How obtuse can one person be? Read My Lips: one DAY's delay is too long. Get it? If a director shows up at a station Monday morning at 9:00am, the records had damned well be available within a few minutes. Not a few hours or a few days. What's the word? Disingenuous? Seemingly naive, but not really? "If the Director feels that something wrong is being done or needs looking into, then the CEO and Board Chair should know about it, don't you think?" They should NOT know about it in advance if there is ANY chance that they are complicit in some wrong-doing the inspection MIGHT reveal. Plenty of time to tell them about it AFTER the facts are in hand (and I do mean, literally, in hand). --Frank LeFever ============================================================= --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Nalini Lasiewicz" <LasiewiczN@...> wrote: > > --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Frank LeFever" <fflefever@> > wrote: > > > > > I am disgusted to learn that some PNB directors are joining > > managements' efforts to stonewall directors' inspections. > > > You guys are all crying WOLF. > > The resolution says that the inspection has to take place within a week > of the request and that the Director can offer what dates are > convinient to them. > > I do think that the 2-3 hours limit is wrong. That should be stripped > from this resolution. However, I see nothing wrong with a procedure in > which the Chair of the board or the ED is alerted. Those are the > people who are most directly accountable for anything going on in the > operations. If the Director feels that something wrong is being done > or needs looking into, then the CEO and Board Chair should know about > it, don't you think? > > Nalini =====================================================