ANNOUNCEMENT: Affiliate Coordinator
- Thread starter wbilyeu
- Start date
Jessi Cowart
At-Large Representative
carter.fanning
New member
I want to start off by saying congratulations @jwilford. Excited to see the things coming out of this department with you at the helm; I have a feeling you are going to knock it out of the park.
That said, I really wish we would have conducted interviews since we had multiple people express interest in the role. At surface level, this doesn’t look good, and quite frankly, it is very disappointing. While interviews may not have changed the overall outcome, it was the right thing to do… And we failed to do it.
That said, I really wish we would have conducted interviews since we had multiple people express interest in the role. At surface level, this doesn’t look good, and quite frankly, it is very disappointing. While interviews may not have changed the overall outcome, it was the right thing to do… And we failed to do it.
Last edited:
Amanda Gibbs
SLEC Member
Multiple people expressed interest but did they apply? From what I understand 2 people applied for the role, and do we know for sure that there weren’t interviews? I do think LPTexas as a whole should make these positions more easily available to at least apply. I know we have at a minimum 2 roles under John available now (unless the structure changes), Events dept volunteer roles, always SM roles. I think if we promote those opportunities it might possibly help the growth of LPTexas.
Andrew Amelang
Chair
By ‘we’ I assume you mean me, since that’s my job, not SLEC’s.
For the benefit of those who are not aware of what’s going on, or think you are aware because you’ve heard some of the gossip that’s going around, here’s the deal:
Nathan, having determined he needed to take some time off, wanted to insure a smooth transition of the section he worked so hard to build up, so he started looking for a replacement before he announced his intention to resign and reached out to John. John was a great choice, highly interested in the position, deep institutional knowledge, and willing to give up the bookkeeper gig. Being already on staff, John did not need to go through the typical interview process, he only needed the approval of Jessi, the director of the department he’d be moving to, to make the change. She approved whole-heartedly.
Meanwhile, word was getting around that Nathan was stepping down. Two other people put in applications for the position; one of those was later withdrawn. Ultimately the decision was made to go with Nathan’s original choice. Here we are.
I have left out names and other details in an effort to stick to the general outline of the story and to avoid over-complicating it. Not trying to be subtle or opaque, just sticking to the bare outline so there’s a context for this:
Summing up the various provisions of our Ops Manual: We are not required to put out a general call for applications for an open position. We are not required to interview those who apply. And we are not required to hire anyone just because they got interviewed. And that’s before you get into inter-departmental transfers, which are super-simple and require very little time and effort to process, and are not exactly ‘open’ calls or competitive placements.
Where there is a question whether going through the formality of an interview process will actually change the overall outcome, it’s worth taking into consideration whether going through that process is a good use of everybody’s time. In this case there was no point in wasting everyone’s time.
SLEC’s interest in this matter is this: If you don’t like the way things are being done by staff, first check the Operations Manual to see what the expectation is, then make a motion to change it if you don’t like the existing policy, or call out the person who’s violating our set policy. Not violating policy? No harm, no foul.
Keep this in mind, though: We are an almost-completely volunteer organization operating in a fight for our lives and livelihoods in real time. We have to make decisions that we believe are in the best interest of the organization looking at the big picture, and that doesn’t always sit well with individuals affected by those decisions. It’s part of the job description. We (your staff) can’t operate on the basis of whether this person or that handful of people is going to like or dislike a specific decision. Ultimately, whether something was ‘the right thing to do’ has to come back to policy, the rules of the game.
I ask respectfully that this body give me the benefit of the doubt during this six month contract. If you don’t think the staff has qualitatively improved at the end of six months, don’t renew the contract. If you have questions about what’s going on, or hear grumbling about something I’ve done or am doing, feel free to reach out to me directly to find out what’s up.
Carter’s not the only one who thinks John is going to knock this one out of the park. Let’s celebrate that and keep moving forward.
For the benefit of those who are not aware of what’s going on, or think you are aware because you’ve heard some of the gossip that’s going around, here’s the deal:
Nathan, having determined he needed to take some time off, wanted to insure a smooth transition of the section he worked so hard to build up, so he started looking for a replacement before he announced his intention to resign and reached out to John. John was a great choice, highly interested in the position, deep institutional knowledge, and willing to give up the bookkeeper gig. Being already on staff, John did not need to go through the typical interview process, he only needed the approval of Jessi, the director of the department he’d be moving to, to make the change. She approved whole-heartedly.
Meanwhile, word was getting around that Nathan was stepping down. Two other people put in applications for the position; one of those was later withdrawn. Ultimately the decision was made to go with Nathan’s original choice. Here we are.
