SCN: RE: More Missed
Rich Littleton
be718 at scn.org
Wed Jun 28 12:42:11 PDT 2000
Sooooo, how many organizations have you gone through with this philosophy?
______________________________________________________________________
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:
> It's not my job to tell the Board how to do their job.
> My own past experience is that if I don't get along with a lot of people in
> a volunteer organization, I find another volunteer organization to work
> with.
> JM
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:21 PM
> To: Joe Mabel
> Cc: Steve; scn at scn.org
> Subject: More Missed
>
>
>
> Joe,
>
> If you are upset about all this hoopla, then you should be furious at the
> Governance committee that refused to handle my complaints. That left no
> other forum.
>
> Whatever your feelings, you need to condemn that commitee and the board
> which tolerated this dereliction of duty.
>
> If the dispute-settlement mechanism abandons its duty, expect solution
> seeking in other forums.
>
> Similarly, the fact that this reached lawsuit stage is a seriously
> negative comment on the performance of the board. How should the board
> have handled it to get the civilized resolution you would have wanted.
> (flip answers need not be sent.)
>
> Rich
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:
>
> > 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/ * * * * * * *
More information about the scn
mailing list