--- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Carolyn Birden <cmcb007@...> wrote: > > Any restriction, no matter how "reasonable," is a restriction on an > absolute (the word is in the California code) right of directors. By > putting the decision in someone else's hands, placing time limits, > giving the staff and management time to shred documents, the motion > is in violation of the law. See the opinion written the last time > this came up, in 2005, attached. (If you cannot receive attachments, > write me directly and I will send it to you.) What, as the man said, > are they hiding? > > Carolyn Here is what I sent to the PNB (unfortunately, not until just a few minutes before the meeting). I HOPE it went to the PNB (got a funny "cannot deliver message", but to an address unknown to me. I used "pnb at pacifica dot org"--is that the correct address? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:28:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "F. Frank Le Fever, Ph.D." <fflefever@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: An outrageous assault on direcdtors' rights. To: pnb@xxxxxxxxxxxx I am disgusted to learn that some PNB directors are joining managements' efforts to stonewall directors' inspections. I thought this was settled three years ago. Then Dan Siegel blocked director's inspection just a few weeks ago. Three years ago, when directors finally got past the gate, they were confronted with empty folders, records with parts redacted, and confronted by executives who snatched papers out of their hands saying it was off limits. Now the PNB wants to give management as much opportunity as it wants to hide what it wants to hide before directors get on the scene, and to limit directors' time so that on-site delaying tactics will be more effective. By previously aiding and abetting this defiance of the law, some PNB members have already disregarded fiduciary responsibility. If the PNB tries to enforce the procedure they advocate, they are setting themselves up for a lawsuit they are certain to lose. A loss for Pacifica and a loss of the respect people hold for Pacifica democratic governance. --Frank LeFever WBAI Listener (& plaintiff) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ======================================= > At 7:47 PM +0000 3/20/08, Nalini Lasiewicz wrote: > >--- In > ><mailto:NewPacifica%40yahoogroups.com>NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > >"Joseph Wanzala" <wanzala@> > >wrote: > >> > >> In my view it is an effort to proscribe, or certainly > >> frustrate directors rights of inspection by creating a bureaucratic > >> foot-dragging mechanism. > > > >The only way that it limits the directors is the 2 to 3 hour limit. > >I would strike that part. > > > >Otherwise, it seems perfectly reasonable. If you wanted to change > >the "within one week" part to "within 3 days" or something, why don't > >you offer that as an amendment? > > > >I shall of course vote against it and hope that a > >> majority of PNB members do so as well. > > > >You can do much better than that. > > > >It's far better to fix the procedure to where you can support it. > >Including, for that matter, adding a requirement that anyone who > >appoints an Agent for inspection really ought to do so in writing > >prior to the inspection since the records are confidential and we > >need to know that the Agent has been named and that they will agree > >to the same restrictions that a Director faces. > > > >Nalini > > > > >