We now generally know the identities of those people who complained about John Plotkin's “salty” and offensive language, and it tells a troubling tale for what is happening in that organization. Plotkin, CEO for Oregon state fund SAIF, was terminated at a contentious board meeting in May for “using inappropriate language with employees”. Over one hundred employees were in attendance supporting him at that meeting.
We only know of four comments attributed to Plotkin, as he was not afforded the courtesy of documentation concerning his termination. Those now famous comments are saying “Speak English, not actuary” to a person of color, “My dog is a humper and he likes black dogs”, and a comment related to his attempt to relax the dress code at SAIF, where he said he didn't want the company to be “like my sixth grade PE class, where they check to see if you are wearing your jock strap”. He was also accused of saying the word “tits”. Plotkin maintains it was a story about milking goats, and he said “teats”.
I don't know why I keep thinking of Romper Room when I write these articles, but I do.
We know that the “tits” accusation had to originate with former CEO Brenda Rocklin, as she and Plotkin were alone for that now fateful goat conversation. We have learned that two of the other comments, the “Speak English, not actuary” and the “humping dog” were cited in complaints from the same person. What is shocking is that this person is not one of the common workers, the “serfs” of SAIF toiling in cubicles somewhere in the bowels of the building; no, it was someone in Plotkin's inner circle, a Vice President who is part of the vaunted Executive Council.
Why is that shocking? Looking beyond the fact that these were vacuously imbecilic complaints, I simply point you to a comment made by Board member Krishna Balasubramani, at Plotkins very public termination. In an exchange with Plotkin and his assertion that he had an open door policy and no intention to offend, Balasubramani indicated that it is sometimes difficult for some employees to speak with high level executives. He also indicated that they may hold executives like Plotkin to a higher standard, saying “is the standard the same for the CEO, or is it higher or lower? It's certainly not lower, but is it higher?”
If indeed we hold CEO's to higher standards, would we not then have higher standards for the executive team tasked with deploying his vision? After all, this is no mail room clerk working up the nerve to speak to the big man upstairs; this is a Vice President with years of experience who speaks to the man likely every day. Plotkin wasn't dropping trou and grabbing fannies in cubicle city, he was speaking to his Colonels and Majors. These were people who should have more tenacity and strength than to be offended by such inane comments.
If they had concerns, they should have had the testicular fortitude to walk through his door and open their mealy little mouths. Unless, of course, they, along with outside forces, had a different agenda.
The fact that it was an upper level executive that helped bring Plotkin down after just 3 short months leads us to speculate that there is more to this story than just the comments attributed to him thus far. Frankly, I would be embarrassed to have my name attached to that type of complaint. They are so shallow, so devoid of any truly potential offense that one has to suspect they were simply a tool used to accomplish a greater goal; a goal of removing a man that somehow threatened the status quo, as well as the legacy of a former leader. A former leader, by the way, who happens to be conveniently connected to the entire mess both as a source for one of the offending comments and as one of the people in communication with the internal players throughout the termination debacle.
Nice how that all works out. Damn convenient, I would say.
While I have had independent confirmation of the VP who initiated these complaints, no documentation of that fact has yet emerged from SAIF. Therefore I decline at this time to publicly identify them.
And that brings up a critical point. The unknown, surrounded by tremendous suspicion, presents a dangerous environment for those absorbed in this story. I have no doubt that a coup was successfully undertaken at SAIF, but the organizers of that event did not anticipate the counter revolution that hundreds of angry employees would bring forth. Their torches are lit. Their pitchforks are at the ready. The challenge for this now angry mob is to correctly target their ire, and not take innocent casualties in the process.
There are supervisors at SAIF who have publicly denounced the actions against John Plotkin. There are others who have quietly made their support known behind the scenes. Even Plotkin’s wife (or someone purporting to be his wife, since according to the Oregonian those of you who comment may not be who you say you are) has left comments on my blog saying some VP’s supported her husband, and that they were not all part of the operation to oust him. If that is correct, it likely means there are people in EC in an extraordinarily difficult position. Caught between someone they respected and a rubber stamp board that does as it is told (or is easily misled), they are either afraid to speak up or are following corporate loyalty by being good soldiers in the process. They are “just following orders”.
That strategy worked very well for the Nazi’s at Nuremberg.
No, while I believe that anyone who feels an injustice was committed has an obligation to speak up and be heard, the real problem on the front burner for SAIF and these angry employees is their current Board of Directors. Absent some horrendous information about Plotkin that has not been made public, it appears the Board either made a poor decision based on information it was fed, or, worse, they made a corrupt decision as part of a larger goal involving external players. Either option is not a flattering one.
And the bottom line is that no one with any skill or credibility, even John Plotkin, will want to assume the mantle of leadership at SAIF under the current directors. You’d have to be crazy to feel secure in that environment.
No, the current Board needs to go if SAIF is to ever start to heal. Perhaps the angry mob should focus its efforts there. While the next Board meeting was supposed to be in September, they have scheduled a tentative one for July 22nd in Portland. Perhaps it would be worth some more vacation time to attend, and let them know how you feel.
In the meantime, this appears more and more to be an Executive led routing of a CEO who was not aware of the politics and political correctness that permeated his new workplace. The leadership vacuum created by the actions of a few key players are putting an otherwise stable state organization at risk, and until the people at the top are held accountable, employees there will continue to be unSAIF at any level.
_________________________________
For a list of Bob’s other SAIF/Plotkin articles (as well as a couple old AASCIF articles that get picked up in the search), Click here.