I have left out names and other details in an effort to stick to the general outline of the story and to avoid over-complicating it. Not trying to be subtle or opaque, just sticking to the bare outline so there’s a context for this:
Summing up the various provisions of our Ops Manual: We are not required to put out a general call for applications for an open position. We are not required to interview those who apply. And we are not required to hire anyone just because they got interviewed. And that’s before you get into inter-departmental transfers, which are super-simple and require very little time and effort to process, and are not exactly ‘open’ calls or competitive placements.
Where there is a question whether going through the formality of an interview process will actually change the overall outcome, it’s worth taking into consideration whether going through that process is a good use of everybody’s time. In this case there was no point in wasting everyone’s time.
SLEC’s interest in this matter is this: If you don’t like the way things are being done by staff, first check the Operations Manual to see what the expectation is, then make a motion to change it if you don’t like the existing policy, or call out the person who’s violating our set policy. Not violating policy? No harm, no foul.
Keep this in mind, though: We are an almost-completely volunteer organization operating in a fight for our lives and livelihoods in real time. We have to make decisions that we believe are in the best interest of the organization looking at the big picture, and that doesn’t always sit well with individuals affected by those decisions. It’s part of the job description. We (your staff) can’t operate on the basis of whether this person or that handful of people is going to like or dislike a specific decision. Ultimately, whether something was ‘the right thing to do’ has to come back to policy, the rules of the game.
I ask respectfully that this body give me the benefit of the doubt during this six month contract. If you don’t think the staff has qualitatively improved at the end of six months, don’t renew the contract. If you have questions about what’s going on, or hear grumbling about something I’ve done or am doing, feel free to reach out to me directly to find out what’s up.
Carter’s not the only one who thinks John is going to knock this one out of the park. Let’s celebrate that and keep moving forward.
carter.fanning
New member
Were any of the other applicants told they would be interviewed for the position?
Andrew Amelang
Chair
I mentioned the applications above. No interviews were conducted other than John’s ‘interview’ with Jessi to discuss his transferring to Ops.
In what way would you have these positions made ‘more easily available’? Typically our main method of publicizing open positions is to list them as such on our website. We will occasionally push a social media post or something, but did you have something specific in mind?
Note: Historically there has also been a fair amount of person-to-person recruiting as well, or occasional notices to SLEC of positions open in the hope that somebody will know somebody. Often that is enough to find a good candidate.
Not saying that’s the best or only way it should be done. Just giving some context.
In what way would you have these positions made ‘more easily available’? Typically our main method of publicizing open positions is to list them as such on our website. We will occasionally push a social media post or something, but did you have something specific in mind?
Note: Historically there has also been a fair amount of person-to-person recruiting as well, or occasional notices to SLEC of positions open in the hope that somebody will know somebody. Often that is enough to find a good candidate.
Not saying that’s the best or only way it should be done. Just giving some context.
Andrew Amelang
Chair
No. I think I know what you’re referring to, though, so let’s get this out on the table too. Are you talking about Jacob? (I already mentioned that the other application was withdrawn.)
Last edited:
carter.fanning
New member
Yes
Andrew Amelang
Chair
Okay, short version is Jacob and I had a conversation in Waco that was pretty helpful, I thought, but then turned out to have contained a significant misunderstanding. Not sure whether I misunderstood Jacob or he misunderstood me, but ultimately that doesn’t matter as much as the fact that it happened.
I have to prep for a 6:30 call, have the call, and then eat dinner, then I’ll be back later to see what else we need to clarify. The crux of the misunderstanding is that I thought Jacob told me Watts spoke with him also (in addition to John) about the Affiliate Coordinator role, so I told Jacob on that basis that he should submit an application to get the process started. When asked later, Nathan said he did not speak with Jacob about the Coordinator role, only the Liaison role that Jacob had applied for earlier. That materially changed the deal, back to the status quo ante.
Maybe Jacob misunderstood what Nathan said. Maybe I misunderstood what Jacob said. Maybe Jacob misunderstood what I said. But that’s the glitch that caused the problem. I would not have encouraged Jacob to submit the application without that bit of misinformation.
I have to prep for a 6:30 call, have the call, and then eat dinner, then I’ll be back later to see what else we need to clarify. The crux of the misunderstanding is that I thought Jacob told me Watts spoke with him also (in addition to John) about the Affiliate Coordinator role, so I told Jacob on that basis that he should submit an application to get the process started. When asked later, Nathan said he did not speak with Jacob about the Coordinator role, only the Liaison role that Jacob had applied for earlier. That materially changed the deal, back to the status quo ante.
