Civility and Sharma's Note

[Barb Weismann]

Rich:
Most of this discussion is of secondary consequence to a point I believe
Sharma made: doing the job.  Where is the substantive, job/work related
issue here?  Get lost from that, and you are using us for group therapy.
I for one just don't care about that.  I want to see forward movement on
issues.

You brought up a major one: board agendas.  This is of rather vast
importance.  The membership does have the right to know what business is
going to be conducted at board meetings and to know the results of that
business in a timely manner.  Otherwise, I personally feel that board
members are abdicating their responsibilities and/or expropriating power
from the membership.  We can, of course, vote them out.  But wouldn't it
be easier if we just asked them to get a little more organized and
responsive, like: publish the dang agenda, you guys, along with the
meeting place and time; at least a week prior to the meeting.  If there is
very little on there, well, you can gradually learn how to remember to
post agenda items, like, learning the job, as you go along. 

I remember I also asked, "how does one get on the agenda for a Board
meeting?" and what I got was not a routine (send us an e mail with your
proposal, we will post you one the agenda and return it to you) what I got
was invitations to the meeting.  No one ever asked me what the item was
nor told me whether I would be on the agenda.  The board isn't a party;
please make up some routines to be responsive to membership.

Barb

P.S. Rich, I think I believe more in the steam engine approach (regular,
steady pressure which is accessed until full throttle is reached) than the
internal combustion approach (lots of little explosions push the pistons).



On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> >From sharma at aa.net Thu Nov 26 00:55:30 1998 
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:39:27 -0800 (PST) 
> From: Sharma <sharma at aa.net> 
> To: scn at scn.org 
> Subject: Is Civility Cowardice or Evasion? Other Choices 
> Please 
>  
> On Nov. 25, 1998, Sharma Oliver wrote: 
>  
> "Regardless of Rich's enjoyment of "shooting from the lip", I fail  to see 
> how it improves the functioning of SCNA. Verbal bullying in the  name
> of  challenging "spineless cowering as a way of evading the  discussion
> of  issues" is annoying to me, to say the least. I have no interest in 
> working  with anyone who feels that intentional rudeness and verbal 
> attacks are the  equivalent of a "good discussion". "  
> 
> ------------  
> 
> Rich replies: 
> 
> 	Sharma, you really should specify my crimes.  The message you
> responded to did not have any of the things you are complaining about. 
> Next time, do include the instances that demonstrate what you are talking
> about. 
> 
> 	However, it is good to see some fire from you.  And you even make
> some good points.  We need to hear from you on the public lists more
> often.
> 
> 	It looks like you figured something had gone too far, and you sent
> a well-aimed blast in response.  I go along with that approach.  I've done
> it myself.  And, when the calm communications don't get the job done, you
> are right to blast away.  I am certainly not in any position to complain
> about your unleashing a little righteous anger.  I might not agree with
> all your points, but I applaud your stepping up an laying it on the line.
> 
> Sharma continued: 
> 	I think that there is a need for serious discussion of the need for change
> in SCNA. I don't think Rich's "style" is "serious", I feel it is bullying
> and implies that anyone who does not want to join him in the mud is afraid
> to face issues, or afraid to fight with him, or hiding something. It
> assumes that those on the board, for example, have unlimited time to jump
> when he snaps his fingers, and if we don't, we deserve personal abuse. 
> 
> Rich replies: 
> 	You touch on several items here.  Let's look at each. 
> 
> A Need for Serious Discussion   
> 	Righto!  However, I haven't heard much from you on issues.  I
> assume you do serious discussion in board meetings, but since most of us
> are not board members, we don't witness much of it.  Wednesday night, at
> the monthly meeting, which ended early, I invited you to sit down at
> coffee, but you declined.  After the annual meeting, a whole herd of us
> went for coffee.  You declined.  You talk with your inner circle, but when
> do you talk with members to get member input?
> 
>        At least join in on the list discussions more. 
> 
>        As for the seriousness of my "style."  Hmmmmmm.  If you think
> I am not serious about the message, you are burying you've been in a
> closet.  That is the important element to me -- the message.  As to style,
> I've seen board members brush off gentle communications too readily,
> and use phoney reasons (lack of respect, for example) to brush off
> others.  I suspect that part of the wish for sweetened and gentle tones
> is because it makes it easier for board members to evade.  
> 
>        For example, back at the beginning of the year, the issue was
> raised:  put out an advance agenda before the board meetings so
> members can see what the board will be working.  There was no
> haranguing followup by me.  So, the idea just sat, and sat, and sat, and
> sat, and disappeared.  You did nothing with it.  No board member did
> anything with it. 
> 
>        Now, we're not talking complexities here.  Brian High puts out an
> advance agenda with his committee.  He sends out a notice of the
> agenda in advance.  Why can't the board?  I personally think the reason
> is that the board values silence from the members far more than it values
> democratic input or open communication.  I could be wrong, but the
> record suggests that I'm not.  
> 
> Bullying ... mud ...
>       Well I never ....!  Land o' Goshen!  Bullying, eh?  I don't think
> that is a well defined term of art.  That's a new twist from a board
> member, however, Joel and Gianni accused me of not being respectful. 
> Actually, bullying is to use force/power unfairly.  I don't see where I
> have enough force/power to live up to that definition. Especially if
> you're referring to my "abuse" of board members.  Accusing an SCN member
> of "bullying" board members is sort of like accusing a woman of being
> "pushy" because she is insistent;  that word choice might say more about
> the accuser than about the accused.  The inappropriateness of the term is
> even more noticible when one reads the message that triggered your letter. 
> 
>        The same response could be applied to your "mud" word. 
> 
>        However, semantics aside, your basic point is:  You don't like
> argumentative language on the list communications.  I think you are
> right.  Sweet and gentle is usually preferred by 9 out 10 SCN users.  But
> so is not-going-to-the-dentist.  So is not-washing-the-dishes.  The
> question is: does the context call for it? 
> 
>        The answer is:  It does.   
> 
>        Just as you concluded the context called for your well aimed blast
> at me,  Context is key. 
> 
> Assumes board has unlimited time ...
> 	You've opened a BIG can of worms here, Sharma.  I have to get to
> some other things right now.  I'll get into the question of the board
> members' time availability in part 2 of this reply to you, later.  (I, for
> one, can hardly wait to hear what I have to say.) 
> 
> Later, 
> 
> Rich
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *