3 ms·
> When she walked into the arena with Altman to try and remove him however he had much more experience and orchestrated an incredible counter-coup. Nit: Altman
by tivert 3y ago
> When she walked into the arena with Altman to try and remove him however he had much more experience and orchestrated an incredible counter-coup.
Nit: Altman may have orchestrated a coup, but the board certainly did not. The board is the legitimate authority, and in no way is a board firing its subordinate a "coup." Rather, it's executing its legitimate power.
Coups triggered when subordinate feels threatened is a pretty common pattern. IIRC, the recent coup in Niger was triggered when the leader of the presidential guard thought the president was about to fire him, too power in a coup rather than lose his job.
- jacquesm 3y agoCorrect, the board acted rashly and without forethought but well within their authority. Their big failure was that they didn't make it stick.
- lukasb 3y agoI mean, they did get Sam off the board, right?
- jacquesm 3y agoThe fat lady hasn't sung yet and if Sam can control the board indirectly he doesn't actually need to be on the board.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y agoPresumably, Toner et al agreed to this compromise because they believed it was a meaningful improvement compared to a board composed solely of Sam and friends. The "fat lady hasn't sung" point works both ways -- for all we know, the new board's investigation into this incident will be incredibly damning for Sam.
- jacquesm 3y agoThat's true, it may well be that. Or it may be a whitewash because he has them by the short and curlies now that it is known what throwing him out will do.
- CSMastermind 3y ago> The board is the legitimate authority, and in no way is a board firing its subordinate a "coup." Sam was on the board. They didn't fire a subordinate they kicked a peer out of the group.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y agoThe board's most important job is to figure out if the CEO should be fired. Your comment seems to imply that the board should never fire a CEO if that CEO is on the board. If that's the policy, then having a board with the CEO on it seems fairly pointless.
- jacquesm 3y agoThe CEO being on the board is a governance failure to begin with, even if it is a very common one.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jjeaff 3y agoNo, I think the implication is that it was an attempted coup. Not because they removed Altman as CEO, but because they removed him as a board member.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y agoSo they were supposed to remove him as CEO and keep him on the board? I think that plan fails rather predictably.
- sumedh 3y ago> The board's most important job is to figure out if the CEO should be fired. Why did they take out the chairman of the board.
- dekhn 3y agoThe board met but didn't include the board chair, and voted without him being present (they could form a quorum). I am not so sure it's exercising your legitimate power if you don't include the board chair on purpose.
- jacquesm 3y agoOf course it is: otherwise, how would you ever remove the board chair? Quorum is normally all that matters as long as the rest of the bylaws of the non-profit board are followed. Whether it is elegant or not is another matter.