[sac-board] Re: FW: Re: 2002 Events

It's time to let this dog die or take the rebutals of line

                         Joe
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stan Gorodenski" <stanlep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 10:21
Subject: [sac-board] Re: FW: Re: 2002 Events


> 
> Rick,
> In my last message sent yesterday at 21:04:05 I said to Paul: "I see
> some of your points. Maybe I've been looking at this the wrong way". 
> Thus, I was conceding that maybe I have been looking at this the wrong
> way.  I felt this issue was over. You must have seen my last message and
> so I do not understand the purpose of your message unless it is to
> criticize me even though you put a disclaimer on it by saying "Sorry if
> this message seems strongly worded, but I felt it needed to be said".  
> 
> If I cannot express concerns or comments or suggestions without being
> attacked, than I won't and will not from here on out.  What prompted my
> comments concerning the way events are scheduled was not an out of the
> blue criticism of SAC's procedures, but rather a response to a concern
> someone had expressed regarding the timing of the May meeting.  I felt
> this conflict was a result of the way SAC plans things and so I
> expressed my opinions. Maybe my observation as to the cause of the
> problem may be wrong, but I certainly should be able to express my views
> without being criticized for doing so. As I said in a previous message
> "My comments are intended to be constructive, not destructive" and this
> is true. Perhaps my use of the word 'mystified' was innapropriate by
> being inflammatory, and if so I retract and regret having used it.
> 
> To answer your question "where were you during the process itself? You
> are obviously a member of the Board list, where the 2002 schedule was
> discussed", I was here and observed it all. Although I thought it sort
> of odd to plan things one year in advance prior to the new officers for
> the next year, I said nothing because if this is the way SAC has been
> doing things for years than maybe there is no problem.  However, now
> someone expressed a concern over a May meeting conflict.  Simply because
> I did not express any concerns last year, does that mean I cannot
> express them now?  I do not understand this logic. If there is a problem
> it can still be addressed in the future. 
> 
> You state "It seems to me that you continually have problems with the
> way this club is run, yet you do not offer solutions".  I have not
> 'continually' expressed problems with the way the club is run.  A member
> reading your response to me may feel that if they present a problem to
> SAC they will be labeled as someone 'continually' having problems. This
> kind of attitude on the part of the club officers is not conducive to
> getting feedback and improving the club. As for your criticism of me not
> running 'for office', it is exactly the kinds of personality conflicts
> as exemplified by this discourse that has deterred me from doing so. 
> Stan
>

Other related posts: