Latest board meeting 12/15

[George Guadiane]

George,

Repeating something over and over, or stating conjecture as fact does not make it true. This subject has been belabored extensively on this forum and elsewhere. Bottom line is - there are two sides to every story, including this one.

Now, the principles have buried the hatchet and asked us all to make peace, turn some wood and get back to the good-will inherent in our hobby and craft. In the spirit of Christmas, please - be at peace.

I thought I was crystal clear to say that I had no particular situation in mind to be on either side of. So, I'm not sure what you reference in what I said that might constitute conjecture..

Thank you for your Christmas Wish.
May you too be at peace.

 

[Owen Lowe]

Funny, I didn't have any particular circumstance in mind. I was just asking if more than one person raising an ethical issue was necessary in order to have it looked into.

I would have thought that ethics fall into a fairly narrow set of parameters.
Anything less falls into the "situational" category and situational ethics are really not about ethics at all, they are about justifying what the powers that be want... Let's use the morals and ethics and laws of St. Paul Mn in the context of honesty, openness and fairness.

"Don't Walk On The Grass" would be a properly written, unambiguous ByLaw. It should/would be fairly easy to determine if that boundary were crossed. If the ByLaws are not written with that kind of clarity, then, in my opinion, they still need revision.
If they ARE written with that kind of clarity than I find it difficult to understand where the wiggle room is.

And my question in all of that is:
Should there be wiggle room when we are talking about the ethical operation of a more than Million Dollar Not For Profit Corporation?

(I wasn't addressing any particular issue with the ethics reply either.)

George, What causes you to believe any and all complaints submitted have not been taken seriously and been "looked into"?

Ethics, as I understand the concept, change with time, culture and circumstances. You can't remove the situational aspect (or time or culture) from an act when passing judgement. With that said, of course there should be wiggle room:
"Do not walk on the grass."
"I had to walk on the grass because a portion of the sidewalk was completely swallowed by a sinkhole."

Daily, the police and courts judge actions of lawbreakers depending upon the situation and respond accordingly. I don't think I'd want it to be any other way.

 

[George Guadiane]

(I wasn't addressing any particular issue with the ethics reply either.)

George, What causes you to believe any and all complaints submitted have not been taken seriously and been "looked into"?

As far as I have been able to determine, there has been no comment from the BoD, the Ethics Committee or any of the people who have filed complaints that indicate that they have, that no action was taken (for the following reasons) and/or that any action has been or will be taken if needed.

It seems that those questions fell into a black hole and have not yet reappeared. Once they go in, something should come out. Even if it's just "Go chase yourself."

I really didn't intend to get into that, and I am done talking about this again.
Happy Holidays, Season's Greetings, Merry Christmas

 

[Betty Scarpino]

It seems that those questions fell into a black hole and have not yet reappeared. Once they go in, something should come out. Even if it's just "Go chase yourself."

Hello George,

First a disclaimer ... I do not know anything about what the Ethics Committee is or is not doing or will or will not do or even if they are actually working on the complaint that was filed.

I do know that the folks on the Ethics Committee are volunteers and that they all work full time.

The other thing I know is that what you have written is negative-outcome conjecture. Of course that's okay ... you have a right. For me, I'm conjuring a positive scenario: The Ethics Committee is taking the complaint seriously. They are busy volunteers. They will eventually issue a formal reply in a way that is professional and ethical.



Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

 

[George Guadiane]

Either I'm the worst communicator in the world or people keep reading things into my statements and questions that I never said or implied. I'm not an enemy to the Association, I'm a member with questions and concerns.

Betty,
I have (mostly) stayed out of this for quite some time, and didn't anticipate getting back into it.
I understand that they are volunteers, for which I am grateful, really.
Mine was a status update, not intended to be a view of the final outcome. I suppose some of my personal doubts, based on how things have been handled show through, but...
(an important) Part of transparency, of service, even for volunteers is communication. The sense of neglect/indifference left by their lack of communication, is, at least in part, the result of their failure/neglect/option to remain completely silent about these questions...
A simple "We're working on it, please be patient." would go a LONG way in making people feel like they matter, that their concerns matter (even if they don't) and that they have been heard. If that communication has been made, I've missed it and I'm WAY off base.