Maybe Jacob misunderstood what Nathan said. Maybe I misunderstood what Jacob said. Maybe Jacob misunderstood what I said. But that’s the glitch that caused the problem. I would not have encouraged Jacob to submit the application without that bit of misinformation.
carter.fanning
New member
I’m tracking that it may be a bit confusing considering two positions with similar names were open at the time:
affiliate coordinator and affiliate liaison. However, I’m specifically reffing to a text message exchange on 6 July:
Jacob: “Hey Andrew, any idea when you will be able to set up the interviews for the affiliate coordinator position?”
Andrew: “Def by EOW…”
These exchanges keep going for nearly a month. I’m certain you have been busy, but if the intent was to hire John and not interview other applicants, a bit of transparency would have saved everyone tons of time.
affiliate coordinator and affiliate liaison. However, I’m specifically reffing to a text message exchange on 6 July:
Jacob: “Hey Andrew, any idea when you will be able to set up the interviews for the affiliate coordinator position?”
Andrew: “Def by EOW…”
These exchanges keep going for nearly a month. I’m certain you have been busy, but if the intent was to hire John and not interview other applicants, a bit of transparency would have saved everyone tons of time.
Last edited:
Jacob Bradley
SLEC Member
Andrew, I recall the comments that you are referring to. At the slec meeting in July I told you that Nathan Watts had called me and asked me to apply for the affiliate liason position. I told you that Nathan had said he thought I would be a good fit for the position, and now that he was stepping down, I was more interested in the coordinator position, not the liason position. You told me to apply and even messaged back and forth with me about applying. On July 6th you told me interviews would be set up by end of week. July 11th, you told me to check back if I didn’t hear from you by the end of the week. July 18th, you told me you would be getting with Jessi to see what the hold up was. July 22nd, you told me you would call me back after a lunch meeting you had but told me there was nothing new to report and you were waiting on updates from Whitney and Jessi and would check back with me again in the morning. That was the last I heard from you. I also tried reaching out to you July 9, 20, 21, and 22 via phone call, and you didn’t answer or call me back. I’m assuming at some point between July 2nd and July 22nd was when you learned of this miscommunication but you chose to let me continue to think I was in the running for this position. At any point you could have picked up the phone or texted me and cleared up the miscommunication, but chose not to, and left me waiting. It is for this reason that I am upset. Had you let me know at any point instead of stringing me along I would be ok with the decision. I am extremely let down and frustrated by the string of events that led us up to this point.
Last edited:
Andrew Amelang
Chair
Jacob, I’ll call you tomorrow. This is the first time I’ve heard from you since the 22nd, although I’ve certainly heard from Carter. 
I’m sorry this went down the way it did; it was certainly never my intention to string you along or mislead you. Peace.
I’m sorry this went down the way it did; it was certainly never my intention to string you along or mislead you. Peace.
Andrew Amelang
Chair
Coupla things:
As of the 6th, I had not yet heard that Watts had not said anything about AC. The message I sent Jacob was sincere when it was sent.
The ‘exchanges’ that ‘keep going for nearly a month’ were the three texts mentioned by Jacob. Total time for four texts start to finish: 16 days. You can call it whatever you want, but I don’t think ‘these exchanges keep going for nearly a month’ is fair. If we’re going to round it, let’s say more accurately ‘you had a coupla more texts over about two weeks’.
We can discuss intentions and significance and judgment calls and such separately, but let’s at least keep the objective details in mind.
As of the 6th, I had not yet heard that Watts had not said anything about AC. The message I sent Jacob was sincere when it was sent.
The ‘exchanges’ that ‘keep going for nearly a month’ were the three texts mentioned by Jacob. Total time for four texts start to finish: 16 days. You can call it whatever you want, but I don’t think ‘these exchanges keep going for nearly a month’ is fair. If we’re going to round it, let’s say more accurately ‘you had a coupla more texts over about two weeks’.
We can discuss intentions and significance and judgment calls and such separately, but let’s at least keep the objective details in mind.
Andrew Amelang
Chair
One thing about the phone calls: I never return calls that leave no voice message. I never check ‘recent calls’ to see if I missed anything. It has to be a text or a voice message if you want a call back.
This is about the future, not the past, and goes for anyone here. If you’re trying to get hold of me, text and Discord are best. Call if you need me, but leave a message if you want a return phone call.
This is about the future, not the past, and goes for anyone here. If you’re trying to get hold of me, text and Discord are best. Call if you need me, but leave a message if you want a return phone call.
