Sienna wrote:ragpicker wrote:Hats Off wrote:Thanks, Josh, for that information. That is more likely to prevent me from contributing financially to CAM than all these other issues. By worldly standards that is not a large compensation. But when I consider all the unpaid volunteers and those who give faithfully of the little they have, it seems obscene to me. Are there really no good and capable men who would oversee this organization for less? I am sure he must be paid all kinds of travel and meeting expenses in addition to the salary.
Of all the reasons to not support CAM, this should not even register on the radar screen. It's a very modest compensation package. Josh offers additional details as to why it's also the right thing to do.
I am also unsure what paying his job related expenses has to do with this. That's not compensation.
I respectfully disagree with "ragpicker." Moreover, I am personally acquainted with individuals in the area of the main offices in Holmes County who were involved with CAM high levels of organizational and left CAM long ago due to integrity levels at the high levels. Yet, the main individual still remains in charge. These individuals who left have high levels of integrity in their own businesses and are very respected in their local community. This does register, as it well should.
I appreciate your being respectful. That’s well appreciated. But I’m a bit confused. I was talking about the compensation package being fair or not for that position in that type and size of organization. What I hear you addressing is the integrity of the individuals in that position, which is a completely separate issue. Am I missing something?
To clarify, I offer two questions.
1. Is that compensation fair and wise for that position in that type and size of an organization?
My answer was yes.
2. Should the specific individual in that position actually be in the position?
Your answer is no. Based on my understandings at this point, I concur.
Side note: I’ve long been a supporter of much of what CAM does. I’ve been less impressed with other aspects of the organization. So my confirmation bias would be to have my queasiness confirmed by the flood of accusations and rumors and interpretations of actual facts. But I won’t knowingly participate in a mob, etc. I want rational, thorough investigations, and then appropriate consequences and decisions for all malfeasance, from JM, all the way up though the organization to the very top, let the chips fall where they may. The most effective way to surgically remove cancer is with thoughtful precision and accuracy. Asking for precision and accuracy should never be construed as trying to protect the cancer. It just means I want the cancer dealt with as effectively and thoroughly as possible. Now I’m going to say something else. The cancer in this situation is far more than the issue at hand, or even the organization under scrutiny. The entire body is riddled with multiple types of cancers. These cancers are dependent on each other. If you go after one and ignore the rest, the body is still riddled with cancer and you’ll never eradicate the one you’re targeting.
Well, I probably just angered 99% of the spectrum from those who blindly support CAM and their supporting culture to those are consumed with anger at CAM. I’m gonna post it anyways. It is what it is, and it might spark useful thinking in a reader.