After reading this it looks like John Diamond is the one that started the fued because he needs a better job that is guarantteed better pay. I hope she fights this to the end. Go Candy fight this, you deserve your job back

I agree with Mainer72. It sounds like the Board Chair is a little drunk with power. That is always the sign of a truly ineffective leader. This could really hurt the Chamber if people start pulling out.

The woman is absolutely useless, and should have been fired long ago. It is outrageous that she is demanding far more than she is worth, considering her abysmal performance the last few years. Stop prolonging the process and cut her loose.

Chambers (of commerce) all over the state are going through these kinds of struggles. It's most likely because they don't really know why they exist anymore and the same old routines just don't work anymore. It's always easy to blame the leader, when really blame belongs to the whole board and membership. One would have to assume there is a litany of performance issues documented in this case...or not. If not, then go for it Candy!

Hey, whose is surprised. More dirtbag politics at play! The lady does her job well and gets thumped for it.

So, what do her performance eveluations say if she has done such a poor job?

I always am suspicious of board chairs who were in the legislature, who has had political PR jobs, and is looking for work. That being said, I do not know the facts of her employment but too bad these type of jobs end up in this type of struggle. My firm is a member of the Chamber and I always viewed our membership as well spent. If it gets taken over by a group of political elites, I will be very concerned.. The members will do what is right and not stand by if this is unjustified. [ hopefully]

Any sudden dismissal is suspicious, particularly when the gimcrack reason given is poor performance. Ms. Guerette has an excellent lawyer in Mr. Gilbert and I am certain that Mr. Diamond and his cronies will have difficulty proving their case. It will be very interesting indeed to watch it all unravel.

Well let's see if Ms Guerette is just out gunned here for now, as I really think it's in changing of the guard from business folks to highly paid persons from public agencies and trying to do it on the cheap?

Interesting about a conversation told to me in regards about the Chair and Vice chair of the chamber board. These two chamber top dogs do ok, thanks to the Maine State Tax payer.

The chair must have had a great review for his day job performance at the University System as their salary and benefits, I am told are now over $ 162,000 as a result of having had a $ 7,000 dollar raise ths past year? (per a web site showing State Maine salaries). The Vice Chair only comes in @ $78,000 but made saw a $ 40,000 increase in salary in one year at the same job from state coffers?

And the chair am told he also owns a business ? Does his business offer health for it's employees or does the UMaine System subsidize his business expenses by providing his families health care?

Interesting.............Will any of her former chamber colleagues or business leaders stand up for her at the meeting?

Huh?

An 8 month severence package??????

After reading this article, I'm wondering....What exactly is "poor performance". I was born and raised in Bangor but am quite ignorant of what's going on there. Was the chair routinely late in completing what ever business she was responsible for? Was information she processed routinely inaccurate? She's the chair of a board.....a board that oversees public business. (A group of local business leaders working for the good of all local business is public.....isn't it?) Shouldn't her "poor performance" be public information? Poor performance is "very vague" and would seem like it could be highly subject to "opinion".

So....what are the facts here???? Maybe I missed an earlier article.....so please forgive my ignorance. But if any of the 850 members of this chamber are aware of and allowed to divulge some of the facts related to the "poor performance" of Candy Guerette in her role as a the Chair of the Chamber.....I for one would appreciate it.

Im in the office daily and Candy always did a great job. Politics is all it is and like i said before John Diamond needs a raise

There is definitely something amiss here. Mr. Diamond's day job is working for the University of Maine system...paid for by the taxpayers of the State of Maine....and his involvement in this is embarrassing and more than likely will become even more so as the truth unravels. Chancellor, time for you to step in before your external affairs director gets outed for his unethical behavior - and ill-conceived coup and you end up hiring another spin doctor to spin your spin doctor's antics!

Isn't it a little early for all the conspiracy theories? If Diamond's salary is indeed the 6 figure number included in an earlier post, then it makes no sense that he is doing it for a "raise" as mainer72 wrote and others alluded to. Sounds to me like Guerette is swinging below the belt and just trying to distract us from the issue at hand: poor performance.

Well, perhaps this will shine a light on the inner workings. This is from a May 26, 2009 Bangor Daily News article - UM SYSTEM PANEL GIVES EARLY ADVICE......

"In the past 18 months, Pattenaude said, the system office budget has been cut by $1 million through layoffs and cuts in outlays for memberships, travel, equipment, program money and consultants. The system office will not take stimulus funds, he added.

