I will likely be publishing more documents Monday related to the termination of John Plotkin, and I am speculating that many of you who have been following this story will not be happy with what you see. While we are still going through the latest batch, some important points are beginning to stand out:

  1. There does not appear to have been a formal complaint ever filed against John Plotkin, rather a series of meetings and notes by HR using mostly third party and indirect allegations.
  2. The HR “investigation” included input from Brenda Rocklin and information attributed to Colleen Sealock.
  3. More than one person quoted in the HR “investigation” has directly denied saying things that were attributed to them and used in the termination of Plotkin.
  4. One key player initially denied any involvement in the termination to EC, only to be confronted by his peers over documented emails and phone calls.
  5. The Executive Council appears to be fractured, with some people having strong objections to what has happened at that company.

It is important to remember that not everyone is an enemy in this story. There are what appear to be good people that have been dragged into this not just against their will, but in some cases without their knowledge. There are also good people in EC, and they may be doing what they can in an otherwise impossible situation.

Joe Paduda was right when he referred to this as a “clustermess” (I have a similar, yet far more colorful term, but I know how sensitive ya'll are out there, so I refrain from using it). The more we learn, the uglier it gets.

Have a good weekend. We'll be talking Monday…


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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *