Quitting and Making Excuses: Verna Felton from ‘The Apprentice 3’

Over time, the Reality TV Hall of Shame has inducted several people who quit from their respective TV shows, such as Osten Taylor of Survivor: Pearl Islands, Sherry St. Germain of Canadian Idol, and Jill from Tough Enough 3. There have also been a few quitters who did not get inducted, such as Jenna Morasca and Sue Hawk from Survivor: All-Stars. Basically, those who got inducted did so because their reasons for leaving were found to be particularly shameful. Those who did not get inducted had better – perhaps even understandable – reasons.

The newest quitter to come up for debate in these hallowed Halls is Verna Felton from The Apprentice 3. And as you can tell by the fact that you are reading this article, it has been decided that she deserves induction into the Reality TV Hall of Shame for it.

Verna was one of tens or hundreds of thousands of people who applied to be on The Apprentice 3. She was one of only 18 who got the opportunity. And she threw it away. In several interviews after her quitting episode aired, Verna talked about how she “earned” her spot. On the Today show, Matt Lauer asked her if she felt she let anybody down because she took somebody else’s spot. She replied, “I didn’t take anyone’s spot, I earned that spot! I have business skills, I have the intelligence, the marketing and communications savvy to have earned that spot on the show. Similarly, she told TV Guide Online, “I went through a million rounds of interviews and tests and I earned my spot on the show.”

What Verna seemed to be so cavalierly missing was that, in fact, she did take a spot away from somebody else who wanted to be on the show, somebody else who went through a million rounds of interviews and who deserved it, but perhaps was #19 when there were only 18 spots. And that person likely would not have quit after only two challenges. Maybe they would have even won. But we’ll never know, because Verna took their spot and then threw it away.

Why did she throw it away? Unfortunately, Verna has been less than forthcoming with an answer. On the show, she claimed she was not feeling well and we were left with the idea that the stress got to her. Afterwards, she claimed that wasn’t it at all, but that she was using that as a cover. Why? Well, Verna gave us several possible answers – I guess we’re supposed to pick the one we like best and go from there. However, none of them actually stacks up.

On her website (dated February 4, 2005), she said she came to a crossroads and for her, “the decision was an easy one.” Why? She didn’t say. She hinted that “everything is not necessarily as it seems.” She went on to add, “Read between the lines and think for yourself. I would not have gotten as far in my life or even made it onto the show if I were simply a quitter who couldn't handle the pressure and stressful work environment. This is absurd. There must have been a reason for me to have quit. Something which made me feel the reward was not worth it. I will leave it at that.”

So rather than just telling us that there actually was a reason, she hinted that there “must have been a reason.” Why? Yes, she is bound by a contract that forbids her from giving details, but saying there was a definite reason is not a detail. When Osten left Survivor, he gave reasons – bad ones, but reasons. Verna didn’t even do that. Instead she hinted at possibilities, and it seems that viewers were just supposed to think of the worst thing we could imagine and then make the decision, "Well, that's not so bad then, if that's really what happened." Verna apparently wants us to convince ourselves that she’s right without even knowing anything. Nice try, but the Reality TV Hall of Shame will not be duped by such attempts.

In that same website posting, Verna tried to turn the tables on anybody who would criticize her by saying if they think they can do better, they should get on the show and realize that there would be millions of people thinking the same thing about them. This is a specious line of rationalization that is often used by those who want to distract attention from the actual situation. If it were true, no sports fan or commentator would ever be able to criticize a bad play, a poor coaching decision, or a missed call by an official. There would be no debate about whether a politician is correct in his or her views, because obviously they made it that far so they must be right. Newspapers and other media outlets would just lock their doors or become like Fox News and just report what somebody tells them – after all, who are they to judge? In short, it’s a horrible way to try to deflect criticism.