Four positions were eliminated in the central office, including a receptionist’s position and the department of external affairs and the position of director of external affairs, held by longtime UMS employee John Diamond, a former House majority leader and the chairman of the Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce board of directors."

Looks like Mr. Diamond is in the job market - and decided he wanted Ms. Guerette's. How convenient for him - not so much for her!

I know Candy. Her integrity and work ethic are absolutely impeccable. There is a snake in the woodpile and it is NOT Candy Guerette. She would never "swing below the belt" as alluded to by bangorguy. Think again. Everyone will be utterly stunned by what comes out in the wash with this. I can assure you, Candy will not be the one who is embarrassed.

DrumBangingGirl-your use of the word alluded was incorrect. Therefore, I think you are the one who needs to "think again." You are defending someone who is most likely your friend, and I respect that. However, this also means that you probably only have heard the side of the story coming from Guerette, and in a situation where she has been fired, she could very well be changing the story to avoid the obvious embarrassment that being fired for poor performance carries. Also, I looked up the information on Diamond's position being eliminated. He will still hold his position until fall of 2010. Sounds like people are simply fishing for an alternative explination of why she was fired when the obvious explination is that she didn't do her job well enough to keep it any longer.

bangorguy23 who is correcting use of words should watch his spelling - explination?

Is that why Ms. Cole is only the interim...a placeholder of sorts....how's that for an "explination" bangoryguy 23???

re 9:14 am, how is the word "alluded" used incorrectly?

al?lude

??/??lud/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-lood]

–verb (used without object), -lud?ed, -lud?ing.

1. to refer casually or indirectly; make an allusion (usually fol. by to): He often alluded to his poverty.

Works for me!

Also, if Mr. Diamond is alleging poor performance, then he should have no trouble proving it. However ,if it can be easily proven I doubt that the Gilbert & Greif law firm would have taken the case. They typically take cases on contingency, so logically they have to be pretty sure from the get-go that they can win it.

First of all, alluded was used incorrectly. I did not indirectly refer to a swing below the belt, I actually said it. Secondly, there obviously has to be an interim taking over the position, because there couldn't have been time for them to search for a full-time cantidate for the position.

Also, keep in mind that the law firm that has taken the case gets paid no matter what happens. Win or lose for Guerette, the law firm still wins.

bangorguy, unless you have inside information, no, the law firm does not get paid if they lose. They get paid on a contingency basis. That means they only get paid if they win.

It didn't take 13 years for him to determine she wasn't performing her job properly. He just recently took the position as chairman of the board. Maybe someone should ask the past chairs how well she did under their supervision.

Just how would a member of the Legislature and public sponge on the UM payroll recognize poor performance when he saw it?

The same way everyone else does would be my guess...

If John Diamond's agenda was to one day step into that position, he has essentially removed himself as a candidate with the way he has handled this situation. That often happens when you begin to think you are the great and all powerful Wizard of Oz. The Chamber exists because of it's members. They have a voice and power in what happens within the agency. I think some people have forgotten that.

Wouldn't someone with Diamond's experience in politics be aware of that? Hence my argument that this is just a made up conspiracy theory designed to distract from the fact that Guerette was no longer capable of performing her duties properly.

Perhaps Bangorguy23 has some inside knowledge...maybe one of the enlightened members of the Executive Committee??? This is not good for business.

Now Bangorguy23, in your last post you say "No longer capable of performing her duties properly" whereas before you state Guerette was "fired for poor performance". Did your advisors tell you to change the tone and rhetoric? It is a slippery slope regardless.....

I seriously doubt there was sufficient cause for the "sudden dismissal" of an employee who has worked for an organization for 13 years. There is a standard way of dismissing an employee which includes written warnings, periodic written performance evaluations, probation periods, etc. This creates a paper trail supporting the employer's claim of "poor performance" which makes it highly unlikely for the fired employee to file a wrongful dismissal claim.

I have quickly gone from someone who doesn't know anything to part of the Executive Committee? Both were intended to mean the same thing, but the former sounded more auditorily pleasing than the latter.

Bangorguy, I think you might be the man himself...