Jacob Bradley
SLEC Member
Andrew, the month of stringing me along was July 2nd to the announcement this morning. I was still under the impression as of this morning that interviews were forthcoming. You said you were back logged and that you were playing catchup. So, i figured when you were ready to interview me, you would reach out and let me know. Last I heard you were touching base with Whitney and Jessi to set up my interviews. As the previous messages had no updates, i assumed continuing reaching out would just become bothersome to you, so i waited for you to reach out. I figured you were busy and would get with me when you were ready. What I didnt expect was to be surprised this morning by the announcement that the position was filled and that I was in fact not being interviewed at all.
Andrew Amelang
Chair
I’m going to say a few things here as an exercise in attempting to change the culture here for all of our mutual benefit, but after this post I think anything else I have to say re this matter will just be repetitive. Put another way, I’m not going to post anymore on this unless I see something new being asserted.
Jacob, I have a text message in to you asking if you have time for a call today or a lunch tomorrow. Let me know.
Your claim that you were surprised this morning is a bit of hyperbole, based on conversations I’ve had with other folks. Your accusation that I have been “stringing you for along” for any amount of time, let alone a month, is your private judgment (or opinion, or framing) based on assumptions you are making about my knowledge and motives over a period of two weeks in response to three texts from you. You have a legitimate beef in here somewhere, but it’s not the one you’re making.
My encouragement to everyone-not-Jacob is to take a time out and give me and Jacob a chance to talk in person. The purpose of this thread was to announce John’s appointment, and so far I haven’t heard anyone suggest that John’s a bad choice for this role. Let’s not lose sight of that.
The exercise I alluded to above is this:
As Executive Director I will work diligently to run a non-partisan staff. It is my intention to change the culture of LPTexas from the staff outward from one of internal bickering and division (with the result that we are an easily ignorable side-show to the actual governance of this state) to one of unified opposition to our common enemy (in the hope that we will demonstrate enough of an impact with our relatively small numbers to inspire more volunteers and donors to join us). The majority of rank and file out voters there don’t “hate us for our principles”, they ignore us because we don’t matter. This can’t go on.
In pursuit of this vision, I will undoubtedly make mistakes. You make mistakes, I make mistakes, we all make mistakes. If you voted for my appointment as XD because you thought I was perfect, I have some depressing news for you. For purposes of this ‘trial by social media’, I am going to plead guilty on all counts and throw myself on the mercy of the court. Assume the worst possible explanation of the most hyperbolic account of the facts and deal with me as you will. And then let’s get back to work.
Privately, I’d like to talk with Jacob and have a more nuanced conversation about our relationship as individuals and where we go from here. That ball’s in his court, but I’d like to sort it out if at all possible.
But organizationally, we have got to be more resilient. We need more individuals functioning as mediators and brokers and healers within the party, and less taking sides and actually amplifying and spreading negative emotions. That is my appeal to this body.
Jacob, I have a text message in to you asking if you have time for a call today or a lunch tomorrow. Let me know.
Your claim that you were surprised this morning is a bit of hyperbole, based on conversations I’ve had with other folks. Your accusation that I have been “stringing you for along” for any amount of time, let alone a month, is your private judgment (or opinion, or framing) based on assumptions you are making about my knowledge and motives over a period of two weeks in response to three texts from you. You have a legitimate beef in here somewhere, but it’s not the one you’re making.
My encouragement to everyone-not-Jacob is to take a time out and give me and Jacob a chance to talk in person. The purpose of this thread was to announce John’s appointment, and so far I haven’t heard anyone suggest that John’s a bad choice for this role. Let’s not lose sight of that.
The exercise I alluded to above is this:
As Executive Director I will work diligently to run a non-partisan staff. It is my intention to change the culture of LPTexas from the staff outward from one of internal bickering and division (with the result that we are an easily ignorable side-show to the actual governance of this state) to one of unified opposition to our common enemy (in the hope that we will demonstrate enough of an impact with our relatively small numbers to inspire more volunteers and donors to join us). The majority of rank and file out voters there don’t “hate us for our principles”, they ignore us because we don’t matter. This can’t go on.
In pursuit of this vision, I will undoubtedly make mistakes. You make mistakes, I make mistakes, we all make mistakes. If you voted for my appointment as XD because you thought I was perfect, I have some depressing news for you. For purposes of this ‘trial by social media’, I am going to plead guilty on all counts and throw myself on the mercy of the court. Assume the worst possible explanation of the most hyperbolic account of the facts and deal with me as you will. And then let’s get back to work.
Privately, I’d like to talk with Jacob and have a more nuanced conversation about our relationship as individuals and where we go from here. That ball’s in his court, but I’d like to sort it out if at all possible.
But organizationally, we have got to be more resilient. We need more individuals functioning as mediators and brokers and healers within the party, and less taking sides and actually amplifying and spreading negative emotions. That is my appeal to this body.
Last edited:
ericvansingel
New member
