No Criticizing CKI

A few days ago, CKI President Troy Dibley engaged in behavior the likes of which I haven’t seen since I was in junior high pissing contests. In the debate of an amendment proposed (in part) by a member with whom he’d been having problems, he posted an email for (in my opinion) the sole purpose of making its sender look sneaky and conspiratorial. Now, of course he didn’t make any allegations — that would be a very forward and at least mildly respectable thing to do (as long as he actually made the comments relevant) — he simply posted the email and let people think what they would. He then came back into the post and tried to hide behind plausible deniability. After that discussion thread turned into a train-wreck, CKI removed the entire thing and reposted the original topic, hoping for a cleaner discussion. This move was also contentious, but I can definitely understand it. Today, having not observed Troy doing any sort of manning up and taking responsibilty for his bullshit, I crafted an open letter and posted it on the member community. It was only up for a few short hours before staff deemed it inappropriate for the CKI Member Community.

An organization which CLAIMS to promote democratic ideals, cringes at the criticism of it’s leadership. Yeah. Really democratic. I’ve emailed to ask on what grounds the post was removed, and I’ll be more than happy to share their “reasoning”, but in the mean time here’s the entirety of it.

On the 29th of March, President Dibley posted to a now-defunct thread in this member community regarding the “accountability amendment.” His post contained little more than the entire contents of an email that was neither addressed to nor intended for him. The email only concerned the thread insomuch as it accompanied an early version of the proposed amendment before it was finalized and had no other value whatsoever to the discussion at hand.

Though President Dibley’s motives are certainly not something to which I can attest, it certainly appeared — to me and to others — that this was undertaken maliciously in order to make the original sender of the email (Past Trustee Andrea Cuda) look bad. The evidence of such an appearance was demonstrated by later posters making comments such as “Let that be a lesson to everyone…never type anything in an e-mail that you wouldn’t put on a public blog” and “Why do you need to post an e-mail that was not directed to you in order to smear a person’s name AND create the idea that there is a conspiracy around passing these amendments?” While the intention behind this posting was not clear, the effect certainly was.

The next day President Dibley returned to attempt to justify the posting of the email by offering a glib dismissal of the notion that the email shouldn’t have been posted because it served as “background.” President Dibley did not respond in any form or fashion to the other criticisms, suggesting that he either a) did, indeed, intend for the email to be harmful to Past Trustee Cuda’s reputation or b) that he didn’t particularly care that it could’ve been interpreted that way.

Regardless of which particular stance President Dibley took in his mind, the result is obvious: acting as a leader of this organization and using a resource paid for by the dues dollars of the Kiwanis Family he either intentionally smeared an active member of this organization or knowingly allowed the misunderstanding to continue after seeing the impact.

More troubling than President Dibley’s disrespect for a member, and more troubling than the fact that he did it while acting in an official capacity in our name, is the fact that he doesn’t seem at all concerned or remorseful about what has taken place. Which suggests that he either believes that he is above the standards of common courtesy and respect or believes that he did nothing wrong.

In either of these cases, I suggest that President Dibley is being woefully neglectful of the giant responsibility of the office he holds and his duty to treat members of this organization fairly and honorably in public. This situation is unacceptable and should be remedied immediately.

I call upon President Dibley to publicly remedy this situation by posting an apology to the member community addressed to Past Trustee Cuda for his mistreatment of her and also addressed to the rest of the membership for irresponsibly representing us in such an embarrassing and public way. Failing such remedy, I would ask that Vice-president Stallcup, Director Keller, and the rest of the International Board to begin the process of removal to ascertain whether or not President Dibley actions were becoming of a member, consistent with his service agreement, and consistent with the goals and ideals of this organization.

As a member, I feel that a leader who doesn’t understand that this sort of behavior is unacceptable is not fit to hold such an important office and one who does understand that fact but cannot accept responsibility for his mistakes and attempt to make them right has less integrity than the position requires.

Pete Holiday
University of Alabama

Now, I thought that was a perfectly respectful, polite, and reasonable criticism based on solid principles and firm logic. Staff thought otherwise. In light of this obvious thought-policing of the CKI Member Community, I’m giving serious consideration to re-opening the UnofficialCKI Forums because, honestly, members need a place where they can go and discuss freely without fear of heavy-handed censorship anytime they post something disagreeable to staff. Update: http://www.unofficialcki.org.

Troy’s SECOND post (his “defense”) and my rebuttal to that are below because, frankly, I liked my rebuttal and I’m not afraid to say so.

First, from Troy:

This year, I believe that the CKI Board has taken ownership in the decisions it has made and the amendments it has proposed to the CKI governing documents. Similar to other years, the Board Book is posted online prior to the Board meeting, a monthly committee report (which now averages 4.5 to 5 pages each month) is produced and sent to the organization’s leadership and membership at the month’s end, and liaisons have helped spread news and information to their assigned districts.

