USGENWEB-SW-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-SW > 2002-07 > 1027663736


From: Scott Burow <>
Subject: [USGenWeb-SW] Linda's Questions ... with answers
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 01:11:38 -0500
References: <Version.32.20020724071631.00e53260@pop.onemain.com><011501c23262$674b09f0$f2a4ec0c@JANA><E17XONR-00058v-00@epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net><005401c23372$4c0b6a20$0200a8c0@linda>


> In fact I'd appreciate any of
> the candidates who are running answering these same
> questions if they are so inclined.
>
>Linda........
>

Actually Linda, I tend to be more RE-clined, than inclined, but I'll get up
and answer just for you! :)

>
> 1) Do you believe at all of the AB's business should be
> conducted in open session and that Board-Exec should never
> be used?
>

No, I do not believe that everything should be conducted in open session.
Almost all 'normal' business of the AB should be handled in open session,
but there are situations in this organization, the same as any other, that
require confidentiality for the good of those involved. Things such as
grievances, personnel matters, and investigations or inquiries into
complaints against project members should be handled with some privacy for
obvious reasons.

To give an example, I work with the Juvenile Court as a profession. If
tomorrow someone claimed that I abused a child in my care or custody, and
that was the headline in tomorrow evenings paper, the career that I've spent
18 years building is gone. Even if I'd done nothing wrong, even if the
investigation showed nothing, even if I had been completely vindicated ....
yes, even if it was shown that I never seen, met, or heard of that child
...... everyone would have read the headline, and my credibility and trust
with the community I serve would be gone, and with out that trust and
credibility, I can't do my job effectively. This is exactly what happened
to my supervisor, and why I am the supervisor now.

Some things need to be handled in Executive Session, but the results of the
grievance, personnel matter, or the outcome of that complaint needs to be
reported in open session so that the project members know that the situation
has been resolved.


>
> 2) Do you believe that Teresa's posting of the e-mail
> messages of Board-Exec was within the scope of the by-laws?
>

In my reading of the by-laws, there is nothing that says the posting of
Board-Exec messages is either acceptable or unacceptable, and as a matter of
fact Board-Exec isn't even mentioned anywhere in the by-laws. To me this
isn't a question of what is within the scope of the by-laws or outside the
scope of the by-laws, it's a question of right and wrong. The members of
the AB are charged with specific duties in the by-laws, but essentially the
AB is to promote the success, growth, and continued operations of the USGW
Project. Any action that a member of the AB takes in their role as an AB
member or using information gained by them as a AB member, which does not
promote or benefit the project, or which serves to damage the reputation or
operation of the project, is contrary to their duties and responsibilities
as an AB member.

I've been a member of many organizations, president of some, officer in
others, and in every one of them there is always someone who says "we can't
do this because it isn't in the by-laws". There is also someone in those
very same organizations who will say in reply "we can do this because it
doesn't say we can't do it in the by-laws". Both sides may be equally
right, because the situation isn't specifically mentioned. In such cases,
one simply has to use common sense and ask themselves what is best for the
organization as a whole.

I cannot see any benefit to the USGW Project for messages that were intended
to be held confidential, many of which specifically deny anyone the right to
post them anywhere without the consent of the writer, to be posted in a
pubic manner. Some of the messages that were posted provided personal
information of AB members such as home addresses and phone numbers. Some of
these messages that were posted provided information on those same members
as to when they would be out of town for family emergencies, vacations, etc.
Where is the benefit to the USGW to let any unscrupulous person on the
internet have knowledge of when a person is going to be away from their home
.. and then give them the address?

I cannot see any benefit to the USGW Project to have the whole AB locked up
for the last three months because of the actions of a single person
regarding a single issue. In reading the messages, which I admit I have
done before stating an opinion, I see that the vast majority of the
discussion for the last 90 days has revolved around little more than
argument over this very issue. How, in any way, does that benefit the CC's
and the many volunteers of this project nationwide?

The answer to that is simple. It doesn't benefit the project, or in any
possible way do justice to the responsibility imposed on the AB by the
people who make this project what it is. And that is what makes it wrong.

>
> 3) Do you believe that Teresa acted honorably and
> ethically by posting not only the messages from Board-Exec
> but from the other committees she served on?
>

Absolutely not. If the other committees were holding open sessions, then
there's no problem with posting the messages, however the closed session of
the Board-Exec list is a different story. One cannot make a wrong thing any
less wrong by mixing it in with doing something right.

