Carmen wrote:
Thanks for the info, Sally. I must say, however, that I feel pushed out of
shape a bit when you suggest that we follow up on things of importance, when
you dont even put out what transpired at the meeting in SF.
It really and truly feels unfair.
Ja.
Likewise there is no info out on the Board of Directors meeting.
What good is it to wait for three months for a (maybe) minutes?
I
mean, there should be open discussions beforehand, info during/in
sync with and official minutes afterwards. The fact that there isnt
is unfair, in Carmens terms.
It just means that the Networks
business is exclusionary to a very few and that what goes on is
not representative of the clients in general not even of the
interested and involved client activists.
The party line is
Go to the meetings, but
there is precious little room for effective
discussion there. Mainly you will learn the up-front feel of the
business that has already been framed/determined.
:-(
- This is a far cry from a client organization that is meant to
bring in large numbers of the California clients.
- The pity is that one cant even write what Ive just written,
though its a totally commonplace point of view, without being
considered that its knocking the Network.
Why cant people
look at these facts and instead discuss what would be involved
in making this all actually work better?
Respectfully
Andrew Phelps
|
|