SCN: Crandall's Idea

[Rich Littleton]

I'd go for this idea.  I'd like to meet with Ken Gillgren to discuss
opitions.  Then assemble three to be determined after I talk with Ken.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Ken Gillgren wrote:

> Well, for what it's worth, I would be interested in participating in some
> kind of review process. I was involved years ago in helping to get SCN on
> the ground, and have continued to encourage the use of SCN by schools and
> community groups. Except for these email exchanges, I don't know Rich or
> is work on the email training at all. I don't know the names of the folks
> named in the suit, but would feel comfortable talking with anyone on
> resolutions short of formal court action. 
> 
> Are there two or three others? I'm at least open to meeting with folks.
> 
> Ken Gillgren
> 
> 
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I think this is a good-faith suggestion.  It might lead to others that
> > could reach the same result.
> > 
> > The problem with this PARTICULAR (but logical) proposal is that, this sort
> > of review was PRECISELY what Haskins and the two guests deliberately
> > ignored.  Such a review was the missing step and that step would have
> > resulted in a finding that there was no basis for dismissal.  
> > 
> > And who would do the review?  Governance? which now has to justify its
> > inaction before?  The Board? which also has to justify its refusal to step
> > in earlier when asked.
> > 
> > Are you aware of any unbiased members?  If so, maybe there can be formed a
> > task force.  If so.
> > 
> > It's a positive thought.
> > 
> > Rich
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > I would seem that this provides a rational avenue to end this energy wasting
> > > efforts and concern about the financial aspects related to the pending
> > > lawsuit.  There should be a grievance review procedure,  a method of
> > > establishing one if none exists,  or use the Governance committee if that is
> > > the best procedure and give Rich his review before his fellow SCNA members
> > > rather that solve internal problems in the court.
> > > 
> > > Assuming the Rich is as concerned about SCNA as he professes, having this
> > > review within SCNA should allow him to withdraw his suit and everyone can
> > > concentrate on productive ventures.
> > > 
> > > I hope those involved will see this or some other process as preferable to
> > > the mess we are currently in.
> > > 						Kenneth Crandall
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:01 PM
> > > To: Kenneth Crandall
> > > Cc: Irene Mogol; Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
> > > Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Herein lies the seriousness of the refusal of the Governance committee to
> > > handle this.  Whatever your feeling on this issue, the fact that the
> > > Governance committee refused to handle this and other complaints is
> > > precisely what led to the filing of a suit:  There was no workable forum.
> > > 
> > > 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/     * * * * * * *