It is difficult to hold hope when it is supported by nothing. Fearing the worst when communication is so lacking is a reasonable default position. At this point, I don't care that much, but it is respectful to respond to questions asked, issues raised, so I did.

My hope is that your ending scenario is an accurate representation of the actual outcome.

Hello George,

First a disclaimer ... I do not know anything about what the Ethics Committee is or is not doing or will or will not do or even if they are actually working on the complaint that was filed.

I do know that the folks on the Ethics Committee are volunteers and that they all work full time.

The other thing I know is that what you have written is negative-outcome conjecture. Of course that's okay ... you have a right. For me, I'm conjuring a positive scenario: The Ethics Committee is taking the complaint seriously. They are busy volunteers. They will eventually issue a formal reply in a way that is professional and ethical.



Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

 

[Betty Scarpino]

Either I'm the worst communicator in the world .....

I would pretty much agree with that supposition, George. I don't mean this in any mean-spirited way. I sense a good-spirited person beneath the way you write your thoughts on this forum. Admittedly it's challenging for me to get past your style of communication, even when I agree with the nugget of your basic concern.

For instance, I agree that good communication is of vital importance.


Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

 

[George Guadiane]

I would pretty much agree with that supposition, George. I don't mean this in any mean-spirited way. I sense a good-spirited person beneath the way you write your thoughts on this forum. Admittedly it's challenging for me to get past your style of communication, even when I agree with the nugget of your basic concern.

For instance, I agree that good communication is of vital importance.


Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

As the"worst communicator in the world" (you did confirm my supposition, didn't you?) trying to put an article together would pretty much be pointless, you should have told me that before suggesting that I do the work.
Is that clear enough communication?

 

[Betty Scarpino]

As the"worst communicator in the world" (you did confirm my supposition, didn't you?) trying to put an article together would pretty much be pointless, you should have told me that before suggesting that I do the work.
Is that clear enough communication?

Ah, but I'm the best editor in the world and I can work with almost anything! But you have not yet submitted that article, so until you submit the article, it is not correct to assume that what you submit will be rejected.




Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

 

[Matt Lewis]

Response

Anyone concerned about the BOD discussion regarding the logo change? Has anyone heard about a change? Anyone asked to submit proposed designs? Or is it an executive decision?

In addition, I just read this in the October minutes:

John Hill submitted a written request that the AAW supply name and street addresses to Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for the purpose of communicating with the membership regarding offers of discounts on homeowners, renters and automobile insurance. The Board believes that doing so would violate the AAW’s privacy policy. The consensus from the board is not to supply the requested information to Liberty Mutual.

I like the last two sentences.

So why was there a prolonged discussion at the 12/15 meeting about this again, especially if the October consensus was that it violated our privacy?

Jack,

A response to your query didn't jump out at me on the forum so I thought I'd offer a thought or two. I don't know that I have a feeling either way concerning the logo. It seems to me that there are some things that the BOD should just handle since "we" did elect them to manage the associations business. That said, I think knowing when to involve the membership is an art of leadership that is only gained through experience and is very subjective. On the other hand, I suppose if the logo is of great importance to the majority then prehaps that message should be relayed to the BOD so that they know and can action appropriately. I really don't know the genesis of a new logo and I don't think it is high on my priority list to know although it would be interesting. On the surface, it seems like there is much more pressing business for the association.

The insurance issue is one that falls in the category of "things that make you go hmmmmmm..."

B/r,

Matt

 

[George Guadiane]

Ah, but I'm the best editor in the world and I can work with almost anything! But you have not yet submitted that article, so until you submit the article, it is not correct to assume that what you submit will be rejected.




Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

I'm sure that there is plenty of material for you to work with, and far less problematic.

