It is currently Sat Apr 20, 2024 7:20 pm

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
 chair insults and demonizes an honest member and his motion 
Author Message
U.S. Army Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:17 pm
Posts: 87
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Post chair insults and demonizes an honest member and his motion
Hard to choose from so many, but this is one of my favorite messages from the workgroup Chair, severely abusing his chair position by insulting and demonizing an honest member while discounting his motion at the same time. Not exactly in the spirit of Roberts Rules!
I was very supportive of Jon's efforts to prohibit using phone conferences due to the posse's reputation for verbal and intellectual bullying, and posted many messages urging all workgroup business to be conducted in writting due to the highly contentious nature of the Israel/Palestine issues.

Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 13:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: EDUARDO <>
Subject: [VFP--IP] RE: Your Motion


You are dishonest and a bully. And I don't respond well to threats or attempts at intimidation.

You are totally disingenuous about what you are doing.

You're motion as written clearly prevents business from being conducted during phone conferences. Phone conferences are reduced to chat rooms where members can, in your words, "verbally express their opinions."

You're like a spoiled child Jon who has to have everything his way.

When those of us who supported phone meetings passed that motion, by majority vote, it not only provided three and seven day advance notice periods (seven for rules changes) during which people could lodge votes or offer amendments in advance of the meeting, but it doesn't in any way limit the opportunity for people to use the e-mail discussion and voting mechanism if they choose to do so.

As it stands now, under the current protocols, anyone who wants their motion discussed and voted on in the ten day process can do that if they prefer. Seems you don't like freedom of choice.

And you are disingenuous when you say the phone meetings are undemocratic. How is that exactly? Nothing can be voted on without a quorum.

Is it undemocratic that people who can't be at the phone meeting can't vote?

But they can, by e-mail, in the 72 hours before the meeting. Vince Stravino just cast a vote for your motion, in case he can't be at the meeting tonight. Check your e-mail.

And by the way, if I can't make a meeting of Chapter 69 in San Francisco, and I can't vote because I'm not there, is THAT undemocratic?

If it is then pretty much every chapter of Veterans for Peace is undemocratic because that's the way it works in probably every chapter. If you can't make the meeting, you don't get to vote unless, in some chapters, you can send a proxie, especially for those who have made a motion.

But people can do that in the phone meetings too. In the current phone meeting system people have 72 hours in advance to cast a vote which is seventy two hours more than anyone gets in those VFP chapter meetings.

And you said "the only advantage of the current rules for conference calls is that it allows for the possibility of railroading by a faction of the group.

Well Jon, if that's the case with our phone meetings, then that would be the case with EVERY VFP CHAPTER MEETING as well. Must be a lot of railroading going on.

I think "railroading' is your term for majority rule when you're not in the majority. No one I know of in the pro-Palestinian "Posse" has wanted to limit democratic process in any way. And I have personally taken every measure to insure that phone meetings would be scheduled when the maximum number of members can attend. That's a matter of record.

And of course the quorum requirement is in place specifically to prevent railroading. But even that isn't enough to satisfy Jon Monday.

I'm sorry Jon. One of the responsibilities of a chair is to clarify the IMPACT or CONSEQUENCES of a motion. And my description is absolutely accurate. All of your words and attempts at intimidation (you already went to the board once and presented a totally fabricated case to try to have me removed) won't change that. I don't like bullies. Never have. And I don't respond well to intimidation.

You may have chaired some companies and bossed a lot of people. But this isn't your company and I'm not your employee. I work for the entire group, and I respect the majority.

I'm more than a little angry that you describe me as undemocratic when I have gone to great lengths to protect democratic process in this group.

It was your close associate, Ed McCarthy who wrote two 'stealth' motions which YOU SECONDED and which would have totally undermined guarantees of democratic process in this group.

One attempted to do away with the requirement of a quorum (strangely without mentioning it) and the other masqueraded as a motion to allow small groups to work together but also ELIMINATED the requirement of majority approval for materials sent from this group to chapters and board. THOSE were examples of undemocratic - even anti-democratic - mechanisms.

I'm even more angry that you are also impugning the majority of good people in this working group, because they voted for the processes you so mistakenly describe as undemocratic.

By the way, your motion that didn't even have a valid second was placed on the agenda anyway. But that's not enough for Jon Monday. You want me to type the words and write the deceptive description you dictate to me.

Sorry. I don't play that way. Never have. The description stands.

Eduardo Cohen

--- On Tue, 5/3/11, Jon Monday <> wrote:

From: Jon Monday <>
Subject: RE: [VFP--IP] Agenda- May 3rd Meeting of VFP Israel-Palestine Working Group
Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2011, 11:02 AM
Chairman Eduardo,

Once again you have demonstrated your bias and unfitness for the position.

In your summary of my motion you say, " New Motion from Jon Monday to eliminate phone conference meetings as a mode to conduct
group business.", which is not at all what my motion says nor is it my intent.

What I do say in the motion is, among other things, "If requested, there can also be a conference call at any time during the discussion period, for
those who desire to verbally express their opinions."

My issue with Conference Calls as the primary means of discussion and voting is that it is undemocratic, in that it excludes those who cannot be on the
call, and we have a demonstrated history of not being able to gather a quorum for a call. If we have email discussions, there can also be a call, after which those who cannot be on the call can listen to the recording, and then vote by email based on all of the discussions (emails and calls). This has the advantage that it excludes no one, includes all
aspects of communication, and will promote a more robust discussion of the issue.

The only advantage of the current rules for Conference Calls is that it allows for the possibility of railroading by a faction of the group.

Please restate my motion summary to correctly reflect its intent.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []
> On Behalf Of EDUARDO
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 8:23 AM
> To:
> Subject: [VFP--IP] Agenda- May 3rd Meeting of VFP
> Israel-Palestine Working
> Group
> May 3rd, 2011 Meeting of the VFP Israel-Palestine Working
> Group
> Date of meeting: Tuesday, May 3rd
> Time: 5pm Pacific, 6pm Mountain, 7pm
> Central, 8pm Eastern Time.

we have a NEW forum, if you're already a member of this group, feel free to join up at this link...

Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:27 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.