[SBU Board] Alarming Accusations

Thu Aug 9 08:26:20 PDT 2018

However this shakes out, please be mindful of addressing attribution across the board.

Two of the (non-Seattle) folks have already clearly specified their wishes concerning attribution.  They were so clear about it (i.e. raising it upfront themselves) that I frankly see no value in taking the time and effort to attempt to contact them to verify that their positions are unchanged on this.  As I read John’s recommendation below, he suggests that only the allegations made by a party willing to be named would be communicated to Bryan -- that reference to allegations by other (non-Seattle) parties would not be communicated to Bryan.  Please keep in mind the third non-Seattle party (who initiated this entire episode and with whom I have never had contact), to my knowledge, hasn’t specified whether or not he is OK with attribution.  Someone could potentially attempt to make contact with this person to get their position on verifying and sharing what David has attributed to him — I would like Ann or Ray to specifically address the whether and the who of such a potential contact.

Then there are three Seattle area parties who conferred concerning how to handle the matter.

Tim

> On Aug 9, 2018, at 7:56 AM, Monty Gray <mlgrayjr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree with John.
>  
> Monty Gray
>  
> From: John Weinberg <mailto:judgejohn at msn.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 6:34 AM
> To: Seattle ACBL Unit Board <mailto:sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
> Subject: Re: [SBU Board] Alarming Accusations
>  
> My view: if a person has provided her name, and says she does not care with whom we share the information she has provided, we should provide the name and the information to Bryan, and give him a chance to respond.
> If a person has not provided her name, or has not authorized us to share the information with Bryan, we should not disclose it to him; but we should disregard it for all purposes.
> Monty suggested that Tim contact again the sources who have not given total clearance for disclosure, and ask for clarification as to their wishes.  If there is time to do this, I support that suggestion.   But if for some reason there is not time, I think we should go with only the info which falls in the first category, and disregard the rest. 
>  
> John W.
>  
> From: Sbuboard <sbuboard-bounces+judgejohn=msn.com at mailman.celestial.com> On Behalf Of Raymond Miller
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2018 12:02 AM
> To: Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
> Subject: Re: [SBU Board] Alarming Accusations
>  
> John, We will be editing the memo tomorrow.  To make sure I understand, we can share information from the named accusers, but should leave out the background information from the employee who wished to remain annymous?  This sounds pretty easy, and most of allegations seem to come from the other two accusers.  
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Ray
>  
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:52 PM John Weinberg <judgejohn at msn.com <mailto:judgejohn at msn.com>> wrote:
> I agree with Monty’s suggestions.
> We should definitely give Bryan a chance to respond.
> We cannot share with Bryan allegations and information unless Tim is authorized to share its content and source.
> And we ourselves should do our best to disregard such information totally.
> It is much like asking a jury to disregard certain testimony they have already heard.  Lawyers (and judges) call it “un-ringing a bell.” Frequently it doesn’t make much practical sense in that context, and might not in ours.  But we should do it the best we can. 
>  
> John W.
>  
> From: Sbuboard <sbuboard-bounces+judgejohn=msn.com at mailman.celestial.com <mailto:msn.com at mailman.celestial.com>> On Behalf Of Monty Gray
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 4:35 PM
> To: Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com <mailto:sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>>
> Subject: Re: [SBU Board] Alarming Accusations
>  
> I agree with this; but I’d like Bryan to hear exactly what the Board was told.  It’s often difficult to respond convincingly to nonspecific allegations without knowing who made them.  
>  
> As I recall, one of the sources didn’t want to be identified, one said that she didn’t care whom her information was shared with, and one didn’t express a position on the subject.  I think Tim should get back to the people and confirm whether they are or are not willing to have their accusations and/or identities shared with Bryan, but tell them that many members of the Board, maybe all, will give little or no weight to accusations to which Bryan has no opportunity to respond, or that are made anonymously.
>  
> I wouldn’t give Bryan a copy of Tim’s memo, however.  I think Tim should read the portions dealing with the allegations from Horn Lake (not the parts about Tim’s discussions with David and Jeff), or such portions as the sources permit, to Bryan, and that this should occur well in advance of our meeting with Bryan so that he has a chance to collect his thoughts and prepare his response.
>  
> Monty Gray
>  
> From: LARRY HOLDREN <mailto:larryholdren at comcast.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 4:30 PM
> To: Seattle ACBL Unit Board <mailto:sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
> Subject: Re: [SBU Board] Alarming Accusations
>  
> I agree we  should hear his side.  
>  
> Larry
>  
> From: Raymond Miller <mailto:raysmiller at gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 1:45 PM
> To: Seattle ACBL Unit Board <mailto:sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
> Subject: [SBU Board] Alarming Accusations
>  
> HI all, 
>  
> I have been conversing with Tim the issue and now feel that I need to present this to the entire board and get a quick consensus.  
>  
> I am very disturbed about the allegations against Bryan.  To me the allegations do not hang together.  This smells very like a well planned character assassination and not a legitimate beef against a fellow employee.  There are 3 areas of concern that I believe warrant further action on our part.  1.  When Brian left headquarters to move to Seattle he was allowed to continue in his position remotely ( I hear he was asked to do this by his bosses).  Ann and I see this as a requiring a great deal of trust and respect.  Not something accorded to a trouble maker and non-team player. 2.  The allegation that Bryan misappropriated funds.  A crime.  Yet there have been no consequences for this supposed crime.  3.  Last fall Bryan taught on a cruise run by an ACBL client. This doesn't sound like an activity the league would have allowed if Bryan were a person in bad standing.  
> I understand the need to keep this issue confidential.  But I feel that is conflict with what we should do.  I believe that Bryan should be informed of these charges and given the chance to answer them in front of the board as soon as possible.  I do not feel the board can make a fair choice in the upcoming election without hearing from Bryan.  Anyone in his position should have the right to answer these charges.  
>  
> Therefore I am asking the board to vote Yes or No.  Bryan should be given a hearing before the board to answer these charges and should be informed in full of nature and specifics of the charges.  That should take place at the September meeting.
>  
> Please note, I believe this is a very delicate matter and that Tim has handled it well thus far.  I do not want the letter Tim read to us to be made available to Bryan in full, because I do not think he needs to know who was involved in receiving information and passing it on on our end.  Please carefully consider your position, send out any comments you have and send on your decision as soon as possible.  
>  
> Thank you for reading this and thank you ahead of time for tackling this very difficult situation.   
>  
> Ray
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com <mailto:Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard <http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com <mailto:Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard <http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20180809/11996642/attachment-0001.html>