 

[George Guadiane]

George, I love you man. Have a very Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year. I have greatly enjoyed your comments, wit and points of view.

Merry Christmas to you and yours too!
"Thanks For Your Support."
Bartles & Jaymes

 

[Mark Mandell]

There seems to be something of a misunderstanding about what will have to happen with regard to the complaint that has been filed by several members and has been referred to the Ethics Committee. It is a very common mistake that complainants often make to the effect that "my version of fact A, B, C, and D can have only one result and reasonable interpretation" and thus those people are confused when some immediate response, granting them what they ask, is not forthcoming. Things just don't work that way.

Before the Ethics Committee makes any public statement, they have a great deal of work to do that is likely to take a lot of time, even if all of the people involved cooperate. Why? Well, as an example, the first allegation in the Complaint filed by Bill Nelson and Curtis Thompson was that the Board violated a section of the Bylaws that directs the Board to conduct the AAW's business in a prudent manner. If therefore, the Board had just cause for firing Mrs. Lacer, they were obligated by the section cited in the Complaint to do so, and the Board's actions, while perhaps unpopular with Mrs. Lacer's friends in the AAW, would be more than justified, they would have been required. Without making any judgment or opinion here one way or the other, I will point out that before the Ethics Committee can "rule" on the complaint's allegation of failure to carry out the cited obligations in the Bylaw section, they are going to have to make a determination as to whether Mary Lacer should have been fired. That question, alone, will require the Committee to investigate Mrs. Lacer's job performance. They will need to interview her as well as all of the Directors in office during her tenure as ED for factual background and details. Given that Mrs. Lacer and the existing Board have pledged to "bury the hatchet" and move on, the people involved in the situation may not be so willing (and may be precluded by agreement) to discuss things further. Without full cooperation and disclosure from the people involved, it is unlikely that the Committee will be able to reach a proper conclusion on any particular issue that has been raised.

I had a conversation with Bill Nelson recently, and I told him substantially the same thing; this Complaint may take a very long time for the Committee to deal with and reach a conclusion.

In the meantime, everybody should just chill. No news is just that, no news. The Committee will not be helped by a bunch of people trying to conduct a collateral "trial-by-press" in the court of "Internet public opinion." In fact, that is more likely to make things even more difficult for them.

We need to let the Committee do its work, and wait. Yes, it could take a long time. A Federal judge in New York , Judge Broderick, once told an impatient litigant in a case I was handing as follows:

"If the Wheels of Justice were used to grind flour, all the bakers would be out of business, and we'd all be out of bread."

 

[davidwalser]

I think I understand the concern that many have with the very loud sound of silence coming from the Ethics Committee. We all know that one or more complaints have been filed recently with the Ethics Committee. Weeks have gone by and we've heard nothing. It's only natural to assume that nothing is happening.

Of course, we also know that this assumption may be wrong. I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a casual business acquaintance. He knew he had been under investigation by the DOJ because he had been interviewed by the US Attorney's office and he had declined to testify before the grand jury. More than a year had passed since he'd last heard from the Justice Department and he had begun to assume that the DOJ had lost interest in him. When I spoke with him he was very upbeat. The government had less than 30 days to file charges against him and they had done nothing for more than a year. Well, the US Attorney had not forgotten about him nor had he forgotten about deadline for filing charges. The US Attorney's office had been working very diligently for more than a year building a case and brought charges in a timely manner. My acquaintance is now serving time in federal prison. So, the fact we don't see anything being done does not prove nothing is being done.

In this case, the Ethics Committee is bound by rules of confidentiality. We shouldn't be hearing anything from them until they've completed their work.

 

[wnnelson]

I think I understand the concern that many have with the very loud sound of silence coming from the Ethics Committee. We all know that one or more complaints have been filed recently with the Ethics Committee. Weeks have gone by and we've heard nothing. It's only natural to assume that nothing is happening.

In this case, the Ethics Committee is bound by rules of confidentiality. We shouldn't be hearing anything from them until they've completed their work.

