Yahoo Board Director Patti Hart Stepping Down Over Thompson Scandal

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yahoo Board Director Patti Hart Stepping Down Over Thompson Scandal

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday May 9, 2012 @05:25AM from the sealed-fate dept.

concertina226 writes "Yahoo has announced that board member Patti Hart, who led the committee that hired CEO Scott Thompson, will be stepping down. Hart has been under fire for overseeing the hiring of Thompson, whose resume wasn't fully vetted. I know some of you on Slashdot think that Scott Thompson didn't do anything wrong by claiming he had a computer science degree on his CV when he doesn't, but don't you think it's kind of weird that the guy who lied gets to keep his job as CEO, yet this director is being made a scapegoat? It just sends out the message that it's cool to pretend to have qualifications that you don't have."

15 of 96 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Seems typical, actually. by Grygus · 2012-05-09 05:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Surely you do not expect that a CEO will be held to account?
1. Re:Seems typical, actually. by Penguinisto · 2012-05-09 05:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  He probably will in due time.
  Ms Hart's problem was that she was put in charge of making sure his history was on the up-and-up, and she screwed up in a big way, potentially costing a metric ton of money to the company (the bulk of that loss going towards some golden parachute that Thompson likely has in his contract.) Long story short, she kinda had it coming for failing to do due diligence. It's not like they were hiring a new janitor - they were hiring the frickin' CEO. Microscopic vetting and researching of a candidate's background is pretty much a normal thing for that position, and the board has to do it - you don't trust that kind of work for that kind of position to HR drones.
  I figure Thompson may get fired, but they probably want to do it in a way that doesn't touch off lawsuits, or force them to pay out whatever severance money is listed in the contract. Yeah, I know that lies in the resume would normally count as a big reason why one can get fired with cause, but I don't know the details of his contract, and maybe the causes are limited to some list, with no one thinking that bullshitting on the resume would be one of those causes.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
2. Re:Seems typical, actually. by Chris+Mattern · 2012-05-09 06:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Once again, slowly, because some people seem to be slow picking up the point.
  The problem is not that he does not have a CS degree. The problem is that he wilfully and knowingly lied to the board and to the company. You may have no problem with a CEO you cannot trust. If I was on that board, I most certainly would.
3. Re:Seems typical, actually. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 07:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  He lied on his resume. He didn't exagerate or fudge a little, he flat out lied. The fact that so many here are okay with that is astounding. If he'll lie on his resume he'll lie on the balance sheet and to stock holders and anybody else he needs to lie to to get ahead.
4. Re:Seems typical, actually. by n7ytd · 2012-05-09 08:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nobody likes lying, and it's pretty hard to defend someone who gets caught telling a lie, but, do you really believe that Yahoo hired Scott Thompson because they thought he had a CS degree, from 1979, from some tiny college that nobody has heard of?
  No, they probably didn't hire him for his CS degree, so why did he feel it necessary to fabricate one? The issue is not if he has a CS degree or not; being a CEO doesn't require knowledge of spanning trees. He probably is a very capable manager-- after all he got this far, right?
  No one comes up smelling like a rose here: the CEO looks like a doofus for fabricating such an easily-debunked lie (or allowing a mistake to propagate, if we want to be generous). The board at large looks like a bunch of doofuses for not bothering to have a secretary make a 5-minute phone call to every institution in his CV. The guy who wants a seat on the board looks like a whiny nit-picker who is just looking for an angle to get leverage for his own agenda.
  The real issue, in my mind, is that if a Chief Officer of a billion dollar company can't be bothered to be ethical about such a stupid, tiddly detail, how can he be trusted to be honest about more weighty matters? Getting this detail wrong in filings to the SEC is at best a lack of fact-checking and at worst flat-out perjury. Who's to say the same guy would not cook the balance sheets or lie to investors?
  If all we can go on is his track record (since his qualifications don't seem to matter), this is a piss-poor first entry in his yet-to-be written record as CEO.
Give it time. by alexander_686 · 2012-05-09 05:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not that their firing a scapegoat, it is that it takes longer to fire the CEO.
And I don’t care if he has a Accounting or CS degree. What matters is his leadership abilities, which means setting the tone for values and ethics, which it looks like he is failing at.
Re:or perhaps... by Idbar · 2012-05-09 05:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

The message is simple, even though I don't agree with it:
"The ends justify the means"

Why wouldn't you want someone like that as a CEO?
Re:or perhaps... by donaggie03 · 2012-05-09 05:37 · Score: 4, Funny

...perhaps it sends the message that what you are able to do, and what you continue to do effectively is more important than what on-paper tests you've passed.

By that logic, the board member selected a candidate for CEO who ended up being successful at it; and therefore did her job effectively. Shouldn't that be more important that what on-paper test the other guy passed?

--
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Alpha Dog by StikyPad · 2012-05-09 05:39 · Score: 5, Funny

don't you think it's kind of weird that the guy who lied gets to keep his job as CEO, yet this director is being made a scapegoat?
Speaking as someone with a Masters of Social Science, Juris Doctor, and PhD in Theoretical Particle Physics/Cosomolgy, I see no problem with this whatsoever. After all, if someone who's qualified to issue himself a degree isn't good enough to be CEO, then who is?

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Because ... by PPH · 2012-05-09 05:51 · Score: 3, Funny

... lying is part of the job description of a good CEO. Writing code isn't. So Thompson has proven his qualifications. Hart, on the other hand, was given the job of doing a background check on candidates for that job. And she failed.
It could have been worse. Someone like Patti might have inadvertently let an honest person slip into a companies executive suite. And that would be a real tragedy.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
They want to avoid golden parachute payouts by Tanman · 2012-05-09 06:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

If I had to guess, the board is checking to see if they can nullify the contract due to fraud before firing the guy. But that's just my guess.
For years... by OldGunner · 2012-05-09 06:04 · Score: 3, Funny

I used to list University of South Vietnam, School of Combat Operations on my resume.

--
Vietnam Veteran / Former Postal Worker -- Use Caution When Taunting!
Patti Hart lied on her resume too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 06:07 · Score: 5, Informative

Stories are that Patti Hart also falsified her educational credentials too:
bloomberg.com - Questioning Hart's Background
"Loeb said that Patti Hart, a Yahoo board member who chairs the search committee, inflated her degree too. Hart, who also serves as CEO of International Game Technology (IGT), is listed in filings as holding a “bachelor’s degree in marketing and economics” from Illinois State University, Loeb said. “However, we understand that Ms. Hart’s degree is in business administration. She received a degree in neither marketing nor economics.” "
Re:Hart must have pissed people off by alexander_686 · 2012-05-09 06:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Independent board members have a pretty short list of duties.
Hiring (and compensating) the CEO is one. Like picking a partner for marriage, it is an infrequent decision that has big impacts. And it’s not like it was a subjective decision that can only be evaluated in hindsight. It was a simple, objective part of the hiring process which she failed at. If you have a single marjor duty to do, make sure you do it well.
Audit committee is the other.
Short does not mean unimportant. If shareholder democracy is going to work, they have to nail these 2.
Re:Call me cynical by alexander_686 · 2012-05-09 06:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Maybe yes, maybe no. Most “Golden Parachutes” have a cause that you get nothing if you are fired for cause or moral failure. Lying on your resume has been used before to revoke the payout clause.