita Burton lets on that she saved the Denver deal (not). And she has a big heart-to-heart talk with her ex-neighbor (buddy) Matt. Does she tell him she stirred the pot in Denver, does she tell him that it was his job to lead the UNC negotiations? Does she tell him about the power plays of two directors who WERE threatening to resign, but off the record. Does she tell him about her talks with the Past President Gayle Grin? Does she say, “Handle the UNC people the way you want?” Does she remind everyone that he only has six months to go? Does she foresee how ugly it would be to use an unethical charge against the SND president at the same time they announce they are looking for a new executive editor? Did she stop to think what SND members would think? The world would be so relieved to have her running things instead of Matt? Did she want to be in charge of the selection of the new executive director instead of Matt? Who knows. I can’t figure her logic. But it seems to me she spoke out of both sides of her mouth to make sure meddling charges weren’t leveled at her. That’s my take.
What I thinks stinks is the agreement that the society president should go because he said something different than what various members of the group were saying, all speaking over each other trying to be in charge.
False claims were made - the UNC deal was dead (not), the Denver plans were jeopardized (not). UNC directors threatened to quit if Mansfield didn’t but they didn’t want to put it in writing. Cute. This doesn’t bother anybody? Is this the way you want to do business?
Personalities got testy, threatening to quit on both sides, whether in writing or not. Now all that is in the chronology. It seems simple to me.
Why should this group - who nominated Mansfield to fall on his sword for their mess - get to rearrange the deck chairs? A vote of confidence seems appropriate, and not just on the vice president.
What really bothers me is that anyone would think this all was just fine.
Donna:
Jeff Goertzen posted a comment earlier in this thread. (See “Jun 19, 2009 at 02:33 pm.”)
You guys look like fools. Congratulations.
Also, your chronology is off. You have things happening on one day, but then you jump back and say that same thing happened on a different day.
Someone needs to write an article: “Things for SND To Do in Denver When It’s Dead.”
i am following this thread now for quite a while. right from the beginning. and i had been included in the e-mail-ping-pong before this. from an european perspective this all makes me wonder and raises questions. over the last year i learned america to be the “yes-we-can-nation” and got approved by the election. half a year later this turmoil: an explosive mixture of those who did mistakes, others who put up with this, again others who acted strategical on this ground and some who under way advised everybody to calm down.
the SND drama is not (only) about the facts of this dispute: many didn’t act as they were supposed to act. the earlier posts tried to enlighten some of the wires that are still lying in darkness. this is a necessary act, to clear the roles and positions of those who are still involved and want to get their hands on SND’s steering wheel. investigations are focused on the board. i will look closely. i appreciate every effort (‘though we are far from watergate). Maybe we will see more board members leaving soon. maybe not.
but there’s an other part of this SND drama, i’d like to mention, because imho it will have a lot more impact on SND’s future. especially “ordinary” (“regular, plain”?) SND members will look for this. and that’s about the culture, we are loosing now. it’s a culture of dependence (and its positive vibrations): beeing a member of SND always made one be a part of this dependence. one could not only “make friends the american way” but could achieve a lot more. one could rely on another member. and that counts huge in times where those in the industry are forced out of the job who only are partly responsible for the mess. and from an educators perspective it counts even more because its one of the few values that enables links from one area (professional) to an other (education) or from america to europe to asia to scandinavia and so on. this dependence feels to be totally lost by now.
how does this dependence work in case someone makes a mistake? in a first place it should prevent the situation from escalating. the assumption always should be that a mistake was not intended. in this spirit everybody should act. leading SND is not about playing chess among board members. to me it seems, there were a lot of chess games going. i could understand that, the moment Matt Mansfield discovered this, it was the reason, to step back. even if only a minority was playing.
as far as i can see, the bridge back to “business as usual” is that narrow, that only a few will make it - members and members on the board as well. this will endanger the denver-conference. i am in fear, ‘cause i maked it in my calendar already.
I have known Matt Mansfield longer than all y’all and if you had observed his professionalism as closely as I have over those decades the last thing you would ever, ever do is paint him “unethical.”
robb, i hope, you did not read that (“unethical”) out of my post. especially regarding matt.
Let’s get clear.
Read http://www.medill.northwestern.edu/faculty/journalismfulltime.aspx?id=128717 to see for yourself who stepped down for the best of SND. Decide for yourself if you believe that.
From reading this, I’m not sure how Don Wittekind has much credibility.
He is on the executive committee, and he knew about everything that was happening. Pretending he didn’t know doesn’t mean he didn’t know.
I’d say that he has much explaining to do about his course of action.
Rolo,
My term on the executive committee ended at the Orlando board meeting and Tyson Evans was elected the new representative for the program directors. So I was not involved or informed of any of the committee’s discussions after that point.
So, I got up this morning after a pretty good day of not reading through all the back and forth and I re-read everything that has been said.
Two things are pretty crystal clear to me:
1) Matt Mansfield walked away when he didn’t have to. There’s something oddly noble about that and I don’t want to saint the guy because he obviously stepped in it when putting together the UNC deal. But he looked at the fractures it caused, he said “If it will be better for someone else to run SND, I’ll do it.”
