[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[pct-l] re **UPDATE 3.24.2000* Retraction and Clarification

Regarding my email entitled UPDATE 3.24 Tony Cruz
did not authorize the use of his signature. Nor did
he approve the content of the email. That email is 
entirely of my own making.

In the haste of limited time and trying to get some work done
I sent this out because I thought Tony and I had an agreement
from a phone conversation I missunderstood.  That was not the
case. I apologize to Tony and to everyone receiving that email.

What exactly Tony will support is as follows.  I have included email
from Tony (with permission) that precisely defines his position and 

Next, for those of you supporting the recall petition let me take
this opportunity to thank you. The procedure is that I will collect
the signatures from you and then the recall document will be
printed in the Escree (mandatory by Bylaws) and we will vote on
this at a future meeting. I will request direction on the use of
Proxy votes.


Rich Calliger

--emails follow--


I'll sign the petition to remove Steve
from his post as Pubcom (not from the PCS),
when you retract your email, but I do not
accept your excuse to send an email purportedly
signed by me, without getting my review
and permission first.  I made it clear to
you that I would take no part in any attempt
to remove Rick and it should be clear to you
that I would never have allowed myself to
be associated with your email. 

<sniped some compliments out here>

At least you are correct in saying that
you made a mistake.  It was a biggie.


If you read nothing else, please comment
on this:  approximately *when* will the
PCS list investigation be done?

The most significant point is that
official PCS business *is* in fact
being discussed on climber.org lists
(this is denied by the section chair), the
only channel endorsed by the PCS.  I
can forward you evidence of this if you

If the PCS endorses this non-SC list, why will
it not endorse a single 2-way list on an
SC server open to all members?  This is in
clear violation of the BoD and <STRIKE NEXT
surprised that nobody at the LP chapter
cares to respond to my complaints. 

When Rich and I tried to make a motion
at the last PCS meeting, our Chair let
us speak, but before there was any discussion,
he announced that he did not endorse
communication via email broadcasts on an
SC server and that he never would.  He thus
killed any constructive remedy to the
list dictatorship that we can employ
at the chapter level.

The remedy that I've proposed is blatently
common sense and inoffensive.  I am very
frustrated.  Next year I think I'll drop
my SC membership and give the money to
somebody else, if there is no list made
available to me where I can seek climbing
partners and chat without a list dictator
controlling our conversations.  Climbing is
why I joined the club in the first place.

