USGENWEB-SW-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-SW > 2002-07 > 1027534642


From: Don Tharp <>
Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-SW] FW: [ALL-L] Petition
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:24:08 -0500
References: <E17XONR-00058v-00@epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net><3.0.3.32.20020724084700.008ba490@skpub.com><Version.32.20020724071631.00e53260@pop.onemain.com><011501c23262$674b09f0$f2a4ec0c@JANA>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20020724124953.0082cc80@skpub.com>


At 12:49 PM 7/24/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:48 AM 7/24/02 -0500, you wrote:
>>I did not accuse everyone on that list of being beyond investigation. But,
>>I do believe if you examine it you also see many names of people that have
>>a vendetta against Teresa because she has held their actions up to
>>inspection.
>
>Hi again Don,
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by vendetta. But this accusation seems relevant
>to me only if you mean that there are people who signed this petition who
>would not have signed such a petition if the offender had been some other
>AB member.

By vendetta I mean there was an organized attempt to form the petition,
sign the petition and present it already signed by a group of people that
wanted Teresa out at any cost, using any means, hoping to influence the
membership by making it appear official. Some of signees may not have
thought it out, but they were aware of it before it was ever published to
our regional list. They have to be considered co-conspirators <grin>

I'll tell you this, I never saw the petition until it was a done deal and
it appeared on the SW/SC list with 48 names already on it. Where was it
openly circulated to the membership before it appeared on the regional
lists? Now if that wasn't pre-planned I don't know what would be. If that
doesn't indicate a vendetta I don't know how to describe one.

Can't you just imagine all the little messages, the little missiles that
were sent, the giggles and nudges that went on before the petition hit the
lists? How righteous they must have felt. How vindicated they must feel now
that they have a few signatures.

>
>I don't believe this to be true of any of the signatories. I believe if
>some other AB member had committed exactly the same offense (i.e. had
>posted the same closed committee e-mails to a website, and had publicized
>the posting to a list containing 140+ subscribers), the offender would find
>himself/herself faced with the same outrage and the same petitionary action
>being taken. The behavior is wrong, regardless of who committed it.
>
>>Actions that they evidently wish hadn't been called to the
>>attention of the membership.
>
>It's not that people don't want their actions held up to inspection. It's
>just that when sensitive matters like personnel and grievances of alleged
>wrongdoing are discussed, making the best decision requires an openness and
>frankness that should not be broadcast to hundreds of people -- because the
>objective isn't to embarrass or hurt anyone; the objective is to select the
>best person/persons for a job or to make a fair decision based upon all
>pertinent facts.

John, you can't be serious. Are you saying these people had no hard
feelings toward Teresa? Are you saying they would not have used any means
they could thank of to get rid of her even before she released the
material? Her releasing the material was just the excuse they needed. But
letting the AB take the action they did was not enough, no, they have to
pursue it, they have no compunction about kicking a dead dog. They don't
want justice they want revenge.
>
>>I am not speaking of what is or is not legal in this country. I am speaking
>>of their authority in any of our bylaws to initiate such a petition to this
>>organization and to use official USGenWeb email lists to disseminate that
>>petition.
>>
>
>But Don, the Bylaws don't specifically say that members have the right to
>free speech on official USGenWeb e-mail lists either. The right to

>petition is a Constitutionally protected right. It doesn't have to be in
>the Bylaws for it to be permissible.

As I pointed out above John, it wasn't about the release of official
USGenWeb email. As you have pointed out, that part of her action has been
dealt with. I might add that the AB can not point to any authority for
removing her from representing us as the RAL, that is our right, not the
AB's right.

Petition all you want, but don't place it on an official USGenWeb email
list by at least three and possibly more AB members. If they couldn't take
care of it in the AB meetings why pursue it on email lists. They had no
legal standing to remove her through the board so now they are trying to
remove her by vigilante action.

I say shame on them, they are a discredit to the organization and to me and
every other SW/SC member that they are supposed to represent.



>
>John
>
>
>
>==== USGENWEB-SW Mailing List ====
>The CC representative for the SW-SC region are currently Jana Black and
Phyllis Rippee. The SC representative is Betsy Mills.
>



This thread: