Technically, the candidates were not applicants - they responded to an = RFP. And, if privacy were an issue, it would be easy enough to request a = waiver for all who remained under consideration before the board meeting. Laurie tessage dated 8/12/2006 1:41:24 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, =20 pruett@xxxxxxxxx writes: "I agree - there was no need for the Review discussion to be secret. We = =3D shouldn't have a club where some are privy to information and some are = not =3D unless the discussion is personal in nature and can affect someone's =3D reputation - like an ethics complaint, for example. This was simply a = =3D selection process where there was more than one qualified candidate for = =3D the job and the membership deserved to hear the board's deliberations. = =3D Had that happened, we wouldn't be arguing about what was said when or who = =3D voted how because there would be no confusion over what was secret and = =3D what wasn't." JMO... Laurie =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 Actually, if the closed session included a discussion of the applicants, and information provided on their applications, the Board did need to=20 have a closed session. Privacy laws protect information submitted on an application from being released publicly without the person's consent. =20 I'm not sure that there isn't a violation of those laws by one or more board members giving out Susan's request to continue showing. It really isn't unusual for an application for a job or contract to = request having a requirement waived - so I don't see anything wrong if that happened. However, the fact that the request has been made public, and has probably caused her a lot of stress from the results of that disclosure, is something the Board should be very concerned about! =20 Same thing for any letter Gail may have submitted to the Board regarding the next Editor. As a private correspondence, it probably should have been kept confidential. =20 Any member of the board who passed this information to those who posted it on the list, should have used better judgement on who they confided in! =20 JMO, =20 Janice ============================================================================ POST is Copyrighted 2006. All material remains the property of the original author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE PROSECUTED. For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx VISIT OUR WEBSITE - URL temporarily deleted due to AOL issues ============================================================================