Why Larry Grard was fired: Connor speaks

Published Dec 15 2009, 12:19 PM by Jeff Inglis

1

Richard Connor's office has issued the following statement. See my column in tomorrow's Portland Phoenix addressing these events.

 

 

Grading Obama's performance

Special delivery for Mike Michaud

1 Comments

• Michael Hawkins said:

  This sounds to me like an attack on Grard which doesn't offer much in the way of substance. The statement repeatedly says Grard is lying (or some kinder variation thereof), but then just gives us information which is already out there - he sent an email from work which insulted an organization. We know that. Grard said as much. If he was spreading any misinformation, then this statement just did the exact same thing.

  This is the motif of modern management: Try to use the most professional and asinine language possible while never really saying anything at all. They aren't offering any sort of reasoning here. Why was this email so significant? Why aren't 17/18 years of service more important? Why is Grard's "attempt to minimize [his conduct] as a 'lapse in judgement'" wrong? These are basic questions. Were this a response to some sort of exam, I would fail Connor for giving a lot of words without giving any meaning.

  That said, Grard is playing up the religious angle. He isn't, as the statement claims, making public assertions that "are filled with misinformation, misstatements, and untruths" (unless Connor's office is admitting to doing the *exact* same thing). However, based upon the known facts (again, as corroborated by Connor's office), Grard is giving his subjective spin. I think the better reason is that the newspaper industry is failing (especially given the low quality of the KJ and Morning Sentinel) and any excuse to get rid of a long-term (and higher paid) employee is a good one.

  Of course, had Connor actually wanted to make a substantial statement, he could have just pointed out that Thompson knows other people who are Christian (which is almost surely true) and he hasn't fired them. I'm willing to bet he even knows people who were bigoted enough to vote Yes on 1. If he didn't fire them, that would take away all of Grard's momentum.

  It should be noted, however, that sending off an email which does not adversely affect the bottom line - now or ever - is piss-poor grounds for firing an employee of 17 or 18 years. Thompson and Connor need to get some perspective and show some respect. What Grard did was minor. What the paper did was make an individual's life unnecessarily and unjustifiably more difficult.

  December 16, 2009 8:00 PM

Leave a Comment