Curtis and I have not heard from the EC but we are not concerned. As David has stated they can not give us a accounting of what they are doing at this time. If it takes them 6 months or longer (I hope not) to do a through job and then give their report to the BOD so be it. Maybe in the future we may ask them if they are indeed looking into the matter, if so GREAT!, if not we would like to know the reasoning why not.
As to Marks statement that the parties involved may not cooperate with the EC that would be very unfortunate. I would hope that those facts would be presented in the ECs report so conclusions may be drawn. We all will just have to be patient, there is plenty of time for a accounting from the EC.

 

[robert davis]

ethics committee

Hello George,

First a disclaimer ... I do not know anything about what the Ethics Committee is or is not doing or will or will not do or even if they are actually working on the complaint that was filed.

I do know that the folks on the Ethics Committee are volunteers and that they all work full time.

The other thing I know is that what you have written is negative-outcome conjecture. Of course that's okay ... you have a right. For me, I'm conjuring a positive scenario: The Ethics Committee is taking the complaint seriously. They are busy volunteers. They will eventually issue a formal reply in a way that is professional and e

Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

it would be nice to hear from the ethics committee imembers. how do you know what they are doing???

 

[Betty Scarpino]

... how do you know what they are doing???

I do not know anything about what the ethics committee is or is not doing or might or might not do, which was what I said in my message.

In the last part of my message I was simply conjuring a positive scenario -- I was engaging in make believe about something positive that might be happening in order to offer an optimistic view of something that no one knows any facts about (other than the Ethics Committee members, from whom we have not heard).


Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

 

[Garmar]

I do not know anything about what the ethics committee is or is not doing or might or might not do, which was what I said in my message.

In the last part of my message I was simply conjuring a positive scenario -- I was engaging in make believe about something positive that might be happening in order to offer an optimistic view of something that no one knows any facts about (other than the Ethics Committee members, from whom we have not heard).


Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

Well Betty, why would you even do that. I read your post and it certainly sounded like you were "on the inside" with information/knowledge. Such unnecessary comment; at least you could have given it the old "what if".

 

[Betty Scarpino]

.... at least you could have given it the old "what if".

My apology ... I thought by writing "conjure a scenario" I was being perfectly clear. "Conjure" means "to suggest" which is related to "what if"?

Why? I was offering a positive speculation in in response to negativity



Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

 

[Garmar]

Well, I guess we will just agree to disagree.

 

[Mark Mandell]

it would be nice to hear from the ethics committee imembers. how do you know what they are doing???

You seek something which is actually improper. The Committee is not allowed to communicate with people not part of the investigation with regard to any matter that is under review. To do so would be a serious breach of ethics on their part.

I'm not criticizing or denigrating you for your comment; merely explaining the process. We know they have the matter, but that is all we can know until they reach some kind of conclusion. They cannot give "progress reports" or the like.

We'll all just have to wait.

 

[Mark Mandell]

My apology ... I thought by writing "conjure a scenario" I was being perfectly clear. "Conjure" means "to suggest" which is related to "what if"?

Why? I was offering a positive speculation in in response to negativity



Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

Gotta watch them big editor-type words, Betty.

Oh, and no fair usin' a dictionary!

 

[George Guadiane]

Since you were originally addressing me, I feel like I can comment here:
Not that I think you were exactly responding to the part you quoted from me, but I understood you to be offering a THEORETICAL alternitive. I'm not sure, with all your disclaimer, starting with the first sentence, how anyone could have misunderstood you to be saying that you have inside information on this.

My apology ... I thought by writing "conjure a scenario" I was being perfectly clear. "Conjure" means "to suggest" which is related to "what if"?

Why? I was offering a positive speculation in in response to negativity



Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

 

[Ron Sardo]

Gotta watch them big editor-type words, Betty.

Oh, and no fair usin' a dictionary!

shouldn't that be editortype words? :cool2:

 

[Mark Mandell]

shouldn't that be editortype words? :cool2:

Only if it's "copyeditortype"