Please note, whatever is posted in this thread are NOT official minutes. There is a separate thread for that.
Thank you.
That is indeed the case. However after looking back I can understand some slight confusion. I'll add bold tags to that.
Also, sorry Guy, I was trying to get the right date down, but didn't. I'll correct my unofficial version now.
Timestamp Around 14:35
The one clear example given of why Rian was removed is that he sat in the audience at the last meeting.
I Believe the clear point given was that Rian was Uncooperative and diffucult to work with tho the detriment of the con.
thats what they said at the meeting but i wished they had just said that was the reson of his removal in the first place, instead of saying he wasnt doing his job, i think a lot of the rummor mill could have been avoided if that had happend
I heard Rian say the reson he likes to sit in the audence was because he found it hard to get reconized to speak at meetings, and while i know we need the board up front so we can reconize them, I noticed at this meeing that it took a while for board mebers to get reconized by mike cuz he couldnt see them, it was up to peeps in the audence to say when mike called on them to speak to say "Dawn was waiting to speak before me"
(
Sorry this is long, but it's pretty much my entire opinion on the matter. Thank you in advance for reading it fully to understand my point of view.)
It's my view that all of this stems from two factors. One is errors in communication, possibly but not always or inherently the distorted interpretation of what's said as always being the worst possible context. The other is related to something Mike said to me after the January meeting, I don't remember the exact words as I was dead tired, but it was something along the lines of trying to avoid drama.
The problem is, drama is bread by secrecy among other factors. Drama is bread by injustice, and even perceived injustice.
After the elections there was that whole thing that started with what looked like a clear ethical breach (Presented here
'spam' thread), either by Meg and Rian for the fabrication of the email (Which I think many agree with me is far fetched and unlikely, for the exact same reason (IIRC it was Dawn that said it) Dawn stated in this meeting she was obviously not slandering anyone. That is, wouldn't they do a better job of it?) or for Ryan for implying such a thing in any context. After all, what has he been saying to others, especially if he effectively says that to Rian's face?
Then, we the Staff and Membership, saw at the November meeting that both received the same punishment. Believing everything was behind us, at the very next meeting, Rian announces that he's going to appoint Meg as his assistant. I don't think anyone only Staff or Membership in the room that day thought anything ill of that move. However we hear exactly a week later that he's suddenly no longer Facilities Liaison. That timing could hardly be more poor. The reasons given then, and to this point have been insufficient for anyone to realistically believe that they were the soul reason he was removed.
Which leads to a clear void of information. The feeling that improper things may be happening, and in the lack of proper context,
anything could be true. That allows any suggestion that sounds plausible to be considered. The better informed will weigh every suggestion they hear, no matter how far fetched, and form their own personal opinion. The less logical and less informed will probably side with whatever group of friends they happen to have. The critically under-informed will have fear, confusion, doubt, and even misplaced blame.
All of which, inevitably, leads to escalation of drama. The path to minimal drama is being extremely courteous, polite, truthful, but correct. Utilizing clear logic to build a case in the one court
every matter eventually reaches. The court of public opinion. OJ's not in jail, but he'll NEVER live a real life now because almost no one believes his innocence, at least not without a doubt. Yet the drama involved was short lived. Once the bloody trial ended things seemed to quell quite quickly.
We've never had a proper view of the real facts, the real reasons behind things. Nor have we been encouraged to properly present our own views to the mix, or help individuals learn from past mistakes and grow beyond them.
I firmly believe that the drama at the last meeting is the real reason my motion for a bylaws deadline died. However that's done and gone, and I'll still work on getting mine up to spec, as well as helping anyone else that I can, publicly or within the realm of joining a committee. However -if- I do so, given the desire they seem to have for secrecy, we should probably sit down, and quickly go over our goals for such containment of information, so that there is a common-sense NDA/contract for that.
I also look forward to the proceedings of the shadow-court finally coming to light. I consider all of that information the same way it is considered in my Bylaws draft, something that at the very least the staff must know, and may only then have the option, the choice, of Agreeing to keep it secret.
There is still nearly a month until the deadline that has been set for their report. Then, we can finally begin to put this drama behind us, clean up the mess, and move forwards once more.
-- edit history --
Added clarification a link to the information I am citing which isn't so easily found anymore.
Note about it: At root, instead of bringing forth a proper question of impropriety among peers for open discussion, he implicitly convicts them of it, and twists it in to character defamation and assassination. Deliberate, unintentional, or forged, that is what is presented.
edit #2, Fixed a 'spell check is not grammar check' issue.
