Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:14:32 -0700 From: email@example.com ("Ernest Hancock") Subject: [lpaz-discuss] It's time to squeal! To: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com
> Absolutely .. and the challenge is to let folks know about the overall
> situation without disclosing the sensitive data ... a tightrope at times
This mindset is very dangerous.
I'm always spouting off about how Arizona has almost no activist failures because we always keep everythig so open and never do anything that isn't widely supported by the people that are going to make it happen.
The reason for this is that there are no secrets. I'll bet you can't give me a single instance where there should be a secret where I can't demonstrate why it would be better for it not to be kept from those being represented. I see officers of an organization as my employees. And if my employees are keeping things from me I will fire them in a nanosecond.
Once you start to justify any secrets it'll never stop and the secrets will keep getting bigger and bigger. Personal crap about orgies of the BoD after their semi-annual meetings in hotel rooms don't interest me, but any business done in the name of any organization that I am a part of (sure as shit if they are taking my money) I better know every f'ing thing that is going on or don't expect my support. All of this "executive session" crap had better stop too.
I think I heard you right that DeLemos (MG?) is still on the board. IF he is the same guy we did battlewith over the Arizona thing in the late 90's then you still got major philosophical problems inside my friend. Many of us remember long e-mail discussions with this guy and had revealed to us his thought process,... very scary. He would be one of the last to support a web cam on the shoulder of the BoD, or he would and then have secret meetings later :) MG made it clear that he believes that any problems an organization has is because of the fault of the "system" that was in place and that "enforcement" from the top is the cure (sound familiar?) The only enforcement required is the overwhelming consent of the membership. and the only way that can be determined is to totally open up the process. E-mail lists are a great way. The LNC tried it in 1994 for about 12 days and didn't like what they were hearing so they did the exact same thing that the Schmorg does. They kept their list "secret" and just allowed outgoing mail. Gee, I wonder why everyone lost interest?
Steve, if you are already of the mindset that closed/secret/clandestine/private/confidential/hush hush/preliminary/not for common knowledge meetings of the LNC can be justified then you are one of "them". The worse things are the more open they must be,... warts and all. With people like the MG that we had many long e-mails with I already know what is being built and I'll bet you are not in the loop on as much as you think.
Meet the new boss, same as the old.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/JdSolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Community Web Page: http://groups.yahoo.com/community/lpaz-discuss
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/