[Bikies] Rethinking the BFW Sham Board Election (was More on re-thinking what's important...)

[Doug Adler]

I read the ED firing and election posts with a detached view, again I don't know any of these people.  I don't recall too much blame and finger pointing.  The  most derogatory and negative comments I have seen came from people opposed to Pam's campaign.  I haven't seen any negativity from Pam herself, and am concerned that you keep trying to link her with such - seems like a smear campaign. Sorry, but we lowly members just don't have much concrete information to go on here. That doesn't mean we should bury our heads in the sand and blindly "go forward".  We all want positive biking results, but that starts with having the right leaders in place.  I think the board has given a few reasons (based on the posts I've read) to believe they may not all be the right leaders:     1. Firing the ED without warning or severance pay, to institute a "change in direction" that we haven't heard yet. I could overlook this.  Seems harsh and suspicious to me, but then I don't know details, and I'd like to think the board has their hearts in the right place and is doing what they think is best for BFW. 2. Lack of communication of #1 with members.  My reaction : same as #1 above. 3.  Leaving qualified candidates off the ballot.   OK, that's where I gotta draw the line.  On the (apparently NOT humourous AND grossly innaccurate) reference to Bulgarian elections - I got the point.  Leaving candidates off the ballot undermines a vote so thoroughly you might as well not even vote.  It turns a democratic election into a sham.  Before I found out about that I doubt I would have voted.  Now you can count on it.  Unfortunately we don't have enough info to know the good from the bad on the board, so as they say, "throw the bums out" and move ahead.   -- Doug Adler Subject: [Bikies] More on re-thinking what's important... From: Renee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:23:27 -0500 To: bikies@danenet.org To: bikies@danenet.org To those who have responded to my post -- my message was not solely directed to Pam.  There were references that I made directed to Pam and the messages on her site.  I stand by my opinion that I felt several of the messages she relayed on her site were unprofessional and did not contribute to my understanding of what she can bring to the board or how she could help improve our cycling community.  Doug, there is appropriate humour and inappropriate humour for the context of the particular situation.    Some of my comments were aimed at the entire constituency on this list -- particularly the comments about how too many people on the list were drilling into what seemed like petty bickering and finger pointing (the first statement in my email).  Again, in my opinion, too much energy has been wasted in those words.  Pam Barrett "appears" to be the candidate who was the implied representative for these individuals -- and all that followed was more blame, finger pointing and derogatory comments, most without concrete evidence that I could see.   The intention was not meant to be inflammatory personally to any one person - the intention was to cite the examples I think are detrimental to the overall goals this entire community should be trying to achieve -- in a positive, not negative fashion.  Everyone here has a responsibility to take it forward.  Focusing on incomplete or unfounded accusations is not a way to do this.  Sharing and communicating how you as a bikie, or you as a future board member can help our bike community progress, in my opinion, most definitely is.   Sincere apologies for any offense, please take my message as a call to move ahead.   Renee

_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
Bikies@danenet.org
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies