No more Chad?

[Victor Bravo]

Sorry to offend or mis-quote... not my intent. Please accept my apology as appropriate.

But I do absolutely stand by the idea that if you have a Country Club, it should be 80% about golf. All the other stuff, the charity ball, the wine tastings, the business luncheons, they all have a place but not at the expense of pushing the golfers out of the way.

I believe EAA should reach out to the pilots and owners of high-dollar and larger aircraft. There should be, and is, a warbirds division, and an acro division, and an antique division, and an ultralight division. But those are branches, and I agree there should be a new branch of EAA for Aerostar/Citation/King Air owners. But changing the entire root and trunk of the tree, to the point where half of the leaves are unhappy, is not a good growth/survival strategy.

Continuing that discussion, admittedly, would be too much thread creep, so perhaps we should address "what's wrong with EAA" in another thread.

Chad, if you are listening, best of luck, and THANK YOU for what everyone seems to agree has been a very professional and high quality effort on your part. I hope you can un-do what happened, and/or remain involved.

[rwanttaja]

With the comment about trying to keep him in the organization, two things come to mind: Either EAA management felt he was ineffective (a ludicrous thought) or he managed to tick off someone that the EAA wishes to mollify... a board member, a co-worker, or advertiser.

Well, I guess there's a mid-ground. I got an email from someone (who I don't know) giving an explanation. It has the ring of truth, it fits all the evidence...

...and it is a private matter, like Dick said.

I'll say this about it: The dismissal had nothing to do with how Chad did his job, it does not (in my opinion) reflect badly on Chad himself, but, if the story I was told is true, I do not fault EAA for the action. They had a policy, and they basically had to enforce it.

Ron Wanttaja

[Turbomallard]

Well, I guess there's a mid-ground. I got an email from someone (who I don't know) giving an explanation. It has the ring of truth, it fits all the evidence...

...and it is a private matter, like Dick said.

I'll say this about it: The dismissal had nothing to do with how Chad did his job, it does not (in my opinion) reflect badly on Chad himself, but, if the story I was told is true, I do not fault EAA for the action. They had a policy, and they basically had to enforce it.

Ron Wanttaja

Excellent way of putting it. This has nothing at all to do with EAA's stance re hombuilts or anything else that has occurred since last year. It's a difficult situation for both EAA and Chad. If everyone here cares about Chad the best thing to do is to support him personally and let the private matter resolve itself.

Jim

P.S. In case anyone is wondering, no, I've never contacted Ron or met him.

[Mike Switzer]

If an employee was good enough to be hired, and he was doing his job properly, there are very few legal reasons to terminate in this day & age (policy or not).

[Floatsflyer]

Well, I guess there's a mid-ground. I got an email from someone (who I don't know) giving an explanation. It has the ring of truth, it fits all the evidence...

...and it is a private matter, like Dick said.

I'll say this about it: The dismissal had nothing to do with how Chad did his job, it does not (in my opinion) reflect badly on Chad himself, but, if the story I was told is true, I do not fault EAA for the action. They had a policy, and they basically had to enforce it.

Ron Wanttaja

Ah c'mon man, you can't poke all of us with, "I know something you don't know" and expect us just to accept. You must PM each of us and tell us the big dark secret.

[Floatsflyer]

If an employee was good enough to be hired, and he was doing his job properly, there are very few legal reasons to terminate in this day & age (policy or not).

I can only think of one based on an archaic corporate policy that is likely out of step in todays corporate world. It is a very rare occassion indeed to terminate an employee for cause because of the legal ramifications and the employer is not willing to become involved in court proceedings. That's why a company will just let someone go without cause and provide a favourable exit package.

I don't think it's much of a stretch for you to imagine what this archaic policy could be. It's meant to prevent a situation that is so common in every single office on the planet.

[rwanttaja]

If an employee was good enough to be hired, and he was doing his job properly, there are very few legal reasons to terminate in this day & age (policy or not).

Companies establish rules, and if you violate them, you can be terminated....as long as the rules don't violate legal protections. The company I work for has an extensive code of conduct, and we have to sign off on it on an annual basis. For instance, guns on company property are forbidden (except for company security officers and police). if an employee brings a gun to work (this is NOT related to Chad), the company will fire her, whether she holds a concealed weapons permit or not.

Ron Wanttaja

[martymayes]

I agree Ron, I have worked where they have zero tolerance policies. However, if someone was terminated for violating a company policy, never has the company offered to retain them in another capacity. That's just silly and defeats the purpose of terminating them in the first place.

[Bob Collins]

I don't mean to imply that Chad was the homebuilder representative and only the homebuilder representative. I think his gig may have started out that way but then his role expanded to "communities," and I thought that was an interesting term, because it implied to me -- and I think his performance confirmed this -- that there was a desire to integrate the needs and desires of PEOPLE -- as a community -- into the EAA structure which some felt had strayed from its relationship with members of varying interests.

I don't want to get into that whole discussion because it's been hashed to death previously. But I think my point is that Chad -- Chad's position -- was good for EAA, it was good for us as individuals and members. His position -- if not the sound of his voice -- represented us and, I think well.

If Chad stays with EAA, I think that's great. I consider him a friend. But I haven't heard anything yet about the position and while there are the usual communiques about how much the EAA values homebuilders and blah blah blah, I moved way past those statement to evaluating actions instead a long time ago. So really if Chad isn't going to have this job, the next thing I want to hear is that someone REALLY REALLY good (and not just the next person in line) is going to have it, that the job will still have a seat at the "adult table." Those questions should be -- and certainly CAN be -- answered right now, without violating anyone's privacy. So hopefully the next post in this thread is a one-word message: "yes."

By the way, Chad was one of my guests when I did the EAA Radio talk show at last year's AirVenture (a host choice the EAA bosses weren't happy with). You can find out more about what his job was and his goals here.

[Frank Giger]

We'll really miss him in his role at EAA.

[Lightening the mood]

In retrospect, while the money was really good it was ultimately a bad idea to take that night job as a male stripper.

[/Lightening the mood]