[SBU Board] Alarming Accusations

Thu Aug 9 08:26:38 PDT 2018

I disagree on one key aspect. current ACBL employees are not supposed to
influence board elections. It's a conflict of interest, and it may be
misconduct per employee agreements/guidelines. Tim has reported to us that
at least one current employee is using their position to influence an
election. I think that should be reported to ACBL HQ HR and/or ACBL
counsel, with all the detail that we have, no matter the employee's
"preference". (If Tim has already done this, I don't recall him mentioning
it in the statement.)

--
JC Chupack
Seattle ACBL Unit 446 <http://bridgeinseattle.org> Secretary, Electronic
Contact, & Publicity Chair

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Monty Gray <mlgrayjr at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with John.
>
>
>
> Monty Gray
>
>
>
> *From: *John Weinberg <judgejohn at msn.com>
> *Sent: *Thursday, August 9, 2018 6:34 AM
> *To: *Seattle ACBL Unit Board <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> 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>
> *On Behalf Of *Monty Gray
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2018 4:35 PM
> *To:* Seattle ACBL Unit Board <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 <larryholdren at comcast.net>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, August 7, 2018 4:30 PM
> *To: *Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [SBU Board] Alarming Accusations
>
>
>
> I agree we  should hear his side.
>
>
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* Raymond Miller <raysmiller at gmail.com>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2018 1:45 PM
>
> *To:* Seattle ACBL Unit Board <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
>
> [image: cid:image002.png at 01D42F50.6B214A60]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
> 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/c0ab09e1/attachment-0001.html>