[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Index by Month]
Re: PAM and lawyer
Bob,
I agree with you 100%! Regarding PAM, absolutely NO!
Merrill Cohen
On 11/03/99 09:55:57 you wrote:
>
>Hi David & MC,
>
> Regarding the not for profit status, we will be going for it. The
>problem that I see is that we have to have some decisions about our
>method of operation decided and we aren't there yet.
>
> Regarding an attorney, I agree completely. I am going to copy the MC on
>this reply because it is something else we have to decide on ASAP.
>
> I just saw Erik's latest communique and have to say, I agree with a
>whole lot of it. Because of it, I am not giving you a decision on going
>ahead with the negotiations until I hear from the rest of the MC. ( See
>below )
>
> I want to remind everybody that I suggested we list all the things we
>can/should be doing and then prioritize them. If we had taken this
>approach, I think we would have found out that the single most important
>item was coming to a conclusion about how we are going to operate the
>AGA. With that decided, we can establish bylaws and once they are in
>hand, we have the basis for an application for tax exempt status. The
>rest flows from there. I think that in retrospect, the decision to jump
>into the PAM negotiation was premature.
>
> Therefore, I am suggesting that we tell Gomberg, no , we are not ready
>to participate in PAM because we simply don't have our act together yet.
>When we do have it together, we can revisit the issue if it is still
>alive. Please indicate your ideas on this subject ASAP.
>
> Thanks, Bob.
>
>