Terry:

I have read your post a couple of times now and I&#039;m somewhat puzzled as to how you guys did what you did and why.  The &amp;quot;what&amp;quot; I think I understand, you terminated a contract with the editor that had been in force for about 2 months.  

I was under the impression that the contract was terminated at an executive session of the board on Nov 8.  I guess other people were at the general meeting that day, including Sherry.  I understood that since the board did not notify Sherry in person, a letter was sent (in accordance with the contract) telling her she had been terminated and why.  I assumed that the letter was probably composed and approved by the board at the executive meeting and then mailed the next day.  (I also know you can get in trouble when you make too many assumptions.)

Your post confirms some of the &amp;quot;why&amp;quot; that  I thought were the basis for the termination. However, I don&#039;t understand why the board included in the letter 2 items that happened after the termination.  I think that a lot of people would have done things that would not have satisfied the board if they had found out they had been terminated the way Sherry found out.  But for God&#039;s sake why did they have to be included in her termination letter?  

The fact these 2 items were included in the letter indicates the letter was written after the executive session was over and it was probably not mailed on 9 November. Not exactly the formal prompt notification I thought had been mailed.

I would hope that none of the reasons listed in the letter happened before the new contract was approved in Penfield.  Because if they had, especially if they involved money, I can&#039;t see why a new contract was approved.  I believe that you guys had had isssues before the new contract of which I and the great majority of the members had no knowledge.  I will say that if you had not renewed the contract when it expired I would have wondered why, but I doubt that I would have ever posted anything on the web.  I would expect in hindsight you all wish that is the way it had happend.

As far as the web not being the place for this to be discussed I think that postition is bad for the board and for the club.  I would just note that if you are intending to print an expanded explanation in the next magazine for the &amp;quot;HPOCA members&amp;quot;, there is nothing to prevent that explanaion from being copied and posted on other websites or for that matter on this site.  I know the webmaster could edit it out of here, but I&#039;d hate to be the person responsible for making that edit.  If the expalnation in the magazine is going to be along the lines of what you have in your post my advice is to forget it.  As a member I can tell you that if that is what happens I will really be disgusted with the board and the way this club is being run.

I&#039;d recommend that the board, the lawyers and Sherry if she&#039;ll still talk to you guys get together and put identical explanations here and in the magazine.  That way those HPOCA  members without web access and those with it will be on the same page.