More auditorily pleasing to whom?

bangorguy23, too funny how you started to point out how people let the imagination run wild with conspiracy theories, and now they assume you are Diamond. Also law firms work on contingency basis when they are suing for a monetary settlement of which they can take a percentage. It a situation such as this I doubt they are working with out pay on hopes of obtaining a percentage of this ladies health insurance or half years pay.

should be a public disclosure as to specific reasons for casting her out. not a secret agenda ...... what are the facts in this case? was she good for the community or did she rip them off for 13 years?????

Hey bangorguy23, you can not know anything and still be an executive.

Hey John, how convenient that you find yourself in this position. I guess if I knew my job was getting cut I would just cut someone else out and move right in, right? Hope you're sleeping well these days.

The Chamber should give her a new Mazda, a trip to Mexico and a ceramic Paul Bunyan statue. She should be happy with that.

3:22 pm, why should she be happy with that if she was fired without cause? I see that you are retired and I congratulate you for that, but most employed people will fight to keep their jobs.

It sounds like Disparate Treatment Disparate Impact to me, Can you say Title 7act.

bring on the dirty linen. We like that kind of stuff here.

Am I reading this wrong or wasnt the decision made by a committee of 7? Couldnt that even mean Mr. Diamond wasnt even behind the decision even if the other 6 members wanted her out?

I'm sorry, I don't think she did such a great job. There were some"good old boy tactics" in her tenure. People who are not as sharp as they want people to think they are, tend to hire people that won't inadvertantly threaten them by peforming in an outstanding manner. Bangor is full of incompetent people in adminiistravtive positions that dont' belong there. There are many good and talented people out there looking for jobs that could greatly benefit this community. But they are not given a chance because the person hiring might be revealed as incompetent. There are a few good jobs and the same old people and their families are "hogging" them. Trust me, I know.

Years ago I worked with Mrs. Gurette and was impressed by her enthusiasm and integrity and the grace with which she handled the challenges that came her way professionally and personally. The Chamber has been a growing concern under her tenure but she may have helped create an organization that has outgrown her expertise. These things happen; all of us can be replaced. I don't know any of the details surrounding her dismisal, but I don't feel her demands are excessive in the least. If you were to examine the dismissal clauses of the contracts of the seven members who dismissed her, I'm sure you'd find more generous terms even if the dismissal were for cause. Mrs. Gurette deserves consideration and fair treatment. Keep the dirty laundry in the bag.

Three months? The Chamber director in Camden, I heard, got a year of severance when the executive committee fired her after two years. Candy worked there 13 years?!? That should be a month for each year served. She needs a new lawyer; maybe the lawyer that helped in Camden, would be a good start. The Bangor chairman is a sleaze bag. Let's see the beating the chamber takes in all areas of revenue, membership, sponsorship, advertising when he's done! The place will be trashed just like Camden (see villagesoup.come for apology for wasted fireworks in the fog and declining sales figures). Diamond should take the job, with a straight face, and kill off any hope the business community has of survive, in this economy. The businesses in Bangor, will get a real understanding of how an effective chamber can make a difference in their bottom line. Speak out and defend your Chamber President because it will cost you a lot more in the long run! Rise up! Speak Out!

Hold a vote of "NO CONFIDENCE" in your Executive Committee and Board if they too, bend over for the executive committee that is railroading a competent woman.

Ms. Guerette is getting her long over due just desserts!

I hope she is never given the authority over a black fly as she would surely abuse that authority as she clearlt demonstrated when she was Town Manager in Orrington.

Ms. Guerette is just out for Ms. Guerette. I wouldn't trust that woman as far as I could throw a truck!

I hope Ms Guerette gets some additional consideration ( 1week per yr is a minimum) in this poorly handled situation. I am sure she does want to stay if she is not wanted by her membership though it shows why a board meeting is now necessary, though I find it hard to believe how foolishly this is being handled over all.

Businesses do no want to join an organization that cannot stay focused on business not personalities. So board business done via the drama spot light such as news organizations is not good, bad..

And 13 year term director of the chamber says two things;

either a supportive business community to business needs or a bunch of dummies who just never knew what was falling apart, i.e., the board of directors.

The chamber of commerce says allot about folks coming to start a business in Bangor or joining the chamber for the 1st time.

While an Executive Committee can make decisions when the full board is not in session, it is highly suspicious when they make a determination about an Executive Director's position. That is generally done by a personnell committee appointed by the board, who then makes a recommendation to the board for full board approval. The actions by this Executive Committee are unethical at best.