SCN: Put up or shut up.

[Joe Mabel]

I've now gotten over 20 emails related to this from which I have gathered,
in total:

- Rich is suing several SCNA board members over something having to do with
his being removed from the responsibility of teaching email classes (and
possibly over other things, which have never been enumerated on this mailing
list).
- Because, like most organizations, SCNA indemnifies its board members
against lawsuits relating to their role as board members, this means SCNA
stands to take any financial costs this suit may entail.
- SCNA does not have relevant insurance, so the cost of even a successful
defense could well break the organization.
- Rich does not see any contradiction between this and his recent run for
the SCNA board.
- JJ sees enormous contradiction between this and Rich's recent run for the
SCNA board, as do several other individuals.
- The board and its members are not discussing the case, on advice of
counsel.
- Rich is not discussing the case in any but the most general terms, either
on advice of counsel or for other unstated reasons.
- Several members have asked for the posting of the relevant court
documents, which are presumably a matter of record, but this has not
occurred.

I believe that is a fair summary of where this stands. If anyone has
corrections or additions to make I'd be glad to hear about it. However, if
anyone feels a need to restate portions of the above for the umpteenth time,
at great length, and with lots of vituperation, could you please start a
mailing list of your own instead of sending this stuff to scn at scn.org?

----------------------------------- 
Joe Mabel
Saltmine
206.284.7511

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Johnson [mailto:jj at scn.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:33 AM
To: Rich Littleton
Cc: scn at scn.org
Subject: Re: SCN: Put up or shut up.


Take a look below at an event seen even less than sun in Seattle--Rich
changing his position!  (But, no, Rich, I did not "inadvertantly" [sic]
"get it right"--everyone but you has known from the beginning that your
suit would, and has, seriously affected SCN.) 

Rich says my early message illustrated a "misconception", and I asked,
"What misconception?".  And Rich construes that to be "heavy on venom and
light on logic"--this is a constructive response?  

Of course we're going nowhere--Rich won't provide a straight answer.  He
makes promises, but he doesn't deliver.  That is definitely established. 

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

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> I have frequently found JJ's communications to be heavy on venom and light
> on logic.  His last message continues that tradition.  Communicating with
> him becomes an endless excercise going nowhere, because there is no
> connection with my messages and with his response.
> 
> If anyone else has questions (as opposed merely to a wish to vent), I'll
> be pleased to answer them.
> 
> One point JJ inadvertantly got right was the contention that this suit
> definitely does affect SCNA.  Re-read the message and notice that SCNA
> money is about to be drained -- against bylaw rules -- from the
> organization.  I encourage members to take that very seriously.
> 
> By the way, I didn't see Malcolm's posting of the pertinent bylaw
> provisions.  Someone (not a party) should to show what is at stake.
> Membership apathy is going to be very expensive.
> 
> Later,
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> 
> > What "misconception", Rich?  
> > 
> > Were you not running for the Board?
> > 
> > Have you not sued about half of the Board members _in their capacity as
> > Board members_?  Seeking significant monetary damages?  
> > 
> > Or is it misconceived that "running for the board implies that you have
an
> > interest in working within the organization for its benefit and to
improve
> > it and lobby to correct any flaws you think it has"?
> > 
> > No, Rich, the misconception seems to be entirely yours:  that in some 
> > way (that you have YET TO EXPLAIN) it really doesn't concern SCN when
> > you sue SCN members, in their SCN roles for doing SCN business.
> > 
> > Rich, it was six months ago that you said (at the annual meeting) you
> > would inform us just what this matter is all about.  SIX MONTHS AGO!
You
> > have not done so--you have not "put up" any information at all.  You
> > charge me with "misconception"--but you are the one that is holding back
> > the information.  You sue SCN members regarding how SCN business is
> > conducted, then you claim the suit does not affect SCN?  You withhold
> > information, then complain of "misconception"?  Ridiculous.
> > 
> > === JJ =================================================================
> > 
> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > This message shows the misconceptions I referred to.  Ken, know that
this
> > > is not a lawsuit against SCNA.
> > > 
> > > If you have some solutions to the situation, by all means lay them out
on
> > > the table.
> > > 
> > > Later,
> > > 
> > > Rich
> > > 
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kenneth Applegate wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > It strikes me as bizarre that Rich is running for a position on the
Board
> > > > that he is suing.
> > > > 
> > > > Running for the board implies that you have an interest in working
within
> > > > the organization for its benefit and to improve it and lobby to
correct
> > > > any flaws you think it has.
> > > > 
> > > > Filing a lawsuit against the board, especially a monetary one, is
taking a
> > > > sledgehammer to the organization and potentially wrecking it.
> > > > 
> > > > So, the question I would have for Rich is - what do you want? An
> > > > imperfect SCN that functions and meets some, if not all needs of its
> > > > members and users, and has the potential for improvement and
correcting
> > > > problems, or no SCN at all? You can't have it both ways!
> > > > 
> > > > Ken Applegate
> > > > 

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