Also, Directors Bien and McMahon MUST excuse themselves from these discussions, as their past membership is a conflict of interest.
Saying you "believe" them to be true is not good enough; besides Ken
, how can you speak for the others?.
mentioned "procedures that have served this Board well".Hardly, and what procedures.
-- I appreciate your willingness to give me three hours on this.
I believe I remember that Kim Matzinger then said "he just did Ken
", and a vague response followed.
The transcript should include your response after Kim's "he just did Ken
...As everyone but Franci knows, the explanation given by Pres Bien in the open Board meeting of Jan 8 regarding the pre-organizational meeting on June 25 is false.
, are you saying you stand by the above statement?.
Do you support or deny the description offered by Pres Bien?
Do you support or deny the description by Pres. Bien?
...Pres Bien must issue a correction in the Buzz column being submitted today.
and Pete --- At 854am on Thursday Jan 29th, I made a proper request to schedule my review of Zuckerman's
and Pete's Sr Center Investigation files.
CC: KENBIEN@aol.com (Ken Bien)
CC: KENBIEN@aol.com (Ken Bien)
You can also ask Ken
if it is authentic.>>
Dear Board --- Seriously.
c) Ken Bien's
false statement the Nominating Committee
consists of five members, when it consisted of six active members, with the addition of Pete Smith, and allowing the Manager to take an active role in selecting his boss.
...a) At the Dec 4 Board Meeting, Pres Bien said the format was going to be one where members had to listen to the arguments and then vote.
Myself and other members relied on this assurance.At some point subsequent to Bien's statement, insiders supporting "no" on the Scuba Petition became aware of a different format, allowing members to sign in and vote.There are two issues: 1) When was there a vote of the Board regarding the change; and 2) It is clear that the change was not communicated to all members in an evenhanded fashion. b) On the night of the Scuba Petition Meeting, Pres Bien announced the format for the member input segment, but failed to stick to it, and did not even remember the format when PIC VP Guy Freeborn complained about me speaking twice.
The pattern very quickly became one where Bien
would comment many times for the "no side", but failed to invite a response from the "yes side".When I asked to comment once for the "yes side", it prompted the Freeborn attack.If the Chair was evenhanded, he
would have reminded Freeborn and the audience of the stated format.Instead, Bien
let all the derogatory Freeborn comments to stand without comment or correction.I was told by a Board member I should have filled out a speaker slip.
Pete and Ken Bien
fooled around for four days, trying to delay me.
Please disclose to me any conversations you had with either Pete or Ken
about this subject in the past week.
...I have to lodge a complaint against the current President, Ken Bien, who is also obstructing my reasonable inquiry.
I will inform the Board of what I learn. >> Bien
never responded.In responses since then, he
has continued to obstruct me, on this and other matters.
8) Have you seen the recent emails from Pres Bien
(copied below), in which he
expresses a willingness to continue the policy of not responding to the written request for Mediation, and displays an incredibly bad memory?
Subj: Re: Ken Bien's
call for an enforcement action
9) If there have been any emails or conversations about any RSFA matters in the past two weeks, please disclose to me in writing briefly the nature of what has been discussed.
On December 17, 2003, in response to an unsatisfactory reply from Bien
, I made the request again.
Dear Board --- Yes, thanks Ken
, I know that is the position of the Board, however it does not answer Fernanda's questions, nor mine.
Dear Board --- Perhaps the Association BUZZ column should be renamed the "Bien Buzz", and another column dealing with the real issues is needed? (Note: Review March 25, 2004 BUZZ: "Please Check Your Facts Before Writing a Letter to the Review" by Ken Bien)
CC: firstname.lastname@example.org (Susan Bromley), email@example.com (Ron McMahon), firstname.lastname@example.org (Holly Manion), KENBIEN@aol.com (Ken Bien), email@example.com (John Eggemeyer), firstname.lastname@example.org (Franci Free)
answer was an unambiguous single word: "No" without any qualifiers, preamble, or any other words.That answer was false.
As explained before, I later determined quite by accident that Porter-Novelli has worked on and billed us for ten or fifteen other projects.Bien's
"No" is completely false and not even close to true.Furthermore, there is the issue of who authorized these expenditures without Board approval.
b) I object to the false statement offered Thursday by Ken
, who claimed he
answer by saying "to the best of my knowledge", much like the "we believe" weasel word qualifier offered in response to my questions about the truthfulness of the infamous December 9th letter to members.Listen to the tapes yourself, and you will see Ken
answered my question with a simple, and completely false "No".It is impossible for the Board to function with a lack of honesty.
c) I object to the fact that my Director Input statements are consistently incorrect, with significant points eliminated, and replaced with either statements not voiced, or replaced with minor asides.At the May 6th Meeting, when I first attempted to correct the April 15th Minutes, I asked for the recording secretary's draft submitted to Ken
and Pete, but was told it was unavailable.
f) Immediately after Ron's mistaken comment, I requested a chance to respond to Ron's comment, to correct it, but Bien
called the question, and took the vote.
g) It was a conflict of interest to have Bien
himself making rulings and quickly calling the question, since the issue being discussed was the truthfulness of Ken's answer on April 15th, and how my objection was to be recorded in the Minutes.In addition, again the Parlimentarian did not object either to this obvious conflict.Nor did he
object when I was denied the chance to respond, again showing the Parlimentarian does not make sure fair processes are used because the Parlimentarian himself has a conflict in that he
is employment is dependent on Bien's approval. THEREFORE, For any and all of the above reasons, I will insist the April 15th minutes include my objection to Pres Bien giving incorrect information to my question regarding the Porter-Novelli invoices.
F8) Withholding of Sammis response letter, failure to prove allegations, evidence ignored during Dec 4th Hearing, statements of Bien
and McMahon as to reasons why removal necessary, and the infamous Dec 9th letter with many untrue statements and an improper process.