Amazingly Correct! SCN: $86,000 (was: Put up or shut up.)

[Rich Littleton]

Questionable interpretations to the side, Ken, what are you saying?  For
the good of the organization you will tolerate board member and
coordinator misconduct?

What part of "there were no other forums" don't you understand.

Your bottom line appears to be, "I, Ken Crandall, will not criticize and
board action, nor support the rules and regs of the organization." 

If you want people to be responsible for the organizaiton, start being
half as agressive with the persons who broke all the rules in the first
place.  

You're using a lot of time talking about the effect of this situation,
and carefully avoilding dealing with the cause.

As I said earlier, no matter what your personal opinion of this situation
is, you should fire the board members who handled things so badly, and
then refused to go through the Governance process, so that unusual action
was necessary.  You are awfully gentle with those elected to deal with
these situations.

--------

Rather than repeating our already stated disagreements, let's just
contribute new elements.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> Hi Rich,
> 
> This is truly amazing!  You can make a statement like ("I would also add
> that, if the miscreants are successful in getting their hands on SCNA money
> IN THE SHORT TERM, that will drain SCNA coffers.  -- even though the
> miscreants will eventually lose.  At that point, they will owe SCNA the
> money taken (?), but that could be after SCNA funds have been heavily used
> up in the meantime.") in the face or the wording in section 7 (The Articles
> of Incorporation which you now cite as the basis of your suit, the
> unsupported stand that the sued are not entitled to indemnification, and I
> would assume your use of the word miscreants).  Section 7.3 of these
> articles seen to require that the sued board members be funded for their
> legal fees.
> 
> I have attached the last half of Section 7.3 below as I have done in a
> previous message.
> "The claimant shall be presumed to be entitled to indemnification under this
> Article upon submission of a written claim (and, in an action brought to
> enforce a claim for expenses incurred in defending any proceeding in advance
> of its final disposition, where the required undertaking has been tendered
> to the Corporation), and thereafter the Corporation shall have the burden of
> proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant is not so
> entitled.  Neither the failure of the Corporation (including the Board of
> Directors, independent legal counsel, or its shareholders) to have made a
> determination prior to the commencement of such action that indemnification
> of or reimbursement or advancement of expenses to the claimant is proper in
> the circumstances nor an actual determination by the Corporation (including
> the Board of Directors, independent legal counsel, or its shareholders) that
> the claimant is not entitled to indemnification or to the reimbursement or
> advancement of expenses shall be a defense to the action or create a
> presumption that the claimant is not so entitled."
> 
> Here the claimant is the person being sued who asks for reimbursement.  What
> part of  "shall be presumed to be entitled to indemnification under this
> Article upon submission of a written claim" is not clear?  Furthermore,
> "thereafter the Corporation shall have the burden of proving by a
> preponderance of the evidence that the claimant is not so entitled.", at
> least suggest that there needs to be a preponderance of evidence
> [preponderance - when enough just is not enough].  Your claims to the
> contrary, there has been a lack of evidence that the claimants are not
> entitled and it appears that a determination of the Board of Directors,
> independent counsel, or its shareholders that the claimant(s) are not
> entitled to indemnification shall not create a presumption that the
> claimant(s) is not so entitled.  These are powerful words.  How do suggest
> that they be put aside?  Your demands are not enough in themselves.  Where
> is your preponderance of evidence to save SCNA these expenses that you say
> are unwarranted?
> 
> If you are really interested in the future of SCNA, then why are you
> proceeding with this lawsuit that guarantees a major fiscal problem for
> SCNA.  I agree that this is a serious organizational problem, but it is a
> problem of your making and that only you can control.  I am not a lawyer,
> nor are must of us, but it not clear to me that even in the event that you
> were successful in your lawsuit, that the parties you are suing would not
> still be indemnified ($86,000 {or what ever} plus legal expenses).  Please
> be more specific in how you plan to protect the interests of SCNA for those
> of us who are concerned.
> 						Kenneth Crandall
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Rich
> Littleton
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:07 PM
> To: J. Johnson
> Cc: Irene Mogol; scn at scn.org
> Subject: Re: Amazingly Correct! SCN: $86,000 (was: Put up or shut up.)
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe it.  I actually agree with JJ in much of what he said.
> 
> I would alter "credibilty" to something more like "board responsibility."
> But JJ is generally right.
> 
> His money figure is outdated, but that is secondary.
> 
> I would also add that, if the miscreants are successful in getting their
> hands on SCNA money IN THE SHORT TERM, that will drain SCNA coffers.  --
> even though the miscreants will eventually lose.  At that point, they will
> owe SCNA the money taken (?), but that could be after SCNA funds have been
> heavily used up in the meantime.
> 
> This is very serious organization business.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> 
> > Irene, and all other bystanders:  this is not some petty, private quarrel
> > between Rich and three or four or a dozen people that don't like him.  It
> > comes down to credibility.  Rich would probably say it's the credibility
> > of the Board at stake; the rest of us would say it's his credibility on
> > the line.  You bystanders are the jury; the issue is not going anywhere,
> > let alone away, until you all come down one way or the other.  (Or all of
> > the disputants on one side or the other all go away.)
> >
> > It is also a matter of a large sum of money.  As only one of several
> > issues here, it is an uncontroverted fact that Rich has sued several Board
> > members and other SCN volunteers, asking for damages of around $86,000.
> > And if Rich were to win, most of us read the by-laws as requiring SCNA to
> > foot the bill--which would bankrupt us.  Is this petty?
> >
> > The matter is neither petty nor private--it could involve SCN's
> > existence.  (Rich says no; read the by-laws and decide for yourself.)
> > A fist-fight would be quite irrelevant.
> >
> > === JJ =================================================================
> >
> > On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Irene Mogol wrote:
> >
> > > All this stuff is getting pretty boring and repetitive and going nowhere
> > > fast.  I would think that all of you, being intelligent people, could
> > > settle this matter in a civilized way - face to face.
> > >
> > > A good place for the meeting would be on any vacant lot, with you all
> > > coming out, fists first. I would be honored to be the referee, and even
> > > organize a cheering (first-aid) squad.
> > >
> > > May the best man win?????
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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/     * * * * * * *