[Peace-discuss] Legal support

[Randall Cotton]

Linda may have had the impression that we were now all OK after two
revisions (the "charged" leaving the AWARE meeting during discussion of
their case and removal of "level of active participation in AWARE" as a
criteria by the MAP committee). The revisions did seem to have agreement
without objection. But the general reservations behind the proposal as a
whole, expressed by myself (and Carl, to a lesser extent), were not
resolved. A question like "Is everybody now OK with the proposal?" was never
asked.

I considered reiterating my concerns at the end there, but I decided against
it since I would've just been repeating myself and I didn't want to come off
as harping on it.

I ask to be recognized as objecting to the proposal as it stands as if I had
done so during the meeting. And that if we revisit this, we do so after the
event that brought this all up (Lori's legal issue) is fully resolved so
that we can discuss and debate with the benefit of hindsight.

R

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alfred Kagan" <akagan at uiuc.edu>
To: <Peace-discuss at lists.groogroo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 9:19 AM
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Legal support


> When it looked like we had finished the discussion of the guidelines,
> I specifically asked if we were now all OK with them after the two
> revisions. Linda, as facilitator, specifically acknowledged that.  Of
> course, we can always revisit our decisions.
>
>
> From: "Randall Cotton" <recotton at earthlink.net>
> To: <peace-discuss at lists.groogroo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] legal support guidelines
> Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 14:07:44 -0500
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_15D8_01C32390.2D7D6040
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> legal support guidelinesI must say that I don't recall any expression of =
> approval by the meeting as a whole. I do recall expressions of both =
> approval and dissent. In any case, I was not asked if I objected. If I =
> was, I would have said yes and others may have as well.
>
> Now, I agree with Carl that when the rubber meets the road in future =
> cases, the course of events will very likely outrun and circumvent the =
> proposed guidelines, policies and procedures below. Given that, it might =
> be suggested that I have little motivation to object. There would be =
> some truth to that, but I'm concerned about the precedent this is =
> setting.
>
> This all seems to me rather arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive =
> bureaucracy - exactly the kind of thing AWARE has a history of =
> successfully avoiding, to its great credit. I could now proceed to =
> outline my objections to various individual provisions of the proposed =
> guidelines, policies and procedures below, but instead, I would like to =
> suggest the material below not yet be formally adopted, that it be set =
> aside for now and that it be further discussed and debated once Lori's =
> legal fight is resolved.
>
> R
> --
>
>
> Al Kagan
> African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
> Africana Unit, Room 328
> University of Illinois Library
> 1408 W. Gregory Drive
> Urbana, IL 61801, USA
>
> tel. 217-333-6519
> fax. 217-333-2214
> e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>