Return to article

Talk: 2010-2011 AGM/President's Report

< Talk:2010-2011 AGM
Revision as of 12:29, 18 September 2010 by Lankiveil (talk | contribs) (re)

I absolutely and completely reject the claim: "Indeed at times the sheer demand of work upon the Secretary has forced all other board members to slow down or delay further work whilst she has attempted to cope with what is already on her to do list." and frankly find it deeply, extraordinarily and personally offensive. Yes, it is a heavy-workload role but I have always worked extremely hard to keep on top of it and I completely reject the idea that the committee has ever had to slow down or stop working because of me or that other committee members have had to stop their own work while they wait for me. I am the one that has constantly been wanting to move forward, make progress and keep working and has written emails to the committee expressing my extreme frustration with our lack of progress. I am deeply offended by these claims and I completely reject them. Sarah 13:07, 18 September 2010 (EST)

I'd agree, as an interim committee member in her second term and a full member in her third, with Sarah's statement above - she's been a hardworking and effective Secretary and I can't remember a single occasion where anything's been delayed on account of her. She's been consistent and progressive in the role and has dealt effectively with challenges created by the lack of systems in place which other organisations take for granted. Orderinchaos 16:38, 18 September 2010 (EST)
I agree with both Sarah and Andrew. Steve, I think you need to modify your report. --Bduke 19:00, 18 September 2010 (EST)
[EC] Sarah, you are taking offence at a comment that was in support of you during a difficult year where you had (at times) very little very support across issues of information technology. My comment was not aimed at you but aimed at the frustration of your situation and the extraordinary amount of work that you have - for you which you have so little support. Whilst I appreciate you cannot at this stage understand the level of support I have had for you - I hope that my further comments below will shed some early light. More will follow.
Andrew, To be clear again, I do not say at any time that Sarah has not been hard-working; I do not say at any time that she has been the cause of the delay. Indeed I say exactly the opposite as I have been much admiring of her continued attack upon a role that is quite frankly too big for one person.
More importantly Andrew I abhor your type of dis-ingenuity and it is one of the main reasons that I have chosen to depart from all areas of Wiki. You are coming here politicking and it stands out. You should remember carefully the many times you have spoken to me and sent me emails, and indeed even photographs expressing your personal view as to the situation of Sarah and her roles; and other matters. Indeed I will go further and state that I can not recall a single time in the many emails you have sent me in the past few months where you said a single thing in her favour. In many (costly) telephone calls from me where I spent time trying to dissuade you from such views you repeated those comments in detail. To now make comments in the opposite vein in favour of Sarah in the hope you will be looked upon favourably by the members is crazy on your part. As you know I had to date declined to present material on these matters, but your cowardly actions today leave me only with the option of defending my position - if only at the very least to Sarah my oldest friend on Wiki.
Sarah I have every respect for the role that you are doing and how you continue to do it in the face of all adversity. To date I have chosen to be quiet in relation to much of the issues I have been confronted with and certainly have refused to pass them on in to the general committee even when so demanded by others. That said Andrew's lack of intestinal fortitude displaying false support towards you is goes beyond the pale. I will write to you (or speak to you by telephone if you prefer - you have my number call me any time or text me to ask me to call you back) after the elections so as to do you the courtesy of providing you with the facts. At that time, especially depending upon the outcome of the election, you may do what you will with those facts.VirtualSteve 19:10, 18 September 2010 (EST)
Steve, you have in the above piece spoken more than I ever could have (and never did until now) for your leadership style and some of the reasons for our lack of focus during the last term, not to mention the unusual pattern of retirements at the end of it, including your own. I think it's been obvious for a while that you don't like me and that this has coloured your judgement of me as a person and what constitutes appropriate conduct towards me over an extended period of time. I also feel you have behaved unprofessionally towards me (in particular, abuse of confidences and direct threats) which is central to why I have not corresponded with you privately in any capacity for over three months and have not spoken with you on the phone since 26 May (which we only did once, by the way). That being said, I have tried my best to work with you over past months, as have other long-serving and hard-working members of the committee who have had to endure some terrible slights for their part. I do not see how your "revelations" (many of which I maintain are outright misrepresentations or worse) or your threats assist the community or the future functioning of the new committee, whether I'm on it or not. Furthermore they open ground, if they were to continue, for any financial member to complain about your conduct, either with my consent or not, on the grounds of the Associations Incorporation Act 1981.
I shall make it absolutely and abundantly clear that I support Sarah as part of the new executive, irrespective of any long-past disagreements we have had and gotten over, that we communicate constructively and productively, and that my support is not "false" nor "cowardly" nor "disingenuous". If I did not actually support, my political interest would be in doing one of two things: being as quiet as possible, or taking the opposite tack to what I have done. I save my politics for the real game - Labor vs Liberal - and don't see it as an appropriate consideration in a small organisation which needs everyone to work together constructively while accommodating a diversity of views. This is because politics only divides, not unites, in these circumstances.
I wish you the best into the future, as once the AGM is over so is, from my point of view, any issue between us as, whether I am re-elected or not, we are no longer sharing a space after that date - I hope that you will wish me the same. Orderinchaos 22:12, 18 September 2010 (EST)
On that note, I think we really should leave this here lest it overshadow the AGM tomorrow. I can't pretend to be privy to the full details of what brought this on, but I do feel ideally that private disagreements ought to be settled in a mature fashion in private. I don't see that any of this helps the chapter or its aims. Lankiveil 22:29, 18 September 2010 (EST).