>Actually, you guys have missed the point. I have replied to
>a couple of other threads after trying to stay out of it for
>so long, but you guys have missed the point. How many times
>do we have to say it. And how many times do we have to
>answwer. John lied! Maybe it was unintentional, but that
>is how it comes out. He said in his president's message
>that he has submitted poposals to the EC and he did not. He
>said they would be submitted shortly to the membership and
>they haven't even been seen, much less approved by the EC.
>If he had said "he was planning to do this", there would
>have been no outcry. If he had said, "if they pass the EC,
>they will go to the membership for their approval" there
>would have been no outcry.
Now some of these proposals are
>coming to light and it appears that an end run is taking
>place. >
>The point is, if these proposals had been submitted to the
>Executive Council without making a big issue of it, they
>could have been hashed, rehashed, discussed, whatever in
>private. Those that gained approval of the EC whether "as
>is" or in amended form would have gone on to the membership
>and there would have been no problem (other than the normal
>campaigning for and against certain issues).
>
>John made the mistake of making this public with some
>incorrect statements at that. That was his mistake. And
>now those who wish to correct this mistake are being
>bombarded by such as you with your silly challenges. Is
>everyone going to put up a challenge on the board and say
>"answer me or I am right and you are wrong"?
>
>I am ready to start deleting, guys. This is, indeed,
>getting out of hand.
Len..... You speak of this getting out of hand but your statement regarding the "end run" is the sort of thing that's fueling this whole issue. You seem to be privy to certain information regarding the proposed changes but like everyone else you allow the vast "unwashed majority" to fill in the blanks. Len you've been around long enough to know that most folks will assume the worst!
You are being as judgemental as some others in suggesting that John Brodal "lied". That's a pretty harsh statement. Given that these SN columns need to be submitted a few months in advance of publication, consider the possibility that John Brodak may have misjudged how long it would take to get the rough drafts perfected prior to submission to the entire EC for consideration. He certainly is guilty of "premature publication" and should know better.
Under the current bylaws, there is no possible way that he can avoid that final voting step prior to presentation to the entire membership to pull off the infamous "end run".
I consider myself a pragmatic guy and for my part, I think I'll quit reading these posts and wait for the final proposals to be presented and then make my decision. I'm tired of rants, raves, smoke and BS without any factual data to back it up! Some wish to grant John Brodak far more power than he really has. I'm sure that he wakes up every morning in bucolic Carmichael, PA and puts his pants on one...... well you know the rest.
It's just my opinion, but I think the majority of PAMPA members really do understand to purpose of PAMPA and will not vote for any issue that dilutes or radically changes the goals and objectives of the organization. Let's give the silent majority the benefit of the doubt.
