SCN: RE: More Missed

[Joe Mabel]

Typically, if I don't fit I've worked it out fast: one or two meetings.
Maybe four times I left a group where I didn't seem a good fit after a
matter of months or years; in one of those cases I had been an officer, but
the group seemed to be changing its nature. There is at least one functional
group within SCN that I tried being active in for a while & found it wasn't
a great fit for me.

Conversely, I've been active in CPSR and later SCNA for most of my adult
life, and in the Peace Heathens for over a decade.

JM

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 12:42 PM
To: Joe Mabel
Cc: Steve; scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: More Missed


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/     * * * * * * *