Re: More On TAG/PAM/Interaction/Communication

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

This is an unsent letter to Mary which was written last night after the
note she sent to me and you individually. I am sending it unedited to you
guys, and at Karen's request, I will send a slightly-edited version to
Mary if I can figure out a way to get across point #5 without her replying
like a child, and thus having it become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  To
tell you the truth, I have doubts that sending it in any form will
generate anything other than more pain.

  - Erik

PS: Please vote yes or no on whether to contact Dave and negotiate two
pages for PAM.  I need to give him an answer now.

-----------
Mary,

1.  I hear and understand that you are unhappy with my approach to the
current problem.  I acknowledge that I could have presented my dialogue
with Dave in a more constructive manner to the Management Committee.  In
fact, I regret forwarding his messages at all, because they often only
serve to get people riled up.  What can I say?  I thought it was the right
thing to do last week.  I can also understand how reading things from your
perspective, especially seeing them all as one block Friday morning you
would interpret this as being "planned behind your back."  I am sorry for
this.

2. Now step outside your viewpoint and try to go back and read
the archives from Thursday from MY perspective.  I did not PLAN with Dave;
I responded to his questions, and made a few alternative suggestions.  
For the most part, he wrote (quite out of the blue, in fact.  I did not
write him!) and told me a bunch of things he wanted, and I told him, No,
can't do that.  No, can't do that, and no, can't do that.  And then
attempted to show him that Yes, there was still possibility for the
two-page spread even without all these things he wanted, and that I'd go
back and talk to the MC.  That's where it ended.  And that's where it
still sits today. There is a mail message from him saying "tell me what
you would like to run."  It is unanswered.

3. So let's consider your DEMAND that any and all future discussions with
PAM or any other entity must be filtered through the AGA Management.  You
say that what I did in this case was not enough, and that I should not
have even SPOKEN to Dave without first talking to the MC.  I think this is
an UNREASONABLE request.  We tried to do this with aspects of the
convention, and failed miserably at even coming up with some simple
trivial auction rules in a timely manner.  Same with whole thing about the
taping.  If Charlene had waited for us instead of taking the initiative, 
we would have had no auction, and probably no convention.

Rather, I beleive that it is perfectly HEALTHY to come up with some
preliminary ideas, and *then* approach the Management.  What is wrong with
having a little momentum behind an idea?  That's how we did it with the
Showcase.  That was a fully-formed PROPOSAL by the time it hit management!  

If an idea is presented with absolutely no momentum, recent experience
predicts that it is probably going to stall out.  I already KNEW that you
and James had agreed it was OK for PAM to print things as long as TAG got
"first dibs".  That seemed enough for me to continue talking, while
simultaneously keeping the MC abreast of the progress.  And in fact it was
the *dialog* with Dave, learning what he wanted to print (which
coincidentally was what I knew he COULDN'T run because of our plans) that
got me thinking about what MIGHT work.  What do you suppose would have
happened if I said "Dave wants to run 2 pages of winning entries in PAM
#4."

Make no mistake, I do not want to see things happen like when Bob Cashin
decided to run the PAM ads without even TALKING to the Management
Committee, or when you and Neil decided to give discount memberships to
Glaeser's club without mentioning it to anyone.  Frankly, I should have
come down on the two of you like a ton of bricks when I learned this, but
instead I brought up only the practical aspects of setting future policy.

Contrast this with what you are doing here: you are making a demand of
future policy as a condition to your acceptance of the current deal.

4. I have to tell Dave something.  He told me Thursday that he needed an
answer within 5 days.  THERE IS NO PLAN.  He is waiting for us to get back
to him and tell him if we want the two pages.  I cannot even tell him yes
or no.  *WE* as an organization are now being rude in this manner.

5. I am at breaking point here.  I try to keep my personal feelings out of
the issues, but every time I get another one of your e-mails, it pushes me
one step closer to resigning.  I have spent many hours the last five days,
talking with others or composing replies that try to address your points
in a direct and logical manner, only to have you reply "No, that's not
true." I try to come up with a scheme that will satisfy everyone, and you
reject them for no discernable logical reason other than you don't like
Dave or you don't like that I talked with him before talking with you.  
Maybe at this point I have internalized this into a personal issue.  The
way I see it, I've done what I thought was best at the time last week, and
you're PENALIZING me for it and holding a decision hostage.  I cannot work
with you under these continual stresses. I will resign before I spend
another 2 hours replying to another of your angry e-mail messages.

  - Erik

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com



  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  with "unsubscribe aga-sc" in the body of the message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-sc
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-sc", and password "showy".