[Peace-discuss] lawyer stuff

[C. G. Estabrook]

This strikes me as closely reasoned and eminently sensible.  Thanks,
Peter.

Although I think our colleagues' concerns about Marvin should be taken
seriously, I do think they're misplaced and hope they'd be withdrawn.
Marvin is competent and sympathetic to our position.  And (as I believe
you pointed out) we're not going to find too many others like that at this
cost.

The more important point is that we have some legal representation in
place. The matter is an indication of how seriously we're taking our
demonstrations this summer.  Too much hesitation in dealing with our legal
situation may betray a bit of presumed class privilege, if we think we can
just talk things over with nice mister policemen and have everything be
okay.

Finally, I deeply regret using the term "blocking concern" (as I think I
did) at yesterday's meeting. It's drawn from what I think are the
generally self-defeating "consensus" procedures that have been paralyzing
voluntary organizations for a generation or more.  It's not a road we want
to go down.  AWARE's collegial manner of proceeding is far better.

Regards, Carl


On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, 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.
>   
>