SCN: Crandall's Idea

[Ken Gillgren]

Well, for what it's worth, I would be interested in participating in some
kind of review process. I was involved years ago in helping to get SCN on
the ground, and have continued to encourage the use of SCN by schools and
community groups. Except for these email exchanges, I don't know Rich or
is work on the email training at all. I don't know the names of the folks
named in the suit, but would feel comfortable talking with anyone on
resolutions short of formal court action. 

Are there two or three others? I'm at least open to meeting with folks.

Ken Gillgren


On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> I think this is a good-faith suggestion.  It might lead to others that
> could reach the same result.
> 
> The problem with this PARTICULAR (but logical) proposal is that, this sort
> of review was PRECISELY what Haskins and the two guests deliberately
> ignored.  Such a review was the missing step and that step would have
> resulted in a finding that there was no basis for dismissal.  
> 
> And who would do the review?  Governance? which now has to justify its
> inaction before?  The Board? which also has to justify its refusal to step
> in earlier when asked.
> 
> Are you aware of any unbiased members?  If so, maybe there can be formed a
> task force.  If so.
> 
> It's a positive thought.
> 
> Rich
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I would seem that this provides a rational avenue to end this energy wasting
> > efforts and concern about the financial aspects related to the pending
> > lawsuit.  There should be a grievance review procedure,  a method of
> > establishing one if none exists,  or use the Governance committee if that is
> > the best procedure and give Rich his review before his fellow SCNA members
> > rather that solve internal problems in the court.
> > 
> > Assuming the Rich is as concerned about SCNA as he professes, having this
> > review within SCNA should allow him to withdraw his suit and everyone can
> > concentrate on productive ventures.
> > 
> > I hope those involved will see this or some other process as preferable to
> > the mess we are currently in.
> > 						Kenneth Crandall
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:01 PM
> > To: Kenneth Crandall
> > Cc: Irene Mogol; Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
> > Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Herein lies the seriousness of the refusal of the Governance committee to
> > handle this.  Whatever your feeling on this issue, the fact that the
> > Governance committee refused to handle this and other complaints is
> > precisely what led to the filing of a suit:  There was no workable forum.
> > 
> > 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/     * * * * * * *