SCN: Put up or shut up.

[Joe Mabel]

Rich, your concern with "wrongful and public" dismissal seems rather odd.
All of this woud have been close to private and certainly quickly forgotten
by most parties if you hadn't filed a lawsuit. Most of the publicity around
this event is an outgrowth of the suit.

Also, while I hate to open this box, you have alleged "embezzlement", a
pretty nasty charge, but I've heard nothing from you but a sweeping
allegation. Given that your focus seems to be on your own dismissal from a
position, I have to suspect that "embezzlement" claim is just a nasty shot
in the dark. Or have I missed something concrete?

JM

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:33 PM
To: Steve
Cc: scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.


Steve,
Good summary.  See my comment inside your text.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:

> > After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.
> 
> At first glance, it looks like the indemnification provisions contained 
> in the Articles of Incorporation are in conflict with those in the 
> Bylaws.
> 
I don't see a conflict.  The articles are more inclusive and complete.
The By Laws merely make a general policy.

> But references in the Articles to intentional misconduct, 
> recklessness, and gross negligence (the standards for which are far 
> more rigorous than a simple violation of SCNA procedures), 

Actually, that is not correct.  The definitions do not depend on the
"heaviness" or gravity of the offense.  Intentional misconduct,
recklessness, and gross negligence measure the intentionality involved --
as opposed to truly accidental events, such as misplacing a file or
forgetting a deadline.  One can be very intentional about violating a
major or a minor rule or process. 

However, in this case, the violation was serious because it resulted in a
wrongful and public dismissal.  And because it was done by officers and by
the very ones in charge of upholding the rules.

> generally mean as adjudicated. If found guilty, the offender would 
> likely be prohibited as a matter of public policy from receiving 
> indemnification.  Which is pretty much the same thing as the Bylaws 
> provision.

I concur.

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