Tony Cruz

>DATE: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:47:33
>From: "Tony Cruz" <icruz@hotbot.com>
>To: pkclimber@aol.com
>(Rich, throw away that Mac :)
>Hi John, Harlan, Nancy:
>Thank you again for taking time to discuss these issues on the phone
>last evening John.
>We are taking your suggestion John to ask for Chapter clarification
>before proceeding any further.
>Therefore here are the ambiguities in our Section Bylaws (attached
>to this email) we discussed and we would like to ask for a clarifying 
>statement from the Chapter to help end a list dispute in the PCS.
>At a duly constituted meeting of our Section on March 14 2000,
>we presented a motion to change the by-laws to incorporate
>an official, unmoderated, 2-way discussion list on an SC
>server for the PCS.  The Chair, Rick Booth, heard the motion
>and was given a written copy (attached).  We volunteered to work 
>the motion if the wording was not to his technical satisfaction.  
>He refused to publish it in our newsletter.
>Rick had met with us in a prior private meeting of the PCS officers
>(Section Chair, PubComm Chair) Ron and Aaron were also there;
>and we came within a hair of agreeing to a 2-way list.
>But we were required to agree to the condition that Steve Eckert,
>our PubComm Chair, write the charter.  We have substantial reasons
>to believe that Steve would insist on a charter yielding to him all
>decisions about the list, including control of content.
>Rick believes that the PCS PubComm chair has the sole right to
>establish list charters; we don't know why.  We asked for an open
>list, not run by a list dictator.  Therefore we could not settle
>the dispute without directly appealing to the Section membership.
>We ask the Chapter to give an opinion on whether or not a
>seconded-motion to change the by-laws should be published in our
>newsletter for subsequent vote by the membership. Rick claims
>that he has the right to deny such a motion since there is no
>specific wording compelling him to publish it in the newsletter,
>the specified mechanism to publicize such a motion required
>before vote.
>Incidentally, there was no such formal procedure followed before
>Steve Eckert moved our discussion list to a private server which
>he partly owns, the clear conflict of interest setting the stage
>for this dispute. This allowed Eckert to be list dictator
>with impunity, at least before the BoD consensus decree (attached).
>Half a year after this decree was issued, at least two of Eckert's
>lists on Climber.org continue operation in clear violation, including
>one for the PCS.  Our chair argued that the section is not
>*required* to run a 2-way discussion list.  We counter by saying
>that *if* a 2-way discussion list for the PCS is allowed to exist,
>then it should be on an SC server; this is a no-brainer and
>should immediately be implemented by the PCS leadership.
>Short of that, the matter should at least come up for a vote,
>don't you all think?
>This matter has become a contentious issue within the section
>with a lot of bad feelings and misunderstanding of motives between
>the two sides.  We emphatically *do not* want to remove Rick Booth
>from office, which he said would be required for us to proceed
>with our motion this term. But neither do we want to wait another
>year to get the list dictator off our back.  We would like the
>Section to run a proper discussion list as enjoyed by other
>Sections, as sanctioned by SC rules and open to all Section
>members.  Perhaps Rick would respond more favorably to our
>motion if we got a policy statement from the Chapter in favor
>of the publication of a duly seconded motion in our newsletter.
>This would clarify the ambiguity under which he initially
>decided not to publish.  This does not guarantee that we
>will get the list we've fought so long for but at least the
>membership would be allowed to decide.
>Thank you for considering our request.
>Rich Calliger and Tony Cruz
>HERE ARE THE BY-LAW REWORDING, then a sample Charter, then the BoD Decree
>for you convenience.
>	ARTICLE IV.  Officers 
>	---------------------
>	Section 3.  Term of Office and Election.  Officers shall serve for a term of
>	one year.
>The second sentence is not clear as to elected or appointed.
>We maintain the intent was for both appointed and elected andwould change that to read as such.
>	Section 5.  Duties of Officers.  The duties of the officers of the Section
>	shall be as follows:
>        a.  Chairman.  The Chairman of the Section calls and presides at the
>meetings of the Section, enforces the By-Laws of the Section, and appoints
>and may remove members of committees to carry out the work of the Section.
>We would amend and add wording to paragraph a to additionally read:
>	enforces the By-Laws of the Section and the Sierra Club,
>	The Chair shall sponsor a members-run 2-way
>	internet discussion list that is open, unmoderated and
>	follows Sierra Club LISTSERV rules and a Section Charter 
>              that indicates such. (Sample below)
>              ARTICLE IX.  Amendments
>	-----------------------
>	Section 1.  These By-Laws may be amended by a two-thirds majority of the Peak
>	Climbing Section members present at a duly constituted meeting of the Section
>	prior to submission of the amendment to the Executive Committee of the Loma
>	Prieta Chapter for approval, provided that the proposed amendment is
>	published in the Section newsletter immediately preceeding the meeting.
>There is no mechanism for publishing in the newsletter. We would specifically
>amend this to read "any Bylaw amendment motion presented in written form
>and signed by at least 5 members of the Sections shall be published in the 
>section newsletter for vote of the membership at the next regularly scheduled Section meeting."
>Note: we feel that the internet and email communciations affects
>most every aspect of pre-climb planning and post-climb reports
>today; such that this is sufficiently important to include in a Peak 
>Climbing Section's By-Laws:
> This is the offficial list for the Peak Climbing Section 
>of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club. This list 
>facilitates an unmoderated dialog among peak climbers for 
>the purposes of trip planning, reporting, gear evalutaion 
>and other issues and discussion topics pertinent to 
>mountaineering and climbing whether or not they are Sierra 
>Club  members. We encourage membership in and support of 
>the Sierra Club in order to help protect the backcountry 
>environment as well as encourage environmentally sound 
>mountaineering trips into that environment.
> To achieves this end, we encourage unmoderated discussions 
>of any topics on the list that members choose that are 
>relevant to mountaineering and to whatever depth and detail 
>that they so choose. Therefore, there are no topical, numerical 
>or categorical restrictions on posting to the LOMAP PCS
>list other than forbidding profanity, pornography, and 
>name-calling. All regulations of the rules of the Sierra 
>Club Lists Policy shall be followed in any dispute
>over types of posts. Commercialization and advertising 
>are not appropriate on this list. The list owners reserve 
>the right to take appropriate action using the Club 
>ADDENDUM:  the BoD consensus decree.
>Use of Third-Party Computer Equipment
>The Sierra Club Board of Directors directs that no Club entity may use for the
>purpose of facilitating Club business, activities, or membership communications,
>and that no Club entity may describe an e-mail list or web page as its own or
>the Club's, or imply that the Club owns such a list or page, unless it is hosted
>on Club-owned or Club-leased systems, or an exception to this policy is granted,
>as described below.  If any material technical capability required by an entity
>cannot be met by the Club's systems, the Information Technology Committee
>(ITCom) or its successor may authorize an exception to this requirement for as
>long as the capability is unavailable on a Club-based system.
>The migration from non-Club web and e-mail list systems to Club systems will be
>accomplished by 12/31/99. Any entity using a third-party system, now or in the
>future, must provide, in addition to permission of the ITCom, written proof of
>the system owner's consent to hosting the Club web pages or e-mail lists.  Also,
>if an exception to using Club systems is granted, the set-up and operation of
>the web pages or e-mail lists must still conform to the Club's established Web
>Business Practices and Listserver Policy.
>Aye:  Aumen, Berry, Dorsey, Ehrlich, Fahn, Ferenstein, Gaines, Hanson, Mowery,
>Ogle, Perrault, Voss, Werbach  
>Absent:  Brower
>HotBot - Search smarter.
>--------- End Forwarded Message ---------
>HotBot - Search smarter.

Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US 
Congress, this letter cannot be considered spam 
as long as the sender includes contact information and a method 
of removal. To be removed, please email calliger@infolane.com
with "Remove" in the subject line from the exact address from which
you received it.

Entire email Copyright  2000 R.J. Calliger

* From the PCT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *