What are the 'parties' that you see voting along the 'party lines' and how would you describes each 'party' and what motivates each. If the meeting was poorly prepared, that's not the whole board's fault, but the fault of one of the aforementioned 'parties'. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: "Nalini Lasiewicz" <LasiewiczN@xxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:05:21 To:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: Dear Carolyn...... --- In NewPacifica@ <mailto:NewPacifica%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, Wendy Schroell <wendy@...> wrote: > > What's amazing is that many of them ARE and vote against the law AND > against the Pacifica Foundation. > > wendy I listened to the entire meeting and am struck by how vindictiveness and the politics of factions carried the evening. The members really were unprepared. Especially Nicole....she absolutely didn't get a good briefing on what the issues were and the history. It's so very interesting for me to listen to all this. Many of these people treated the former board unethnically, maliciously, with suspecian, with disrespect, and now they turn around and present themselves as holier-than-though. There is so much posturing going on. The votes were along party lines, time and again. Bad sign. The meeting was poorly prepared. Carolyn had submitted something by email that never got presented and it was hateful of those who didn't elect to give time to go over it. What ever happened to "treat others as you would be treated"? It was sheer hate. Bottom line....nothing was said tonight - not one word - that will strengthen Pacifica Foundation or improve any one of it's stations. I don't know how you put up with it. Nalini