🚀 go-pugleaf

                   I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                         Date:      25-Apr-1991 10:51pm EST
                                         From:      Joseph A. Pollizzi, III 
                                                    POLLIZZI 
                                         Dept:      L&T SIG Chair
                                         Tel No:    301-338-8609

TO:  Dennis N. Clark                      ( CLARK )

Subject: RE: your vote
Doc Number: 009476

Dennis, 

  I'm intrigued that you addressed this to me, individually. I would find 
  it unlikely that you would only send this to me - so I must assume that
  you are sending it one-by-one to the entire leadership.  Impressive.
  Unfortunately you are drawing the wrong conclusions about why so many of us
  are against the proposal. You are making the same mistake that the Board 
  has continued to make in this entire process. Why are you all so blind to
  it???

  Being one of those who has gone public with a dissenting opinion, I 
  speak for myself - but I know that my reasons are shared by many others.
  And frankly, please give us some credit for seeing through the personalities 
  conflicts and inuendo that so fueled the whole fire.

  Most of the leadership (I believe) does feel that change is required. 
  What we object to is the caviler attitude that the "BOARD" speaks for the
  leadership in how and when its wants this change to come about! From my
  view, the Board has disenfranchised me as a leader. It has sought by 
  going to an uncommitted and ill-informed membership body to seek an 
  organizational change that "The Board" wants without a clear commitment 
  from the body of the leadership. 

  Dennis, I'm about as a-political as you get, but the very actions and 
  time-table set by the Board in this affair have managed to anger even me. 
  I was holding out to see if the Board would act in a rational manner and 
  at least wait until after the New Board was convened before pursuing 
  the change. But alas, that course was not taken and as I had promised in 
  my lengthy dissension to Mike Terrazas and  cc'd to Sam Whidden (remember the 
  infamous Brown TF that reported how there were no "significant" objections 
  to the change...) I will do everything in my power to defeat this action.

  What pains me even more have been the actions of the Board as our 
  "supposed" senior leaders. It was bad enough to see  the personality clashes 
  between certain individuals - but I can't understand why the rest of the 
  Board did not act to serve as mediators or to find a neutral 3rd party to 
  mediate between the warring sides so that the dispute didn't spill out to 
  the whole society. The Board, as individual members, failed to meet their 
  obligations to the Society's leadership either by their direct actions or 
  inactions in this whole process. You, yourself, will have to honestly 
  assess - how much better off would the Society be if such a heated and 
  uncontained "discussion" occurred in an  expanded Board that was now directly 
  responsible for all of the Units' activities?

  Sorry Dennis, so much could have been accomplished with just a little
  more time and a little more thought. But now we'll have to see what's
  left of the Society in the wake of the battle that didn't have to be.

							Joe