The truth is, my opponent could already be on the Board if he was a good fit for it. He interviewed to fill a vacancy on the Board last November, and his answers to questions about his vision and goals for SCC showed an utter lack of understanding of important issues at SCC and no concept of what is needed to advance SCC. As a result,
only 2 out of 10 Board members voted for him among the two candidates who interviewed.
only 2 out of 10 Board members voted for him among the two candidates who interviewed.
There you have it: the people who know best what it takes to be an effective Board member considered him and determined he doesn’t have what it takes. This was not a party-line vote. Even Republican members didn’t vote for him. We made our choices based on the quality of his interview question responses, which were pitiful. The Board even discussed at the meeting how extraordinary it was that he could use so many words yet so completely fail to demonstrate understanding of what matters for SCC.
The current Board already decided they don’t want to work with him, not because of partisanship, but based fully on merit. He showed us with his rambling answers that he has a lot of words but lacks relevant ideas for leading SCC. As a result, he was rejected by the Board. Voters should do the same.