1- You state: " I suggest that Jose review the history of the past 20 years and see how many exceptions he can cite..."
You are correct to say that at least in the last 20 years no EVP has peen passed over. There have been instances where members of the Executive Committee have been replaced and removed from the "line of succession" . in at least one case, the person involved was elected latter and was raised to the AOS Presidency. [Note: I have reviewed more than 30 years of AOS history.] In my opinion, the fact that the long-held "tradition" was not followed may point to powerful reasons by the Nominating Committee to do so, which may include the perception that the person rejected was not able to work with the Board. But here I am speculating, the only ones that can answer are the members of said committee and they are between the proverbial rock and a hard place as ethics may prevent them from revealing their private discussions. 2- You state "The post of executive ice president provides a period of training and opportunity to view the performance of the individual and to prepare the candidate. In that same vein, the post of executive vice-president normally has been filled by someone who immediately previously was serving as one of the two vice presidents or as treasurer. To conclude that someone who has served in several senior positions including two years as executive vice president suddenly is not deemed to be the logical candidate for the next presidency is bizarre not impossible but very unlikely. Yes , the position allows the person to be evaluated and his/her virtues as well as shortcomings be revealed . Hard as it may sound..there is a saying that states that the higher you go on a stepladder , the more obvious your shortcomings will be Maybe it took all those periods of service to demonstrate that the person in question had reach the top level of competence and that promoting him for the sake of tradition. Again we are speculating. Only the committee members know why. 3- You state: "A nominating committee certainly has every right to reach such a conclusion .." This I don't understand : They have the power and the right and yet you pilloried them for doing what is their right. 4- You state: "In no previous instances of the Nominating Committee's proposing one of their own were the obvious consequences so predictably highly controversial and divisive, nor was the likely adverse effect on tenuous AOS finances so clear." So lets see if I got this one right: as long a group favorite is not touched ...the process of nominating a member of the Committee was not bad. Please be more specific on the "adverse damages" claim. So who decides on the "highly controversial' tag? I for one can say , I have received an equal number of pro and anti Bronstein e-mails with many of the cons being very vehement against the man. So I am left with the conclusion that controversy was going to follow this nomination regardless. But this is my opinion and not fact. 5- You state : " There is indeed nothing in the by-laws that requires or suggests that the Executive Vice President will become the next president.. " So why all the brouhaha? Here is where I am finding a disturbing pattern... The person selected over Mr Bronstein is Art Moore not Taylor Slaughter , nor Jim Rassmann... So what is so controversial about Art Moore? Is he not qualified other than he is not Mr Bronstein? Where are the conflicts of interest in his selection? Most of the arguments against Mr Moore selection that I have heard and that I have received are against Mr Rassmann and they include attacks on his personality and his politics ( specific that he is supporting John Kerry). So I am getting the impression that the proxy fight exists inasmuch as it is a proxy fight ( Mr Moore being the screen) against Mr Rassmann. So again I ask what are the facts that can be raised against the individual members of the proposed slate . Facts , not innuendo Finally you state: " I stated explicitly that the nominating committee may or may not have been well-advised in passing over the incumbent executive vide president. " Dave were they well advised or not? On this issue you cannot have it both ways. "No one questions their prerogative to do so, and they certainly are not supposed to be a rubber stamp...." As to the questioning of their prerogative you among others are just doing that. Again you cannot have it both ways. "What I am saying is that the substitutions they made have given rise to all sorts of harmful rumors of self-serving and conflicts of interest that are doing great harm to the AOS, and that a nominating committee should be reconvened to pick a slate that is not vulnerable to such allegations." Please read what you wrote... Who is guilty of the harmful rumors ( Isnt that inuendo?) : The committee , the proposed slate? IMHO the people that should be asked to respond and be rejected are those spouting the "harmful" ( your word , not mine) rumors , not the victims of said rumors. "By rejecting the currently proposed slate, there would have to be such a reconvening. I would expect and hope that some of the nominees of the first slate would reappear on the second, since some of them are not objects of controversy" Allow me a personal comment.. this last statement is wishfull thinking on your part. I am not opposed to democracy as a detractor's e-mail accused me. I have no objection to conmtested elections. What I do wory is that in the name of saving the AOS from James Rassmann [and lets be honest about this the whole fight boils down to that: it is not Art Moore, and the others people oppose..It is Rasmmann] more damage will be done. Do I make clear, Dave? Jose A. Izquierdo _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
