More Executive Shenanigans. Sigh.

Oh, AMS emails.

To whom it may concern,

I would like to formally apologize for certain content contained within the original version of my 3rd quarterly report. I originally chose to include comments about executive dynamics within the report in an attempt to shed light on the causes of recent events. I now realize that an official quarterly record is not the appropriate venue in which to raise these issues.

Further, I would like to specifically apologize for a reference made within the original document. The intention of drawing on an historical example (Wikipedia further apologies for lack of citation) was to support a shared executive responsibility for the current state of affairs. However, if such a reference has at all caused negative feelings or implications outside of that intent, I take full personal responsibility for those feelings and sincerely regret any such outcome. Such a sensitive reference should not have been included.

Please find enclosed an updated version of the report to replace my original submission.

Sincerely,
Tom Dvorak

What appeared in his original quarterly was a dissertation on dysfunctional executive dynamics and the reasons for that. It detailed how executives were more concerned about making sure their personal point of view was put forward, rather than coming to a consensus as an executive. Communication is poor. It was also disconcerting to hear that executive committee meetings were rarely, if ever, happening. Note that Tom is careful not to retract what he had to say, just to concede that the quarterly was not the appropriate venue.

Of course, what the second paragraph of the letter refers to is that Tom took it to a whole new level, referencing the “banality of evil”, in which it is postulated that great evil can be done not by psychotic or evil individuals, but by regular people who accept that what they are doing is considered normal and acceptable. This was put forth as a theory for how things got the way they did within the AMS. Tom acknowledged that it was “fairly drastic” to compare the executives to war criminals, but then… did it anyways. On a side note, we are extremely proud to proclaim UBC Insiders: Not war criminals, since 2007.

To all this we say: meh.

The AMS is at its best when it looks outside itself at issues rather than internal political BS. The navel-gazing that normally goes on, however, is a huge turn-off. With tonight’s council agenda focused on the slate debate, a proposal for a non-voting disability seat, and probably some discussion of this quarterly, it’s pretty clear which types of issues they are absorbing themselves with. My level of interest is at a near-low.

Executive dynamics are, I’m sure, a perennial problem. Hey look! UBC Insiders even had a post about it just last year. But why care? It’s a complete waste of energy investing any energy in this issue. This is one problem that is 100% guaranteed to work itself out, and quite soon: elections are just around the corner.