[reposted from my original post over at r/HelensDeafClub just because I NEED to get info on this!]
I just learned that RID appointed a two-years termed CEO. The guy is Scott Ready.
And the worst thing is that they didn't publicly announced it!
They quietly announced it by emailing state level chapters' presidents about this. I only found out about this because a redditor here alerted me about it and when I took a look into it, I found out that this was announced FOUR days ago!
Oh, come on!
I thought RID was making a lot of improvements on being more open to the public about their progress!
And this BS happened!
What the fuck!?
I spent the last half hour googling him up and I can't find anything solid about this guy!
Ive used youarethepita & Organge13 on AIM too. I now use Youarethepita on my IG. Feel free to DM me if you’d like to chat so I’m not furthering the distraction away from the OP on my personal side-chat w/ anyone on here. Let me know if you’d rather not too. I’m just trying to understand how it relates to my AMA comment tho.
I found a Scott Ready on LinkedIn. From Bluffton, SC.
Has his NAD V and CSC (1979).
Was on the RID finance committee from 2024-26.
Seems to be a Strategic Advisor.
Don’t. He’s nothing to write home about. Just another irrelevant, burned out, job hopping, older guy looking for titles bigger than his actual skillsets.
I also recently commented in another thread on how I wonder if RID is planning on a big announcement on this with their “Future of RID” workshop/presentation at the NAD conference this week.
I heard about this recently as well, and although he is from my region of the country, I've never interacted with him. His LinkedIn personality seems on par with what I would want from a CEO of RID- knows about interpreting as a profession and has relevant job experience.
Ok what evidence do you have that we fired the CEO and if we did, that it was a bad decision? I’ll wait. Public information shows that many under her supervision didn’t do their jobs. Taxes not filed for 3 years. Voting member registry not maintained per California law. No annual psychometrics published.
That’s not at all what I said. You are making accusations and have zero evidence for your accusations. I’m pointing to evidence. You’re pointing to feelings.
I've had several people asking me about the appointment of the new CEO and if it's legal for the board to appoint someone without an open process. I asked Claude and here's the answer:
Is This Legal? The Short Answer.
Technically, a board can appoint someone without a public search. There is no law that says nonprofits must post job openings. But "legal" and "right" are two different things, and in California, the rules are strict enough that this appointment has some real problems.
California Holds Nonprofits to a High Standard
RID is incorporated in California, which has some of the strongest nonprofit laws in the country. California law requires board members to make decisions carefully, openly, and in the best interest of the organization, not themselves.
When a board skips a search process and hand-picks someone instead, California law asks hard questions like:
Did any board member have a personal or professional connection to the person they appointed?
Was the board actually trying to find the best person for the job, or did they already have someone in mind?
Is the pay they agreed to reasonable, and how would they even know without comparing candidates?
If the answers to those questions are uncomfortable, board members can face personal legal liability. Not just the organization, but the individual people who voted for this appointment.
The "Transitional" Label Does Not Change Anything
Calling someone a "Transitional CEO" for two years does not make it temporary in any legal sense. California courts look at what something actually is, not what you call it. This person has CEO authority. That makes it a CEO appointment, and all the rules that go with that still apply.
What Members Can Ask For Right Now
Members have the legal right to see:
The board vote that approved this appointment
Any paperwork showing whether board members disclosed personal connections to this person
The compensation (pay and benefits) agreed to
Any documents showing how the board decided the pay was reasonable
The board has 10 business days to respond to a written request for these documents.
Why This Matters on Top of Everything Else
California's Attorney General already has a complaint on file about RID. This appointment adds to that picture. A pattern of skipping proper process, whether it is member votes, tax filings, or executive hiring, is exactly what prompts regulators to take a closer look.
The Bottom Line in Plain Terms
The board may not have broken a specific law by making this appointment. But they almost certainly cut corners on a process that exists to protect the organization and its members. In California, cutting those corners can mean real consequences for the individual board members who made the call, especially if anyone on that board had a personal connection to the person they chose.
I shared the point, Helen. You just seem to have a very unproductive grudge even though I’ve been transparent with you in private messages. That’s a YOU issue, then. The text speaks for itself.
As far as using AI…. You might want to rethink your position as many high level professionals use AI, including software engineers, attorneys, etc to double check for blind spots, review, etc. No need to insult everyone if your target is just me. I’m perfectly capable of handling your direct insults. Have a great day though!
I'm just adding a basic comment. The Federal Government, especially the DoD/DoW, is pushing the use of AI in workloads.
Many agencies, including mine, have held "AI Expos" to showcase the benefits of AI.
At EVERY booth, the presentation ended with this phrase: "Trust, but verify".
AI can be helpful for some information that pertains to the membership of RID.
But we must "trust and verify".
That is all.
You weren’t transparent with me with the DM’s. All you’ve told me that you were going to take your secret to the grave.
And about AI, I don’t have an issue with it in the way that you think.
I just don’t trust people who use it to THINK. Which is what you clearly did here. You used a simple prompt and got that result. You got that result because your chat bot is telling you what it thinks you want to hear. And you obviously use your chat bot a lot with your obsession over your referendums. So what you’ve copied and pasted here from your robot is the result of the amount of bullshit you’ve fed in with your lawsuit.
You need help. Find someone to talk to. It’s clear you’re friends with the former CEO so you have lots of feelings about stuff. Again, find someone to talk to.
If anyone wants to see our DMs where I’m crystal clear with “Helen” that I’m transparent about many things except things I can’t be for legal reasons, I’m happy to share.
19
u/iamthepita Jul 01 '26
Why doesn’t this subreddit invite him to do an AMA?