And in fact, we did notify the IGM - he had not returned an email
requesting a phone conversation, but he gave us permission to be
there on the same day - and the IGM and Foundation Counsel had been
sent copies of the designation of an agent.
An appointment, as I have pointed out, would normally be the correct
thing to do, but the experience of directors in the National Office
in 2005 showed that it results in missing data, harassment of the
directors (in one case by another director), and hostile receptions,
all impeding the work of the directors. And in WBAI, a director not
doing an inspection (despite her complaints that the Business Office
was not producing needed records for the PNB), called the Business
Office and tried to order the worker there to make us leave. This
kind of gross interference, especially by other directors, is the
more obvious kind of obstruction; the bureaucratic impediments
proposed by Nalini and the Foundation Counsel (the latter in
collusion - a strong word, but I don't know how to soften it - with
some directors), is just another kind of obstruction. Both are
unacceptable and illegal.
Carolyn
The point is that the roadmap you are describing is neither fair nor
does it respect the structural lines of real authority within Pacifica.
The directors shouldn't be required or even requested to seek approval
or authorization from the chair the ED the GM or any other person on the
face of the planet. Of course the notions of professionalism and good
decor would probably require that the director make an appointment with
the GM or at least notify them in order to facilitate the inspection but
all this stuff you suggest about notifying the ED and or chair and the
secretary publishing a report in the minutes is so over the top and
suggests that the board is composed of immature children which may be
true to one degree or another but that doesn't justify the exact
approach you have suggested.
M/
<mailto:LasiewiczN%40aol.com>LasiewiczN@xxxxxxx wrote:
In a message dated 3/21/2008 2:11:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
<mailto:cmcb007%40earthlink.net>cmcb007@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
No need to write this out: directors have been well versed in
their responsibilities and duties, and despite what Nalini thinks
of them, are intelligent enough to know the difference between a
procedure and harassment, between trying to get into a locked
office at midnight, for instance, and asking to be shown file
cabinets during regular work hours.
Do you have an objection to writing down the things that the directors
have been trained on, so that the next directors will have a road
map? Sure, you know what confidentiality means....but don't you think
it's worth the effort to make sure the Agent signs off on something to
show that they know what it means? It's just simply risk management
Caroline.
I can't think of any one thing that I wrote in my draft procedure that
would "restrict" an inspection. What were you referring to exactly.
Most of what I wrote were recommendations anyway, not dictates.
In addition, I covered some areas that neither the law nor the bylaws
spell out.....namely, that the PNB be advised of any inspections that
HAVE taken place so that can discuss that and that the inspection is
entered into the Corporate Minutes. Don't you think the PNB ought to
be told? So, spell it out! It's not hard. I think that's good
procedure. Too often, in sloppy New Pacifica, policies and procedures
are drafted by one group of people and then forgotten or ignored by
the next.
I think you're taking a needless risk by assuming the
word "reasonable" means the same thing to everyone. My goodness, just
look at the differences between you and the JUC, for instance. Or,
how about when Ken Freedland wanted access to the donor lists? Don't
ever forget that you wearing the hat of protecting Pacifica from
> people who can cause damage to Pacifica by doing things that might be
against Pacifica's interests.
I'm frankly surprised that you appear almost anguished over the idea
of simply designing a fair roadmap for future Director inspection
requests. Why not have a basic procedure outlined and if's
unworkable, then refine it? Here's what Chris said on the blue
board: " "I don't think it's a bad idea for Pacifica to develop some
procedures regarding inspections--it would likely facilitate the
process--and on first readings, Nalini's sound like a good start....."
Chris understands what I'm trying to accomplish. You, on the other
hand, are still in full Battle Mode and now you've turned your gun on me.
Nalini
----------------------------------------------------------
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home
<<http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001>http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001>.
----------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7 - Release Date:
3/8/2008 12:00 AM