our national obduracy

Music: The Orb: The Orb's Adventures Beyond the Ultraworld (1989)

A number of folks have asked my opinion concerning NCA Executive Director Nancy Kidd's response to charges of cronyism. Readers may recall I posted an open letter, here and to our professional organization's listserv, calling into question Kidd's choice of Betsy Bach for a staff position directing research initiatives. As former president of the organization, Bach pushed for Kidd to become the director of research. Now that Kidd is the executive director, she has appointed Bach as her replacement for director of research. From just about any vantage you come at this, the move does not look good and is embarrassing to the organization.

In her long, 35-paragraph letter, Kidd apologizes only for the strange way in which the announcement of the appointment was made. The apology seems insincere, however, as she blames individual members of the Executive Committee for the announcement's delay. Kidd only offers two paragraphs in support of Bach's qualifications, using the bulk of her letter, instead, to explain how she followed NCA by-laws to the letter. The larger argument she advances is that the national debacle really has to do with the failure of the Executive Council to "speak as one body." If one wades through all the verbiage, Kidd seems to suggest the Executive Council embodied widely differing views, and consequently, she looked to the association President, Dawn Braithwaite, as the ultimate voice of the EC. Kidd believes she has been treated disrespectfully and that the EC is guilty of sarcasm and incivility.

Of course, there are two major problems with Kidd's rationale. First, she wants it both ways: while she demands loyalty and that the EC should speak as one voice, she nevertheless decided that voice was Braithwaite's. Second, Braithwaite is a close personal friend of Bach; they each ran for association president back-to-back. Explaining that one consulted Braithwaite for her opinion about hiring one of her close friends does not constitute seeking the advice of the EC. Moreover, even if we could agree the president is the ultimate voice of the EC, the fact that the president and Bach are close friends should merit talking to other members of the Executive Council (indeed, this would not only be "best practice," but simple common sense). Rather, Kidd's actions and subsequent explanation constitutes cronyism, a fact only underscored by the fluffy, two-paragraph justification Bach's qualifications.

Braithwaite's letter is a waste of the screen and one's time. Bach's letter, however, does helpfully explain her thought process in a way that makes perfect sense: they couldn't get anyone to run for the staff position, and it went vacant for two months. After trying for months to encourage folks to apply, Bach threw her hat in the ring, not simply out of desire, but to some extent desperation. Although this rationale is entirely understandable, the fact remains Bach's willingness to serve cannot overcome the professional damage accepting the position has done. Nor does it overcome the fact of cronyism. Well-meaning cronyism is still cronyism.

Despite Kidd's accusations, however, the EC certainly did speak with one voice this week---all eight of them. In the letter they submitted to NCA members, Lynn Turner, Richard West, James Darsey, David Henry, Lyn Disbrow, Roseann Mandziuk, Ronald Jackson, and Ron Sheilds seem to suggest that they all disagree with Kidd's obstinate decision to defend Bach's appointment. While they advance a desire to work with Kidd and Bach, they also argue there has been a violation of "expectation and desire." The EC identifies two major issues: (1) the actual collusion of Bach, Braithwaite, and Kidd in the appointment of Bach; and (2) ambiguous policies and operating procedures. The conclusion of the letter is quite clear: the EC will continue to serve the interests of NCA membership, however, the membership and legislative assembly should determine what price Braithwaite and Kidd should pay for this colossal embarrassment. Kidd's contract is up for renewal, for example, in two years.

What we have here is a public drama or war between a "criminal three" and a "gang of eight," if you will. I use those terms with humor to point up the role of law in this skirmish. Basically, what we have here is a biblical conflict between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law (see Romans 2:29). The law in question is a NCA bylaw (Article IV, Section 5.1): “The Executive Director shall, with the advice of the Executive Committee, appoint the staff of the Association.” Apparently, lawyers on both sides have concluded that Kidd did nothing technically wrong, a point she hammers on repeatedly in her letter. The Executive Committee is arguing, however, the spirit of the bylaw is captured in its obvious intent: to make sure staff appointments are people the voluntary leadership can work with. It is intended as a basic "check and balance."

My opinion is that Kidd did not really consult the EC for advice on the appointment, and that she did not do so because she knew there would be resistance. She elected to advance a "letter of the law" argument to champion her choice. Of course, there were all sorts of private conversations we are not privy to; I suspect part of the problem is that Kidd gave her word in private space but did not live up to her word. This is the only way the tone of the EC's letter makes any sense. My sense is that many in the EC believe Kidd has double-crossed them.

Given the troubles the national office has had over the past decade, I confess I find Kidd's decision to dig in her heels on this issue not only stupid, but baffling. I also believe that she and Bach must have known the appointment would be controversial, and yet did it anyway. What this says to me is that the criminal three decided to spend valuable time and energy on personal drama at the expense of the organization and its membership. To me, the issue is not really about whether or not Kidd followed the letter of the law; the issue is that Kidd chose a predictable division and drama over peace, harmony and, frankly, good PR.

Finally, the elephant in the room has already been mentioned by Jim Aune on The Blogora, but it bears repeating here: increasingly NCA is governed by administrators with less-scholarly backgrounds. This differs from a number of major academic professional organizations (e.g., the MLA, the APA, and so on), which are often governed by prominent scholars or, as they say, "big names." Looking at past issues of Spectra, it's clear that NCA was also governed by "big names" until more recently.

I have been doing research in my field since I started graduate school in 1996, almost fifteen years, but every year I am confronted with a ballot increasingly consisting of folks whom I do not know or have not heard of. I do not mean to suggest we should have prominent scholars in all of our leadership positions. I do mean to suggest, however, that a director of research should be a well-known and respected researcher.