[Peace-discuss] lawyer stuff

[Morton K.Brussel]

I subscribe to Peter's sentiments about payment to Gerstein, but I 
think there was no clear resolution--consensus-non-consensus--with 
regard to  Gerstein as a legal rep/consultant. After looking at other 
alternatives, he may prove be more attractive. It seems to me a little 
more "research" should be done before condemning him on the basis of a 
N-G article. I don't feel this issue was resolved at the meeting.

Mort

On Apr 19, 2004, at 10:28 AM, Peter Rohloff wrote:

>
> Howdy all,
>
> I hate to bring this up, but one issue remains outstanding after three 
> weeks of discussion about the lawyer situation. Maybe we can discuss 
> it on the list and thereby avoid taking up more meeting time.
>
> Basically, several persons have raised blocking objections to the use 
> of Gerstein (sp?) as AWARE's lawyer. At yesterday's meeting, those 
> objections stood, and we decided to spend time looking for another 
> lawyer and also trying to do our own homework (filing complaints, 
> pressing charges etc etc) better.
>
> However, the outstanding issue, as far as I can tell,  is that several 
> persons are also blocking disbursement of funds to Gerstein ($100) for 
> services already rendered--i.e., for meeting for one hour with Carl 
> and Ricky. Am I correct on this? If not, someone please correct me, 
> and disregard the rest of my message.
>
> Here's how I see it.
>
> To block payment of the $100 to Gerstein would be a show of really bad 
> faith. It has been alleged that AWARE never agreed to a billed meeting 
> (some people thought this meeting was going to be free). Even if this 
> might be technically true, its not a very good reason for blocking 
> payment--in fact it goes against the way, historically, AWARE has run 
> and cut checks. Ricky and Carl had been talking about this meeting for 
> AT LEAST one month before it happened. The fact is that no one else 
> bothered to do any research on Gerstein until after the meeting and 
> after the N-G article. The time to raise an objection would have been 
> before the event. AWARE has a long-standing policy of one week from 
> proposal to approval for raising objections. This policy was honored 
> in the Gerstein case and no objections were raised. Granted, new 
> information has come to light, and it has been carefully taken into 
> consideration. But I don't see how we can with integrity apply our 
> policy changes retroactively.
>
> What's more, AWARE has always allowed considerable leeway for the 
> disbursement of small ($50-100) funds for working group activities 
> without much oversight by the large group, especially by long-standing 
> members (i.e. Ricky and Carl).  To block payment of such a small 
> amount, after the fact, will reflect badly, IMHO, on Ricky and Carl, 
> who exerted considerable time and energy on the project. It also sets 
> the bad precedent that members who put energy and time into a project 
> may find themselves unsupported finally, by those with no interest in 
> working on the project themselves. I think we should not set this 
> precedent. I for one would find these sorts of things discouraging to 
> my own self-motivated enterprise on AWARE's behalf.
>
> So I propose the following:
>
> 1. The objection to not hiring Gerstein should stand.
>
> 2. The objection to paying him $100 should be withdrawn.
>
> 3. If people are interested in formalizing our policy of cutting 
> checks, that could be an agenda item on a future meeting.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>