Sorry, but employment decisions never have been and never will be based entirely on fill in the blank criteria. When any group of people are deciding on who will make a lasting contribution to an organization, personal judgement will factor in.
You seem to be advocating Union Rules: punch the card the requisite number of time and you can’t be touched.
Oh, so black-balling is fine in your world? Besides that, I have never made the statement that personal judgement is not part of the equation. In fact, it may be entirely the reason for employment. If someone wants to mow my lawn, that employment is completely a personal decision. However, we are not discussing lawn-mowing.
Your last statement is not a question, but an assertion of your own. I suggest you support it with evidence. I have never mentioned Union Rules nor punch cards in this discussion. It also seems self-evident that "fill in the blank" criteria are a necessary component to any employment decision(again, we are not discussing lawn mowing). The only "jobs" of which I am aware that meet your "untouchability" criteria are tenured university positions.
I also will take this opportunity to provide an example of the undermining the stated goals and objectives criteria. That would be the case of Ms. Comer who undermined the neutrality sought by the TEA.
NCSE was kind enough to provide a draft letter showing that she had been warned for her activities 8 months before the email forwarding event.