At 8:32 PM +0000 3/29/08, Nalini Lasiewicz wrote:
--- In
<mailto:NewPacifica%40yahoogroups.com>NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Carolyn Birden <cmcb007@...>
wrote:
Good points about the willful ignorance of some directors:
...
Yet despite a warning
about the possible illegality, they passed - evidently, as Nicole
says, along party lines.
...
I am interested in Nicole's statement about the meeting being
poorly
prepared:
Hi Carolyn. I wrote all that stuff right after the
teleconference....not Nicole.
My sincere apology: typed an N and just kept going - excuse it, please.
Dan did talk about the election lawsuit, and pretty much he made it
sound like the Plaintiffs were way off base and that the Judge was
siding with the elections staff and iED. He said something along the
lines, and I paraphrase, 'everything is pretty much ready to be
settled and the ballots counted, but some stubborn Directors are
continuing to drag this out......'
We call this projection, I believe, as that is what the plaintiffs,
and specifically Mitchel Cohen and attorney Tom Hillgardner, have
been charging, that only a stubborn CCounsel is keeping this thing
alive.
Nicole also seemed very (I stress that) in tune with Bob Lederer.
She was saddened and dismayed that there was so much distrust between
the Board and the staff. The meeting did not have enough open
conversation and my most important observation, I think, is that
leadership does not exist. The PNB is still being driven from the
bottom up and that makes it a free for all between warring factions.
The factions have no intention to dialog or find comprimise. That's
where leadership comes in. The new Chair runs a pretty good meeting
in terms of the procedures, but I'm picking up a general lack of
internal cohension or comprimise.
I think this observation is correct, at least from what I have seen
and heard so far.
It's no surprise that members of the PNB are, literally, involved in
an election battle and legal battle. They certainly acted like it
last night. It's very important to have all the members at each PNB
meeting right now, otherwise this will simply be an arithmatical wipe
out every time.
I agree, and am sorry I could not be there, but had to be in
Philadelphia (where I work when I am not engaged with Pacifica) and
then had a family matter to attend to that tied me up on the
telephone for the rest of the evening.
The JUC are obviously fighting to the end for
control of the NY station and they are using every nasty trick that
has been used for at least a decade now.
This is true: I believe they see that they have lost a good deal of support.
Lederer said at the end of
the agenda that you ought to be removed from the board for recording
Dan without letting him know.
Which of course is an indirect criticism of Dan's legal acumen, as he
was the one asking for the speakerphone and as an attorney knew, or
should have known, that he thereby gave up any expectation of
privacy. At that point Dan (evidently the "staff" that the motion
keeps referring to) should have pointed out that there was no legal
issue here, only a political attempt to sandbag another director.
Silence is useful, however, when ethical issues are not clearly
defined.
I waited for the Directors to try
to "look at both sides of the issue" but that really didn't happen.
In other words, no one suggested getting rid of Dan Siegel for
interrupting the Director inspection.
No, that will have to be a separate issue, and I wonder if the ED
understands the extent to which corporate counsel's actions have
cost, and will continue to cost, the Foundation money and status.
Nalini
Thanks for the exlanation, Nalini, although I still believe that any
restriction on directors' rights are dangerous, and a slippery slope:
seven hours or seven days will erode the principle just as surely as
seven weeks, I'm afraid.
Again, I have to ask, what do they fear will be uncovered once the
rock is overturned?
Carolyn