Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:20:39 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>, WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: WSFA and hosts
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

At 09:50 PM 10/18/2005 -0400, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

>When Mike told her that I had said nothing of the sort, then I had lied
>in denying that I made threats about Fifth Friday during the last
>meeting.

What sort of threats are you supposed to have made?  The only mention I
remember (and I don't claim to have a perfect memory) was about there not
being one if someone didn't volunteer to host it, and I don't even recall
if that was you.  I do recall you bringing the subject up at a recent Third
Friday though.  Both of these vague recollections are of things said prior
to adjournment...just for the record.

>When I offered to play the tape of that meeting, suddenly
>it was *some other* meeting when I made those threats.  Once she was
>informed that I had preserved tapes of *all* meetings since I've been
>secretary, my threat was made before or after a meeting, not during it!

I talked about this briefly with Alexis after First Friday, and he said at
that time that it wasn't said during the business meeting, just at the
meeting and that he'd heard you himself.  There was also a brief discussion
of how different people might be defining "at the meeting".  To some it
means gavel to gavel (this appears to be the definition you are using), and
to others from arrival to departure (the one Alexis was using, and which,
for the record, is the one I've always used for WSFA myself.  When I need
to specify the business part of the meeting in particular, I say that).
Discussions about facts need to use the same terminology, or at least be
clear about each usage, or unnecessary disagreements will
occur...particularly when people are already upset at each other.

>Since the club as a whole apparently considers this person a worthy
>hostess and trustee, Friday will probably be my last-ever WSFA
>meeting.  I do not wish to be associated with a club that believes
>such behavior should be subject to compromise.

What the "club as a whole" considers at the moment is unknown.  What it has
done in the past is clear enough, but how recent events may or may not have
changed things is not.  Specific members of the club have been pretty
clear, and most of those who have expressed opinions publicly seem to be
agreeing with you and supporting you.  You appear to have decided you know
what the "club as a whole" thinks on your own, based on very inadequate
evidence, ignoring some of what you do have, and a lot of emotion.  Given
recent events the emotion might be understandable, but I suggest it is
skewing your perception of the current state of things.

That state appears to me to consist of those who think Lee is out of line,
and not for the first time, those who have had some sort of issues with you
in the past and/or who think you are doing harm to WSFA by blowing a
personal issue with Lee into a major club problem, several who just want
things to be calm and friendly and fun again, and a majority who have not
gotten involved so far for whatever reason.  It is unknown for sure why,
since they haven't said anything...though in at least a couple of cases the
lack of involvement is due to total bewilderment at what is going on (for
instance, new folk who don't know anything about past history or the people
involved and who said as much to me after First Friday's business meeting
ended, and one not so new member who said as much in the meeting itself
when the vote of confidence was discussed...Judy who got the DVD I think).

You are at the center of this, with Lee, Alexis, Sam and a few others so
I'm sure it appears very large and clear to you, but for most WSFA members
it's an explosion off in the corner and they are still wandering over
going, "What the hell?!?"  Expecting them to have already evaluated the
facts and claims, taken sides, discussed solutions, reached decisions and
acted on them to relocate meetings, remove people from office or toss
anyone out of the club is just not reasonable.  Things are pretty much as
they were before because there hasn't been enough time to change
anything...or to decide what, if anything, needs changing.  It's momentum
and human limitations and club practice, not a statement about you or the
problems you are having with Lee.

The current situation started (based on past history from years ago) after
the last Third Friday meeting, on this list.  Your request for a vote of
confidence, your request that Lee state that you are not a liar, and the
announcement that you would not attend more meetings at the Gilliland's
happened at the last meeting...First Friday.  There hasn't been a meeting
since then to decide anything on the part of the Club...just Capclave a
week later to take up the time of most of those involved.  It is now a
couple of days after Capclave, and a few days before the next meeting
following the one where the problem became club business (this list is not
the club, it's just some of the members chatting and exchanging information
and opinions).  Give the club at least *one* meeting before you decide you
know what "the club as a whole" thinks about all this, eh?

If you just want out of WSFA to make the whole thing end, I can understand
that, but don't go blaming a bunch of people who haven't got a clue what
this is all about, and who haven't had a chance to do much about it yet.
Your vote of confidence was delayed for Capclave (and to give people a
chance to get better informed about why it was happening in the first
place), and Sam asked that he be left to handle the issue off-list without
interference prior to First Friday.  Again, most of those who have gotten
involved openly so far have been supportive of you.  It is yet to be seen
how prevalent that view is, or what the end result will be, so if you want
to make final cast-in-concrete decisions at this point, that's your right,
but it will be based on assumptions, not facts as far as what "the club as
a whole" thinks about it, or will think once more people have heard all
sides of this.

I expect Third Friday to be a long meeting with lots of discussion, but I
don't expect all to be resolved there, even if you quit before, during, or
just after it.  I expect that many people will want to hear the other side
of the issues too, and as was stated at First Friday, the other party will
not be at Third Friday due to another member's wedding.  Since there are
apparently several others who have problems with Lee's past behavior too,
your leaving the club won't resolve the problems...though it would remove
it from your world at least.

I expect this to be a major subject for at least the next two meetings.  I
hope people will try REALLY hard to be objective, keep facts, assumptions
and emotionally charged claims clearly marked, and try to put the long term
good of the club ahead of expediency and avoiding short term
unpleasantness.  Most of all, as has been said more than once already, try
to remember that everyone involved is human, has feelings, has a viewpoint,
and believes that they have good cause to think their viewpoint is correct.
 The main parties, and many of the open supporters of one side or the other
are people who have done a lot of good for the club through many years of
effort, and it would be a real shame to part on anything other than good
terms...or to part at all, really.

-- Mike B.

--

"In the representative system, the reason for everything must publicly
appear. Every man is a proprietor in government, and considers it a
necessary part of his business to understand.  It concerns his interest
because it affects his property.  He examines the cost, and compares it
with the advantages; and above all, he does not adopt the slavish custom of
following what in other governments are called 'leaders'."

                                -- Tom Paine, _Rights of Man_ (1791-92)