2) Bonita Burton was pretty clearly engaged in some arm twisting and politicking that was based on blatant untruths, namely that the Denver workshop was in jeopardy. If it was a misperception based on rumor (namely that another Board member critical of Matt told her and therefore it must be true), in many ways that makes it worse. To threaten someone without the facts is either willful ignorance or knowing deception. Why not pick up the phone or email Denver and ask? That Denver was later asked and it was IMMEDIATELY cleared up only makes the situation worse.
Along those lines, too, I kept coming back to this line in the chronology:
“When asked her opinion on the call for his resignation, Burton said that if the matter came to a board vote, she did not believe Mansfield would have the votes.”
This is pure speculation on her part and again shows either a willful ignorance or an inability to count. That many members were about to introduce a resolution of support completely rebuts this and shows she was telling an untruth or had no idea what the board actually thought.
So here you have a vice president telling a president to resign based on speculation and innuendo.
Why does it all matter? Because I don’t want the officers of SND to make ANY decision based on half-truth, speculation or rumor. And I certainly don’t want other officers to pressure officers, board members or membership based on the same.
Every single member must demand the same thing—that our leadership rise above petty politics and institutional power plays. If you don’t have that ability, don’t serve the organization.
I think it is clear from all of the comments that there are people who care about SND and that there is a passionate base of members who love it and our chosen profession. There is a capacity to do very good things here and what we need to do now is to get down to work in a unified fashion.
But we cannot do that until we get past this whole mess, and I mean all of it.
As long as she remains, we do not have the capacity as an organization to move on. There are too many lines drawn. There are too many good people who have walked away. There is too much simmering resentment beneath the surface.
Quite simply, we do not have the ability to go to someone who is not currently a member of SND and tell them that they would be joining a unified group and THAT spells organizational death.
There is only one way forward.
Bonita should resign from the board with immediate effect.
It is insufficient to say “One person is causing dissension within SND” and then replace him with an equally if not more divisive person.
It is insufficient to say “Let’s move forward” and then leave in place someone who does not have the ability to unify the organization.
The measure of a leader is the ability to look at a situation and realize that they are part of the problem. If Bonita doesn’t recognize that, then the problem will still exist.
So, Don, did you just forget about the conversation before that?
Rolo,
If you have not read the series of events above, here is the paragraph that addresses the issue of what I knew and when:
“Wittekind first learned of the executive director search at the April 17 meeting. On April 18, he suggested to the president holding off on the UNC proposal until an executive director had been seated. Mansfield gave a verbal assurance to Wittekind and fellow UNC professor Laura Ruel that the existing executive director’s contract would be extended so the deal could go forward immediately.”
At this point I was no longer on the executive committee (my term had ended) so I was not a part of their later meetings.
I did not learn that Matt reversed his decision until May 25, when he told me in response to an email I sent asking about the executive director’s status.
Does that answer your question?
So, Bonita portrays Matt as the big villain, Bonita basically pushes Matt out, Bonita gets to hire the new SND Execs, Bonita moves up the chain early, Bonita is the lead editor on the “official version” of the chronology, Bonita gave us that lame and patronizing online “conversation,” and Bonita will no doubt ride in on her white shining horse and save the UNC deal. That’s an awful lot of Bonita - too much for my liking. I won’t be renewing.
Sooooo ... I guess that’s that, huh?
No resolution to any of this? No final word? No official rebuttal?
Just accusations that will go unanswered and a whole buncha people who know something’s rotten in the state of Denmark, but don’t wanna get their hands dirty?
What a shame. What a scam. HIGHLY unfortunate moment in the history of a JOURNALISM organization that turned into a POLITICAL organization.
Not trying to stir the pot, but if the debate fizzled and the new leadership pressed on, doesn’t that take a little of the air out of the contention that the organization “turned into a political organization”? Besides, it feels like it’s bit of a waiting game at this point, anyway. Waiting to see what the task force accomplishes. Waiting to see how the interim leadership performs.
Waiting to see whose names show up on the ballot.
For all of the clamor for Bonita to step down, there’s been no mention of who would be next in line or who should be next in line. With the organization’s processes under scrutiny, and with the call for new blood in SND’s leadership spots, that seems like a constructive and beneficial debate — as long as it stays out of mud pit. True, nominations are in the hands of Gayle Grin and the nominating committee members (how are those chosen, btw?), so they will be the next ones in the proverbial hot seats. But until then, maybe that’s the topic of the next round of discussion: Who should they pick?
And then, when the time comes, if there’s still no answers, members will have the opportunity first to speak with their ballots and then their (non)renewals.
Don’t worry MattE and Gina.
Cream always rises to the top.
No one has forgotten this onslaught on Matt Mansfield. It won’t just go away like some would hope.
Options will have to come from within the society and the group will either be relevant or it won’t.
100!!!!
I’m the 100th comment!!!
Freak. Ing. AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!
And that, my friends, is something NO ONE can take away from me. EVER.
HAHAHAHA!!! Congrats, Matt.
I was hoping other people would respond to congratulate me, but apparently they’ve taken their balls and gone home.
You are a very big deal MattE!
Know what could fix this whole thing, and maybe even get the leftover board members to talk about some of the crap that REALLY went down?!?
I’ll tell ya what ...
“Mama say, mama sa, mama coo sa.”
That’s what.
That will fix the WORLD.
Mama say, mama sa, mama coo sa!