Shortly after the December Board Meeting, the district governors and administrators were sent a pdf document of the exact agenda points and alternatives that were passed at the Board meeting, and will shortly be provided educational literature about those agenda points. All of this was done to promote transparency and openness. While I agree that transparency in the organization is not where many members hope it would be, the organization is becoming more and more open for inspection and critique.

As a Board member, my role is to present the membership will all the information. I posted Andrea’s email without comment regarding her intent for writing it or without my personal feelings involved. When I personally send an email out, I am held accountable for the information I release in that email. As you can imagine, emails I write to individuals are often passed without my knowledge to others either also wishing to obtain that information or for other purposes. Andrea’s particular email is relevant to discussion because it is the email that accompanied the amendments that are posted in this thread. Do I think that all emails and communications should be posted? Absolutely not. But, in this particular case, it was relevant to the thread because it is background information. The email speaks of creating a system of checks and balances and a way to hold the CKI Board accountable. This is particularly of interest this year.

These proposed amendments can/will affect the entire organization and should be discussed. The Executive Committee is currently working on the following directive: better define role, responsibilities, and authority (if applicable) of the Governors Council. As Mondo has discussed, Wess has been assigned this directive and has been communicating with the Governors Council Chair and Secretary to make headway. The idea is that to create a true system of checks and balances, an amendment of this type should have feedback and ownership during the planning stages from both the governors and the Board.

Regarding these proposed amendments, many of the flaws that I see have been discussed previously. Having previously served as Chair of the Governors Council, I remember the frustrations that the 2003-2004 class felt certain times during the year. I do believe that there does need to be a voice for the Governors Council, but that unified voice should come from all governors. I am unsure as to whether all governors see merit in a Governors Council.

The fundamental flaw currently with the proposed amendments is the budgetary implications of creating a Governors Council in the CKI Bylaws at this point in time. Business cannot be conducted via internet chatrooms, which means that either (a) an in-person meeting or (b) a teleconference call with the thirty governors will have to occur. These are some huge logistical and budgetary obstacles to overcome. Also, be it a club board, district board, or CKI Board, every step of the way the organization encourages Kiwanis support and mentorship through advisors and administrators. There is not currently an ex-officio member of the Governors Council to provide active support and guidance to the Council.

Placing many of these amendments in the CKI Bylaws allows for limited flexibility for the Governors Council, which could be potentially harmful to the organization and to the Governors Council as a whole. A better alternative would be to start with this sort of policy in the Board Procedure Code or CKI Policy Code (which can be altered and fine tuned on a more regular basis) and then move it into the Bylaws. It would take more time, yes, but it would ensure that we’re taking the right step.

-Troy Dibley

Now, my response:

Troy, this is probably the lamest justification for juvenile behavior I’ve ever seen, and I used to coach little league football. Let’s take it one sentence at a time.

As a Board member, my role is to present the membership will all the information.
So let’s start with ‘all of the information’ regarding the removals and/or resignations of former Trustees Feasel and Cuda. Or did you mean it’s your job to provide ‘all of the information’ when it suits you?

I posted Andrea’s email without comment regarding her intent for writing it or without my personal feelings involved.
How noble of you… hiding behind plausible deniability instead of taking responsiblity for your actions.

When I personally send an email out, I am held accountable for the information I release in that email.
Yes, because you’re acting on behalf of the membership. Andrea was acting as a member, not an official representative of any official group. You of all people ought to be able to recongize the difference between an email sent in an official capacity as a leader and one sent by a member to another member.

As you can imagine, emails I write to individuals are often passed without my knowledge to others either also wishing to obtain that information or for other purposes.
Well, if everyone else is doing it, it must be okay, right?

Andrea’s particular email is relevant to discussion because it is the email that accompanied the amendments that are posted in this thread.
Simply being attached to the amendments doesn’t make it relevant here. It makes it ‘on topic’ but I’m sure you’ve sent some emails to other members regarding this amendment that you have yet to post. It didn’t add anything to the discussion (except, now, a discussion of your maturity and capacity to lead) and there’s no way you could’ve thought it would.

Do I think that all emails and communications should be posted? Absolutely not.
Only the ones that you think will make folks you disagree with look bad, right?

But, in this particular case, it was relevant to the thread because it is background information.
Then we can expect to see a complete log of all international board emails sent to you discussing the development of this and other amendments? You know, as ‘background’? Seems reasonable to me. Or is there a double-standard here?

This lack of decorum from an International President is an absolute embarassment, Troy. I’m sure it made you feel nice and powerful, but it’s time to man up and admit that it was inappropriate.

Pete Holiday
University of Alabama

So… thoughts? Questions? Things that are confusing without background? Let me know. This post will remain up indefinitely — feel free to pass it around, since it’s impossible to get this information out to the membership through normal channels. Anyone feel like starting an UnofficialCKI Yahoo Group?