Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:15:25 -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 08:24 AM 10/19/2005 -0400, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>"Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com> wrote:
>
>> Give the club at least *one* meeting before you decide you know what
>> "the club as a whole" thinks about all this, eh?
>
>How is that different from my saying "Either she goes or I go"?
Completely?
"She goes or I go" is an ultimatum. Saying "'the club as a whole' has
<some opinion or other>, and therefore I'm leaving" is a personal decision
based on an assumption that is not backed up by much, if any, data and
could be seen as an insult to the club by anyone in it who does NOT hold
that opinion and who thinks that attributing it to "the club as a whole"
without data to back it up is tantamount to slander of the group. If you
wait until the club provides data then the opinion would be more certain
and a decision based on it would be based on facts and facts are never
slanderous.
>As I said, I'm not willing to say that.
I understand, and I agree with your reasoning on that point.
>It has only been 23 days since the attack. But it's been 3.5 years
>since her previous attack on me. But she was elected trustee *after*
>that, without dissent.
Right. After 3+ years of intervening time, and a number of changes to the
club membership. For instance, I wasn't a member 3.5 years earlier and
knew nothing of the situation from that time. I still don't know a whole
lot about it, though various statements are appearing slowly from various
people who were around at the time. That these statements often directly
contradict each other isn't making it very easy to put together a picture
of what actually happened though.
Apparently there are people in the club who have longstanding "issues" with
Lee, yet these people said nothing at the last election that I can recall.
You didn't either as far as I remember (feel free to correct me if my
memory is faulty). I can't say why that might be...only speculate. Could
it be that people like to avoid trouble in a social group? That if things
seem to have calmed down, they let sleeping dogs sleep? That since you and
Lee seemed to be working well enough within the group, that the past
troubles were not a reason to tell a volunteer that they weren't wanted for
an open position?
Had Lee been elected over your strong objections you might have some
standing to blame the club for the current problems. As it is, it seems a
bit unreasonable to blame "the club as a whole" for doing something that
you, as a member of that club, didn't object to at the time it was done.
"The club as a whole" is no more precognizant about what would happen in
the future than you were, and deserves no blame for it. (neither do you BTW).
>And yes, I blame myself more than anyone but Lee. I'm one of those who
>didn't dissent, after all. I should have simply left 3.5 years ago.
I agree with the first part, but not necessarily with the second part. It
does appear that things should have been handled differently 3.5 years ago
though. I hope "the club as a whole" can learn from that and not repeat
the mistake...whatever it was.
>I may change my mind about writing up a defense and bringing it to
>Third Friday. Since the accusations keep changing, and apparently
>some of them were never revealed to me (e.g. "stalking"), trying to
>present a defense would be like nailing Jello to a wall.
Trying to establish the facts of the matter is the first step in solving a
problem like this, IMHO. A "defense" is not needed from you that I can
see. The club isn't accusing you of anything. Knowing your view of events
and the situation might be helpful though.
>From "the club as a whole's" perspective there is a personal problem
between a trustee, meeting hostess and activities director and the club
secretary, webmaster and archivist that has resulted in the revelation that
other active and long standing members also have problems with the
trustee's behavior at times and over a long period. This has led to
unofficial (i.e. not raised as motions at a meeting...yet) calls that the
First Friday meeting be relocated as several members no longer feel
comfortable at the current long-standing location and will not attend
meetings there in future, the impending resignation of the club secretary,
and a lot of pretty harsh things being said in general to and by a number
of people. The club has a problem to solve that is not identical to the
problem you personally are working to solve, but which is related.
Gathering the facts is the first step once a problem is recognized.
Evaluating them is the second. Deciding what to do about what that
evaluation reveals is third. Implementing the decision is the fourth. At
the moment we are at the "the problem is recognized" stage.
I suggest that we appoint/elect/agree on a small group from within the club
(1-3 people) to investigate and gather the facts for the next stage in
resolving this. This person, or persons, should be trusted by all
concerned to be impartial, calm, and thoughtful. They should have the best
interests of the club in mind, and be trying to establish who said or did
what and when, not trying to assign blame or justify anything or avoid
stepping on toes. They should reduce everything to a set of provable facts
for the club to consider at the following meeting. Everyone should have
input into this, but the chosen person or persons will be the judge of what
is worth including in the final report (a lot of this is likely to be
testimony, not hard data, so how much is corroborated by others will be a
factor. Perceptions vary, so disagreements are likely without the need for
anyone to be wrong about it). Just the facts, ma'am.
Unless something better is suggested, I'll be suggesting this officially at
the next meeting.
-- Mike B.
--
"Anyone who uses the phrase 'easy as taking candy from a baby' has never tried
taking candy from a baby."
-- Robin Hood