Hey Y&#039;all,
I can understand that you have a need to know, and that you have a right to know. What I do not understand is why you would not give the President the opportunity to address these issues in the proper venue, which is not on the internet. My reasoning for saying this is these are members issues, not public issues, and the internet is a public venue. I believe it will be interesting to see what comes out in the next magazine, which would be a proper venue to address such issues, as only members receive this publication.  On the top left column, of page 9, in the last issue is an editors note, addressed &#039;Dear John&#039; to John Tichenor&#039;s letter. If you read it carefully you will see where the editor is using a &#039;bully pulpit&#039; to express a personal opinion. I do not know if this had any effect on the termination or not, but it is a prime example of things not to do. Also, she recognizes in the note she shouldn&#039;t do it, by a referance to &#039;reprimand&#039;. She clearly recognized that she was not allowed to comment, but does so anyhow, that is something like her daring them to take action. Which is clearly insubordinate, and improper. I believe that whether this incident was brought up, or not, there has been many similar incidents in the past. And as I said it is only an example, and it is one that you should have no problem getting access to.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Andy]