SCN: Meeting: "It's not a dumb lawsuit."

[J. Johnson]

SCN's 2000 annual meeting was especially interesting because of
Board candidate Rich Littleton's statements regarding his suit
against the Board.  And your intrepid reporter was taking notes!
(Or trying to.  Rich was rambling a bit; the following is the
clear bits that I caught.  Perhaps others who were there can
augment this, or vouch for general authenticity.)

The issue broke when one of the other candidates, lawyer Tim
McCormack, asked what this "dumb lawsuit" was all about.  Rich's
reply:  "It's not a dumb lawsuit."  The bases are (apparently):
1) that upon being "bounced" from the e-mail training group "they
have not told me what the grounds were"; 2) that "Governance ...
has not moved on my complaint" [??]; and 3) that various Board
members were acting "outside of the rules".
 
The next question was from Kurt:  what is the positive outcome
[to SCN] to be had from this suit?  After going off into some
other directions, Rich finally stated that this "does not
actually affect the organization's coffers".

I could not penetrate his mumbling when asked for the dollar
amount of the damages requsted; he either did not know, or did
not want to say.  Steve Guest said the total (for all defendants)
is $86,000.

Rich added that he "has not heard anything from Governance."  So
I asked him if he would waive his right of confidentiality so we
could all hear the complaint.  (Which raised objections from the
defendants:  on advice of legal counsel they _cannot_ discuss the
matter.  Fine, but would Rich waive confidentiality?)  "Yes, if
what was revealed was in context.  I've asked that many times."
[Okay, more on this later!]

(Someone else asked all of the candidates if the prospect of such
a suit would deter them.  Responses were somewhat various, but
none felt inclined to withdraw.)

At the end, when Mel was trying to wrap things up, Rich said that
the issue is "... how do you solve a problem"?  And then:  "I
didn't raise the issue, so don't be shoving it down--."

At some point (I didn't note where in my notes) Rich's process
server (yes, that is still going on!) was walking around yelling
something, but she was even more incoherent than Rich, so I won't
even hazard a guess what that was all about.

I could not catch everything, partly because I was trying to be
very accurate with what I did catch.  If anyone can augment this,
let's hear it.

------
   After so much excitement, I just cannot restrain from
   editorial comment.  First, Mel deserves an accolade for doing
   a very credible job of managing the discussion in very trying
   circumstances.  Second, when Rich says his suit "does not
   actually affect the organization's coffers":  Put your boots
   on, folks!  By the Articles of Incorporation SCN is required
   to indemnify the Board members for all costs incurred.  (It's
   amazing that a topic taking up one-third of the bulk of the
   Articles should be so completely missed by someone so
   sensitive to his own transgressed rights and nuances of the
   by-laws unknown to others.)  Third, I think Rich did get one
   thing right:  The issue is, indeed, about "how do you solve a
   problem".  It's too bad he's going the wrong direction.

=== JJ =================================================================

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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/     * * * * * * *