Dear Editor,
Throughout the past few weeks, several residents of Morgan County have publicly expressed their dismay over the dismissal of Cynthia Huger, executive director of the Madison Morgan Cultural Center (MMCC). Those commenting have referenced Ms. Huger’s job performance as impressive, while she brought new enthusiasm, vision, broader partnerships, and greater financial stability to MMCC.
With equal unanimity, those commenting have assumedly found her termination to be a failure of the MMCC Board of Trustees to evaluate based on performance criteria, but rather allowing conflicts or internal politics and personalities to skew perspective.
Admittedly, not having first-hand knowledge of actual review process events, my opinion falls short of absolute knowledge. Yet collective viewpoints are the basis for some conclusions.
The term accountability refers to the acceptance of responsibility for honest and ethical conduct towards others. At MMCC, the 18-member board of trustees is responsible for the direction and control of the organization while ensuring good governance and accountability which extends to stakeholders, employees, and the wider community.
Accountability starts at the top. Four members serve as an executive board (chairperson, vice-chair, secretary, treasurer), which oversees the center’s strategic planning and decision-making. The chair’s responsibilities involve promoting collaboration among board members and supporting and supervising the Executive Director (ED) while following best-governing practices.
The ED is responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of MMCC - collaborating directly with staff, hosting public relations, fundraising, and program events. The ED serves as the face and public spokesperson of the organization. Ideally, the chairperson and ED should have regularly occurring touchpoint meetings, outside of board meetings, to discuss issues.
Since accountability means showing up and setting out to accomplish goals one intends to meet, I feel compelled to ask if Ms. Huger was evaluated on her performance or on her behavior related to something for which she was responsible. That answer will assumably remain behind closed doors.
As I consider this, my mind takes me back some 30 years ago to when I first saw the film “A Few Good Men,” which exposed themes of accountability and abuse of power. The storyline prompts the viewer to question the extent to which individuals are accountable for their actions, particularly when the actions are justified under the guise of directives or loyalty.
I continue to wonder how Ms. Huger’s termination can in any way be seen as representative of an action that conforms to standards of good governance, or were some personal matters placed above the better interests of MMCC? Do the actions take smack of behavior that the board now views as unacceptable? In the absence of consensus over the handling of this matter, I wonder if, as a practical demonstration of accountability, some MMCC board members might consider offering letters of resignation.
Peter Wibell, Rutledge