🚀 go-pugleaf

Bill:

I have just finished reading the by-laws and the issues are not as clear as
you seem to believe.  Further you seem not to understand my questions.  In
specific, how and by what acts did Mr. Gallinger interfere with the running
of the national office?  If they were numerous, the major ones will suffice.
What was the act or failure to act that breached the nomination agreement?
What executive committee proceedings were discussed?  Why were they secret?
Did they affect the member in question or something that the member was
interested in?  If they affected the member why doesn't that member have the
right to know what the executive is doing?  What were at least one or two of
the instances of this disruptive behaviour you speak of?  The last straw
instance may well be sufficient to make your case.  I might add that these
are not rhetorical questions and they are the ones that I believe should
have be answered in the board's documents.  Parenthetically, confidentiality
and the requirements for it are subjects for a fair amount of debate.   For
example, in most organizations salaries are a confidential issue and I was
brought up to believe that was one of the things you didn't talk about.  Yet
in my current church,  my former church where I was an officer and the one I
attend while on assignment, the salaries and fringe benefits for each
employee are in the annual report given to the members.  I hope this slight
digression enables you and others to understand why I need to know the
specifics in order to make a judgement.

Incidentally I assume that you are probably referring to the executive
committee and not the national board when you are talking about the
meetings.  The former is composed of the president, immediate past
president, vice-president, secretary treasurer selected/elected by a process
I can't figure out in the by-laws, and 3 members of the national board of
directors selected by the president in consultation with immediate past
president, vice-president and secretary treasurer.  The reason I say this is
the board doesn't meet that frequently and the normal governance of the
organization is done by the executive as I read the by-laws.

In another posting you mention that in your opinion Steve brought no policy
proposals or vision to the board.  I think the more accurate statement would
be that he brought none that the executive committee felt of worth.  I
suspect that our organization is so fragmented that most of us don't share
either sides visions.  It is regrettable that most of the organization seems
to have relatively little interest in the matters that are of great
importance to any of the parties to this dispute.  The vision and proposals
that were in what I remember of Steve's submission would have caused me to
vote for him if I had remembered to do so.  They at least seemed worth while
to the majority of those who did bother to vote.  That means that they
merited serious consideration if not necessarily implementation or
acceptance in principle.  If they were just dismissed out of hand that could
have helped to start a destructive cycle.  I also would not be surprised if
what Kewal says is not what Steve hears and vice versa.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Ross <Bill.Ross@ctal.com>
To: CIPS-L@LISTSERV.UNB.CA <CIPS-L@LISTSERV.UNB.CA>
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: Comments on the Special General Meeting.


