At 5:52 AM +0000 3/30/08, Nalini Lasiewicz wrote:
--- In
<mailto:NewPacifica%40yahoogroups.com>NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Carolyn Birden <cmcb007@...> wrote:
My sincere apology: typed an N and just kept going - excuse it,
please.
No problem. I thought it was because you still aren't used to the
novelty of having a dialog with me, considering I've never been a fan
of the Save Pacifica bla bla bla movement. As you can see, Lorraine
and "paco" et all were quite wrong about me. I'm not out to "destroy"
Pacifica. I hope you've come to realize that too!
You may be correct about the novelty of exchanging opinions with you:
I am glad to be having a dialog on issues about which we share at
least a partial agreement.
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.
I believe it was George (from Houston) who posed the question, "if they
don't give the notice, then what?" That wasn't really clarified, but
the point was made by Dan earlier that there literally doesn't have to
be any notice. Sadly, the way the resolution was written doesn't make
it explicit. I sent in a version that did, but they didn't make use of
the important word, "recommended." At least we got some of the other
roadblocks lifted.
I'll have to listen to the entire meeting. Dan has retreated
considerably from his opinions that clearly contradict California
Code: too bad board members have been able to manipulate his earlier,
ignorant positions into a vendetta, but perhaps that was the purpose
of those statements. His failure to stop the passing of one illegal
motion (the 7-day notice requirement) and one personal attack based
on an event embarrassing only to himself (failure to note that a
speakerphone is public and then making an illegal decision that could
yet cost the Foundation another lawsuit), tell us what a high level
of support the Corporation Counsel has for the internal political
machinations designed to take advantage of the Board's ignorance and
prejudices. The entire meeting was a political act, and cost the
Board members a good deal of time, and the Foundation a good deal of
money. I'm not sure of the current rate, but last year these calls
were billed at $.10 per minute per person: I guess no expense is too
great where saving the face of certain parties is involved.
But you see, I hope, how your well-intentioned effort to pose a
reasonable motion is used to leverage an illegal motion: your
input, quoted by Jack VanAken on the pnb list, was used to make
"reasonable" the entire question of restricting directors' inspection
rights. But instead of recommending what you had proposed, the
motion morphed into a requirement, with some members, I am sure,
convinced that they had a reasonable person on their side, since
Jack has quoted your approval of restrictions. And so the slide down
that slippery slope was engineered. I doubt that that was your
intention, but now we have an illegal motion passed by the PNB. Your
reasonable tone was used, I am afraid, to ill effect.
btw, who can blame you guys for missing a meeting now and again? I
think it's completely insane that you have to serve on so many boards
and committees and meet on Friday nights. In my estimation, this whole
structure is designed to keep a state of chaos.
Well, these meetings are, as someone has pointed out, not well
planned and often not well run. If the Board respected their
committees and their work, accepting motions would be a simple matter
of approval. The chaos arises from the politicization of committee
work, and the low level, as you point out, of professional expertise
on the part of most board members. And so they rant and pass motions
designed to prove their good intentions, if not their competence, and
we all have to endure the distractions designed to keep us from
analyzing the fiscal and legal improprieties committed between
meetings.
Regards,
Carolyn
Take care,
Nalini