[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: unite/ NOT BS
- From: acorreia1043@xxxxxxxxxxx
- To: Pinehillgsds@xxxxxxx, showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (showgsd-l)
- Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:57:21 +0000
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Pinehillgsds@xxxxxxx
" I wasn't speaking about Hunte, I referenced your comment that the board
"split us apart". They didn't. ..."
*************************************************************************
Kathy: That is your your opinion. Others would look at the 9/8 vote and if
that's not a split, then it's about as close as you can get!
****************************************************************************
" We all picked and picked at this until we ferreted out the "no" votes. "
****************************************************************************
Kathy: I think you may want to revisit this thought. I don't think any of us
"picked" or try to "ferret out the "no" votes. I know that I personally take
offense with your "ferretting" term, it has some very negative connotations.
And, I'll bet others also will be put off by it. It is more like we are asking
the yes voters to explain their decisions. The "no" voters had no problem
explaining their decisions and a couple of "yes" voters also commented on their
decisions.So what's the problem? Do you really think that the new member
(Hunte) is going to sue the BOD for explaining why they voted to the general
membership? How could he show cause that the explantions somehow damaged him or
his reputation?
*****************************************************************************
" Can a member who voted yes based on whatever it was that was discussed
in the meeting (and I want to be sure to point out I'm not talking only about
Hunte of his business practices, but by- laws, legal implications,
non-profit tax status etc, etc, etc,) CAN THAT YES VOTE BE DISCUSSED WITHOUT
REFERENCEING THINGS THAT WERE DONE IN A CLOSED DOOR SESSION? I don't know, but
re
read Ileana's response to Paul:
************************************************************************
Kathy: Excerpts from Ileana's post to Paul.
"I have the very strong feeling that some of the yessir are truly concerned
about the legal ramifications of this issue, on a personal level."
*************************************************************************
Kathy: I don't think that Ileana came to this conclusion by "ferreting out"
board members explanations. I'll bet that she was given information willing by
her sources due to the trustworthiness she has earned over her years of
membership in the Club and her activities towards making the Club the best it
can be.
****************************************************************************
"Now, if this is true, I am begging those members to come out and put it all
in the open."
****************************************************************************
Kathy: This is what all we want! An answer to the question,WHY? Help us
understand their thought processes. For them to make us feel that we deserve an
answer. And for them to be just be as forthright as they were when they were
campaigning.
***************************************************************************
" I believe we not only need to vote to remove this latest applicant, but we,
meaning the GSDCA, need to offer whatever protection is necessary, in the form
of insurance or legal counseling, or both, to the board members and officers,
who, regardless of their vote, where doing what they thought was the best job
they could do for our membership. These board members should not be paying for
all these costs out of their pockets.
Now, as I offered to a couple of board members before, how can WE, the
membership, help? If this is a frenzy, is only fed out of frustration. Ileana
********************************************************************
Kathy: This last statement by Ileana says it all. We are all willing to help
the yes voters, (since many of us voted for them in the first place), but we
can't help them or perhaps vote for them again, if we don't get the answers
soon. Transparency is a good thing and so is a "sunshine" amendment.
============================================================================
>
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2007. 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 - www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