>
>
>Re Clark Morris' comments...
>
>Clark:
>
>As a board member I'm intersted in which of Mr. Gallinger's behaviour you
>would encourage in your own board members. Much of the behaviour that the
>national board cited was in breach of the by-laws. e.g. interfering in the
>running of the national office, abrogation of his nomination agreement, and
>discussing executive committee proceedings with a non-committee member.
>
>I think one of the difficulties that the board had was in summarizing
>several months of escalating, uncooperative, disruptive behaviour into
>specifics. It's like when the kids finally get to you, and you shout,
>"That's the last straw". The many members of the national board that I know
>and deal with in sitting on two national committees are good, and patient
>people. My experience has always been that I get the opportunity to state
>my views, and then I listen to others, and then we make consensus out of
>it. Sometimes my views prevail, sometimes they don't, and sometimes I'm
>neutral on an issue; and that's what consensus is all about. In 3 years of
>involvement at the national and provincial board level I have never seen
>conflict such as that described by the members of the national board.
>
>I have asked several members of the national board, "Do you have any doubts
>that you did the right thing?", and every one has answered with an
>unequivocal, "No". What has surprised me is the number of people who have
>not talked to any of the national board members about it, and who have
>started conversations with, "I don't know any of the details, but...".
>Because the board took the decision not to get into a public "he said, she
>said" over it, the individual members are relieved when someone asks them
>to tell of the experience, and share it willingly.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bill Ross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Clark Morris <morrisc@nbnet.nb.ca> on 02/24/99 06:02:57 AM
>
>Please respond to CIPS General Discussion List <CIPS-L@LISTSERV.UNB.CA>
>
>To:   CIPS-L@LISTSERV.UNB.CA
>cc:    (bcc: Bill Ross/CTAL/CTC)
>Subject:  Comments on the Special General Meeting.
>
>
>
>
>     After reviewing the packet on the Special General Meeting with
>emphasis
>on the
>Board and Board related submissions, I am reinforced in the following
>beliefs:
>1.  An independent review as set forth in motion 2 is absolutely necessary
>regardless of
>the votes on the other two motions.
>2.  There is nothing in the material easily accessible to the membership
>stating the
>specific acts that Mr. Gallinger committed.  We are told the nature of the
>acts such as
>he shared discussions of the Executive but not what discussions, with whom,
>where
>and when.
>3.  Some of the charges reflect actions I want my elected officers to take
>and others
>that, depending on the acts leading to the charges, would be grounds for
>dismissal.
>Thus, without substantive information, I am torn on the vote on motion 1.
>4.  There must be a better way to handle review and appeal of this type of
>decision than
>what we have seen.  The constraints of the special general meeting process
>tend to
>inflame an already charged atmosphere.
>     We need an independent review so that we can understand what went
>wrong.
>This is like bringing in outside auditors or management consultants.  All
>members,
>especially those who want to change existing policy and direction, need to
>understand
>the process for effecting change.  We need to see whether the constitution,
>bylaws and
>current requirements for office are appropriate for the governance of the
>organization.  I
>am disturbed by the idea that policy formation in the executive committee
>is
>considered
>confidential and not for general membership knowledge.  I want to be able
>to
>influence
>the executive before it acts, not be presented with a fait accompli.  I was
>appalled by
>the fact that the vote on removal of an officer was by secret ballot.  I
>believe all votes by
>the directors should be open so that the members can judge their actions.
>There is a
>provision in the current qualifications for officers and board members that
>they have the
>ability to ACCEPT leadership and advice FROM the staff.  While officers and
>board
>members should consult the staff and treat their recommendations with
>respect, I elect
>the board and officers to give leadership to the staff, not take it from
>the
>staff, There is a
>provision in the duties of the vice-president that he or she is to support
>the president.
>This wording could be interpreted to mean that the vice-president can not
>vote (or at
>least should not) against the president on the board or the executive.
>Thus
>the
>problems we are currently facing may in part be brought about by governing
>procedures
>and policies that assume there will not be sharp differences on policies
>and
>procedures.
>     Neither the Board's presentations on the Special General Meeting nor
>Mr.
>Gallinger's web pages enable me to support a position based on that side's
>submissions.  If I vote for reinstatement, it will mainly be due to the
>lack
>of specifics.
>Without showing acts that occurred at a specific time and place within
>context or showing
>documents including e-mail, it is both impossible to defend against the
>charges and
>evaluate them.  As a United States citizen (and landed immigrant), I use
>the
>analogy
>that each citizen was able to come to a decision on Mr. Clinton because we
>were told
>the acts and circumstances with context including date and time.  What
>corresponding
>information has the membership been given in this circumstance?
>     The board and executive made no attempt to see if any of the 57 people
>who
>submitted the call for a special meeting were amenable to changes in
>wording.  Thus,
>we are forced to make a decision based on inadequate information.  The
>better way to
>handle this would have been for the board to appoint the committee as
>specified in
>motion 2 with such changes as could be mutually agreed upon, and hold off
>filling the
>vacancy until the release of the review to the membership.  This could
>provide the basis
>for either board or membership action.  It would have allowed either side
>to
>reconsider
>its actions.  If needed, the members would be able to act in an informed
>manner.  The
>process of submitting the call allowed for time to negotiate.  This did not
>have to
>become a vote of confidence.
>     A board acts on many things.  It can't always be right.  It is also
>highly probable
>that the majority of the membership has no opinion on or interest in most
>of
>the issues
>that come before the board.  Thus it is more than willing to leave those
>issues to the
>judgement of the board.  Having been on boards in more than one
>organization, I have
>found it possible to get carried away on issues and take actions that I
>later considered
>were not the best.  Most of the time I believe that I and my fellow members
>did the right
>thing and handled things well.  I hope I have learned from those
>experiences
>how to
>better work for my objectives plus how to negotiate and compromise where
>needed and
>appropriate.  I believe that those on both sides of this problem can take a
>look and see
>whether there might be a mutually acceptable solution.  The first step is
>to
>get everyone
>to at least agree to listen to an outside thorough assessment of the
>situation and revisit
>the assumptions and beliefs that guided their actions.
>Clark F. Morris, Jr. member of CIPS Bluenose on assignment in New
>Brunswick,
>        Evening - 506-657-9331,   e-mail morrisc@nbnet.nb.ca, weekend
>cmorris@fox.nstn.ca