SCN: Put up or shut up.

[Kenneth Crandall]

Hi Rich,

I found your review of my Lack of logic and the determination that there
were 4 errors in the message that I sent very interesting.  It is satisfying
to know that we can deal on the level of logic.

I have found that logic tends to be very dependant upon your world view (I
find the sacrifice of children to a god as illogical but there are world
views where is practice is logical).  I will not get into a protracted
discussion in a forum type environment but I will try to explain my
rationale (even if it is fuzzy logic) so you can better understand what was
behind my previous message.

I believe that a brief discussion of two possible world views will be useful
since I  operate in the second of these views.  One world view is satisfied
with the concept that the many things that you do or that happen to you in
your life can be separated into different compartments and each compartment
is unrelated to any other compartments and actions and consequences that
occur in one compartment have no bearing on anything in another compartment
of your life.  A second world view believes that life is a continuum and all
that you do and the things that happen to you and those around you are
related.

I therefore believe that your actions in any organization will have an
impact on how well you function in that organization.  Likewise your actions
will affect how you are treated in that organization.  Therefore I can't
agree that your previous "in-your-face" communications are unrelated to this
issue.  I reject error #1.

I currently serve in another organization that is associated with teaching
computer skills.  Each area of teaching is headed up by a coordinator.  Once
in a while the coordinator finds that they have to tell a teacher that they
will have to make changes in their teaching materials or else they can no
longer teach the specific course.  This is done to insure that the students
are prepared for further courses.  These events are dealt with quietly and
routinely.

I don't know the details in the event that you call a "rogue action" but it
doesn't sound too different than the type of actions noted above. I have to
assume that SCNA can determine who can teach their courses.  Further, I
can't believe that removal of an instructor requires a "board action".
Therefore in the absence of specific information about detail actions that
violated usual norms, I am left to assume that people have acted  properly.
Thus I would believe your second complaint (error #2) is a moot point unless
removal all instructors specifically requires board action.

Again, since there has never been any data presented showing that board
members acted "outside permissible board action", I have to support the
indemnification of the board members until it is shown that they have acted
improperly.  This is necessary to protect board members from nuisance
lawsuits.  If it is determined by a properly constituted review body that
the board members acted improperly, then a claim can be made that they acted
"outside permissible board action".  Has this been done?  I can't accept the
decision of the claimant that the action was unacceptable. (so much for
error #3)

The cause of my anger is my belief that this whole issue is primarily a
problem of personalities.  This type of problem should be handled within
normal inter-personal activities.  However, resolution requires basic civil
communication skills (what this issue again?).  I still haven't seen any
evidence of a significant offence that should result in a lawsuit, that
jeopardizes SCNA's existence, to seek justice.  If every volunteer
organization that had to ask a person to stop teaching was faced with a
lawsuit, there would be very few such organizations.  (fortunately this is
not the case).

If you really want to know how illogical I am, I still have hopes that you
will see how others view this issue and that you will, in the best behalf
for SCNA, drop the lawsuit.  Isn't that crazy?
								Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 12:25 PM
To: Kenneth Crandall
Cc: Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.



Whoa, there Ken.  There are about 4 errors in what you said I said.
Please see comments below in your message.

______________________________________________________________________


On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> 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)

Wrong issue, Ken.  This is not about civil speech.  If it were, JJ and
several others would have be bounced long ago.  Again, WRONG ISSUE.

> has
> unilaterally decided that the board's action was 1) not an approved action
> of the board

MAJOR GOOF HERE!  The action taken (subject of the suit) was never a
"board action."  That's the point, it was a rogue action.  The board is
tolerating it after the fact.  But your calling it a "board action" in the
context of the bylaws is simply not true.

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.
>
Ken, you are so angry that you are not seeing the point, which is:  can an
scna member who is on the board get SCNA to pay for his/her legal fees, if
his offense was outside permissible board action.  If such a member
embezzles, are you saying that you are willing to use scna funds to pay
for his defense?  The bylaw provision specifically rules that out.

By the way, Ken, why didn't you read the bylaw provision related to
indemnification and post it for all to see?  It looks like you are
enjoying being angry more than you are interested in looking at the
issues.

> 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".

Ken, where did you learn you (lack of) logic?  One of the main points of
my claim is that the action against me was the violation of the "innocent
until proven guilty" rule.  So, if that is one of your values, tell us why
you don't apply that rule to the dismissal?  As I repeated several times,
(a) I was never told what actions of mine constituted my "crime."  (b) I
was judged guilty and dismissed WITHOUT THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS (i.e. NOT
proven guilty).

That's the entire issue, Ken.  How could you miss that?

> 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.

Ken, in your ardent unwillingness to read the bylaws, you have clearly
expressed an approach which the bylaws specifically forbid.  Get your head
out and read the bylaws.  They specifically block the funding of improper
actions.

Additionally, as others have pointed out, SCNA could drain its treasury in
the short term just paying legal costs.  My actions don't drain SCNA funds
on the short term.  Yours would.  The position of the defendants would
also.

Who is looking out for SCNA's welfare, here.  Certainly not your position!

> 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.

Or, you need to read things more carefully, Ken, and consider the results
of your position.  If, in the end, you simply don't want to consider any
possibility that the violation of the procedures was wrong, you can think
whatever you wish.  It's not a great use of bandwidth to publicize your
head-in-the-sand position, however.

Rich

>
> -----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/     * * * * * * *