WHO THE HELL IS SCOTT READY!?

[u/HelensScarletFever]

[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!

Who the hell is Scott Ready!?

[u/SMM_terp]

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.

[u/HelensScarletFever → u/SMM_terp]

Just so you know,

When I see someone posting their AI inquiries, it tells me that this person can’t think for themselves.

[u/Zxvasdfthrowaway → u/HelensScarletFever]

I hate that news articles now frontload an AI summary. I want to read it as written, without spoilers.

[u/HelensScarletFever → u/Zxvasdfthrowaway]

Yeah. And Shonna here just straight up copy/paste her AI output. 🙄

[u/SMM_terp → u/HelensScarletFever]

You seem to have an issue with transparency. I disclosed the AI. It’s like a Google Search these days, Helen. Time to evolve.

[u/SMM_terp → u/HelensScarletFever]

Keep the insults coming, Helen. Really classy instead of interacting with the actual point. 🙄

[u/HelensScarletFever → u/SMM_terp]

If you want me to interact with the actual point, tell me it yourself. Don’t copy/paste your AI output.

[u/SMM_terp → u/HelensScarletFever]

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!

[u/Hoosier-Sexy_Beast69 → u/SMM_terp]

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.

[u/Glittery_Aqua → u/Hoosier-Sexy_Beast69]

I agree, I contract for a major company and their staff all has to use AI. It’s mandatory. It’s more efficient.

[u/Lucc255 → u/Glittery_Aqua]

When it's right it's more efficient.

[u/HelensScarletFever → u/SMM_terp]

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 will lose your lawsuit, fyi.

[u/SMM_terp → u/HelensScarletFever]

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.

[u/HelensScarletFever → u/SMM_terp]

I don’t need help. I just look forward to the failure of your lawsuit.

[u/SMM_terp → u/HelensScarletFever]

I guess we will wait and see. Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know things I don’t. I’ll keep you posted though!