In my home state, the Sunshine Law is a two edged sword. Yes, meetings of
public entities, organizations, governments, and non-profits have to be open
to the public, and any organization who refuses to do so is subject to legal
actions and sanctions for failing to do so. However there is another side
to it, in that it recognizes that there are some things that have to be done
in private, and ANY person who reveals, disseminates, or otherwise knowingly
discloses information from a closed meeting or executive session, no matter
how they come about the information, is guilty of a criminal misdemeanor
offense punishable by up to one year in the county jail. This has so far
held up to at least two 2nd and 14th Amendment challenges with the Supreme
Court by television and news reporters. I have great difficulty
differentiating between that situation and what has occurred here,
especially when the person involved is being described as a "journalist".

An ethical journalist reports the facts of a given situation, and does not
give personal opinion in their reporting. When a journalist enters into the
realm of opinion, their information appears as an editorial. Ever notice
that there is a separate page for editorials in the paper, or a specific
time in a news broadcast on television for an editorial comment? That is by
design, to separate opinion reporting from factual reporting in the mind of
the viewer or reader. When a journalist reports facts with their own
opinion and comments mixed in, they cease to be a journalist and turn into
an entertainer. Also, an editorial page in the newspaper and on television
must offer to give equal time to opposing viewpoints, however I haven't seen
that offer anywhere in my reading of the Daily Board Show.

This is the difference between the New York Times and the National Enquirer.
The US Constitution protects the NY Times, but so far the Enquirer hasn't
faired well in that arena.

>
> 4) Do you believe that the postings and derogatory
> comments made by Teresa on her Daily Board Show are
> actions/comments that reflect respect for the office she
> holds?
>

I think I answered some of that in the last question, and I've already gone
on too long, but I stand on my belief that if the actions of ANY AB member
or member of this project is detrimental to the USGW Project as a whole,
then they are not acting in a manner that consistent with the
responsibilities of the position that they hold.

>From what I've seen and read, it's obvious that Teresa has some very strong
opinions about what is right for the USGW Project, and I have no problem if
she wants to advocate for them. However, the members of the AB are
democratically elected by the project members, and the decisions made at the
AB level are done by a democratic vote. It appears to me that when the
voting of the board doesn't go the way she feels is best we see blatant
innuendo and claims of conspiracy among the other members of the AB in the
satire of the DBS which serves no purpose but to ferment frustration,
discontent and distrust amongst project members.

It's a sad fact of life that we all have to learn in that sometimes things
don't go our way when there is a democratic vote, but we must accept that
vote as the voice of the majority. Those than can't accept that fact seek
only to remake things into their own image of right and wrong, irregardless
of the will of the majority.

>
> 5) You have stated over and over that if something is not
> covered by the by-laws it cannot be done in this Project.
> How do you intend to handle those items that are not covered
> by the by-laws if you are elected?
>
> 6) The by-laws state that in the absence of any
> directives that the AB will be governed by Parliamentary
> Procedure. In the event that Parliamentary Procedure does
> not cover something that occurs because of the medium we
> work in (in other words only works in face to face meetings)
> how will you handle those instances?
>

I'm going to lump these two together and again go back to my basic premise.
The AB needs to use common sense and act in a manner that is in the best
interest of the USGW Project as a whole, and promote the success, growth,
and continued operations of the USGW Project.

With common sense, the by-laws, Roberts Rules, and Sturgis (I believe that
is how it is spelled) can cover most any situation that arises, but we have
to remember that Roberts and Sturgis give us the procedures on HOW to
accomplish goals ... not what goals we allow ourselves.


>
> 7) How do you feel about incorporation of the Project?
>
>
> 8) Last but not least - what do you feel is ethical and
> honorable behavior for a member of the AB?
>

I'm going to cheat again and put these two together. <G> I've honestly not
given much thought to incorporation of the project, but would be more than
happy to learn the benefits and disadvantages of doing so, seek input from
and consult with those that I would represent on the board who have an
opinion, and vote my conscience for what the members desire and what is best
for the whole.

As to what is ethical and honorable: handle everything that I am faced with
in an above the board manner, and do exactly what I indicated I would do
regarding incorporation.... Learn, Listen to the people, and do what's right
for the USGW
Project.


Thanks, Linda, for giving me the opportunity to voice my feelings on things,
and in some ways the reason to think some things through that hadn't come to
mind before. To everyone who stuck with me here and read all the way to the
bottom, I thank you for allowing me to have some of your time while on my
soapbox. I realize that I might lose some support due to the positions I've
taken here and destroy any chance of being elected to the Board, but I also
believe that you should know where your candidate stands. If you haven't
voted in the current election, please do so, this is your project. I'd
appreciate your vote, but no matter who you vote for, vote for the good of
the Project.

Thanks again:

Scott Burow
SW/SC CC Rep Candidate


Campaign page:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilereg/campaign02.htm









This thread: