SCN: Put up or shut up.
Kenneth Crandall
grayfox at foxinternet.net
Tue Jun 20 14:56:00 PDT 2000
This does clarify many things for me. I am very angered by the whole
operation.
First, Rich (the vociferous author of many SCN communications that lead to a
long series of commentaries about civil communications over a year ago) has
unilaterally decided that the board's action was 1) not an approved action
of the board and 2) was not accidental (is any board action accidental?).
Using this interpretation, any board action could be subject to a lawsuit as
being non-accidental by anyone disagreeing with that action.
Secondly, Rich would have the membership judge the board guilty and demand
that funds be withheld before any authority has determined guilt. I thought
that in this country we professed "innocent until proven guilty". I don't
believe board members should be subjected to an out-of-pocket financial
burden to defend themselves. If proven guilty of an action that the bylaws
will not cover with financial support, then the question would be addressed
about re-funding the funds to cover the defense.
I have yet to understand what significant offense occurred that should put
the SCN organization into this financial bind. In any event, I see this
action as a direct attack on SCN, the organization that Rich wants us to
believe that he supports. At the very least, this is an attack on
volunteers that will greatly impair the recruitment of valuable people in
the future. Tell me again, what was this immense offense?
If Rich is seeking sympathy with this letter and that his actions are not an
attack on SCN, he needs to provide a lot more information than he has.
Kenneth Crandall
bd252 at scn.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Rich
Littleton
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 8:40 PM
To: Joe Mabel
Cc: 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
Good show, Joe. Your summary helps the discussion, though it seems to
miss the main problems. I've modified/edited some of it below.
Rich
______________________________________________________________________
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:
> 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).
The "things" haven't been "enumerated" to me.
> - 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.
This is partly true. However, the founders modified the obligation of
SCNA to indemnify board members. Keep reading the section that provides
for indemnification, and you will see that this is withheld (that is, no
payment to board members) if the conduct was not accidental. Also, the
conduct has to have been approved by the board, etc. (Why hasn't anyone
found and copied this section; it shows one of the main problems.)
> - SCNA does not have relevant insurance, so the cost of even a successful
> defense could well break the organization.
This is a real problem only if you members allow the miscreants to dip
into the funds improperly. As stated above, these defendants don't
qualify for the indemnification. They are going ahead and committing it,
so you who don't want to see the coffers drained, get in touch with the
board, not with me.
> - Rich does not see any contradiction between this and his recent run for
> the SCNA board.
Actually, I see this as going after officers who have embezzled.
To fault me with objecting to conduct that just brushes aside the
operating rules of the organization, as well as goes against the most
basic form of fairness, is to completely misunderstand what happended.
> - JJ sees enormous contradiction between this and Rich's recent run for
the
> SCNA board, as do several other individuals.
First, see the answer above. Second, what do JJ and these
"several other individuals" want. No accountability of officers? No
adhearance to organizational rules? No telling the accused what
constituted the "crime"?
> - The board and its members are not discussing the case, on advice of
> counsel.
Joe, you are too kind -- to these rascals. They were not talking
BEFORE the lawsuit.
> - 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.
Actually, Rich laid this out the night of the annual meeting. It
might be that it is not what folks want to hear.
>
> 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.
With significant modifications.
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/ * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/ * * * * * * *
More information about the scn
mailing list