In this message below, the then Workgroup Chair (Eduardo) explains why the recording of the conference call in which business was conducted shall not be released to any Workgroup member.
Gordon


Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 18:00:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: EDUARDO <eduardoben@prodigy.net>
Subject: [VFP--IP] re Notes and Recording of May 3rd Meeting
To: vfp-israel-palestine@googlegroups.com

Greetings all,

Regarding the notes and recording from our last meeting.

I apologize for not getting the notes out sooner. Unfortunately, no one volunteered to take notes. So I'm doing that myself. And I've been swamped with Middle East work, Working Group demands and a ton of work trade I owe to my landlord. And I'm responsible for going through all the e-mails which is INCREDIBLY time consuming. Going through the tape to make sure the notes are accurate and comprehensive is also a little time consuming. But I hope to have the notes finished tonight.

Regarding the recording. I'm not going to release the recording at this time.

Some members may have wondered why Jon is the one making a big stink about the recording and the notes when he was present for the entire meeting. But for Jon it’s about getting his hands on the recording.

Here’s why.

Jon Monday agreed to have a one on one with Bill Perry after the last meeting. It was to be after the meeting was adjourned and thus off the record. Bill made some undeniably rude and inappropriate comments. But it was after adjournment and, again, understood to be off the record. If those comments had been made during the meeting I would have been forced to cite Bill for a third violation of the rules of decorum which would have brought a seven day suspension.

But if you take a close look at Jon's letter to the Board, you will see that he is prepared to present the recording of the meeting to the Board so that they can listen to Bill’s off the record statements. There are words I can think of to describe such an action, but I don’t believe any of them would be appropriate for me to use here.

There is no requirement that the tape be made available. It’s an optional convenience that isn't required or even mentioned in the motion that established regular telephone conference meetings in which business could be conducted.

Under these circumstances, I don't feel comfortable releasing the code if it appears Jon is waiting to go running to the Board to use off the record comments against another member.

It doesn't seem right.

And that is, I believe, the real reason for Jon's elevated interest and repeated requests for the recording.

I’m sorry that Jon’s actions make it impossible for me to release the tape. It was a productive and inspiring meeting that everyone should be able to hear.

Be well.

Eduardo Cohen
Chair

Here is the most informative response to the above, from Jon Monday the former Workgroup Chair (right below). It should be noted that the link to the conference call recording was never released.
Gordon

From: "Jon Monday" <jmonday@sales-and-marketing.net>
To: <vfp-israel-palestine@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [VFP--IP] re Notes and Recording of May 3rd Meeting
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 21:19:06 -0700

Chairman Eduardo,

Before I requested the information to hear the recording, two members who were not on the call requested it. Both Ed and Gordon requested to hear the call, because substantial business was conducted there. The recording is the only way for all members to hear what was said and done. I just repeated the request for the information, since no action was being taken to get it out to the members, which is your responsibility.

At the beginning of the WG, when we were first discussing how we would conduct business, it was agreed that all members would have access to all emails, and that all Conference calls would be recorded, and that the recordings would be available to those who couldn’t participate. This answered the objection by those who didn’t want calls at all, as they thought there would be no record.

In the arguments in support for Jack's original motion it was represented that there would be recordings as it replaces the permanent written record of the actions of the Working Group, in regards to actions taken in the calls.

Here are a few comments you’ve made in emails over the last several months about recording the calls:

Playback requires a code for the specific recording which I will provide after the call

Here is the access information for the recording of the Dec 30 telephone conference. I've been mostly away from my computer for a day or two and I just found this info in my spam folder. My apologies. I should have looked there sooner.

I'll send the access code in the morning with some instructions so that anyone who wants to can review the recording of the meeting.

After this email, I’ve copied some comments from other members about recording of calls.

There was wide support and expectation by the group that all calls would be recorded, and that members would have a chance to hear the recording – so as they could benefit from the discussion, even if unable to make the call. The recording of calls was held as an way of making group discussions fully democratic - as are email discussions, where there is a permanent record, available to all, of what is proposed and discussed.

When I agreed with Bill to have the conversation, I had really hoped for a substantive discussion of our positions, in a mature, reasonable, manner.

Regarding the idea that the conversation between Bill and I was “off the record”, is not true. Both Bill and I explicitly agreed to continue the recording of the call, making it “on the record” (that agreement is also embedded in the recording), and there was no agreement, explicit or otherwise, by either of us to have the discussion be "off the record". The recording simply reflects the true nature and tone of Bill's style of communication, no better, no worse.

Please send the information for everyone to hear the call. That’s your responsibility, as is issuing warnings, when the rules call for it.

Jon

Here are just a few comments by members, regarding recordings:

On 9/28/2010 8:05 PM, Ken wrote that he couldn’t participate in an upcoming call, but would “look forward to hearing the recording.”

12/27/2010 5:32 AM, Ken wrote, “Hi Eduardo, I suggest you send an e-mail to the entire WG explaining how to hear the recording of the conference call, assuming that the recording was successful.”

Wed 1/5/2011 9:37 PM, Ken wrote, “I strongly object to the portion of [Jack’s] proposal that states "any kind of group business can be conducted including making and passing motions." IMHO, it would be OK to have motions and discuss them, but voting should be done by e-mail over a three day period starting four days after the conference call in order to provide an opportunity for those unable to participate in the call to dial in for the recording.”

Fri 1/7/2011 7:26 PM, Ken wrote, “Voting in advance of a conference call sacrifices the value of the discussion of the issue during the conference call, whether the WG member can participate in the live call or listen to the recording afterwards. My position is this: If a motion is made seven or more days before a conference call under the present rules, then the three day voting period could include the conference call and votes made during the call could be counted "live" and confirmed subsequently by e-mail. But voters unable to participate in the call would then be able to listen to the recording prior to voting. If the motion is made less than seven days prior to the call, the normal 3 day period should apply except in an emergency.”

Tue 4/19/2011 9:33 PM, Peggy wrote, “Unforeseen circumstances kept me from the conference call/meeting. I surely would like to be able to listen to the recording though.”

From: Kenneth Mayers <kenmayers@vfp-santafe.org>
Subject: Re: [VFP--IP] Motion
To: vfp-israel-palestine@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 9:33 AM

Bill,

It is unfortunate that you have such a violent allergic reaction to anything suggested by those whom you have decided are your enemies. Ed's motion to provide for voting AFTER a recorded conference call is a sensible one that I support and that I do not believe would substantially delay important decisions. I, for one, like to have the benefit of any full discussion that precedes a vote. And since my work and travel schedule may frequently preclude my live participation in a conference call, I'd like to be able to listen to any conference call on a subject before I submit my vote.

Ken


-----Original Message-----
From: vfp-israel-palestine@googlegroups.com [mailto:vfp-israel-palestine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of EDUARDO
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 6:00 PM
To: vfp-israel-palestine@googlegroups.com
Subject: [VFP--IP] re Notes and Recording of May 3rd Meeting

Greetings all,