Mr. Hartshorn: Jana has assured you that she spoke only for herself. I assure you that I am speaking only for myself. First: I want to commend you for removing some of the troublemakers from the NCGWP. Then, I want to tell you that I do not believe that the end result always justifies the means and your seeming inability to communicate without sarcasm and venom when asked about something that has occurred, or someone whom you have removed, is very difficult to get around when all that was intended was the gathering of information. Second: I was opposed to the poll from the first time it was suggested. It was not conducted until after you had purged the most vocal dissidents. The results were predictable. Third: There were 81 passwords sent out. That leads to the assumption those were the voter-eligible CCs. This means that when 10 responded favorably to the question regarding an election for a new SC, the 10% requirement of the Rule for Removal had been met. Not in petition form, but enough of an indication based on the requirement in that rule for a motion to be put before the AB to determine if 2/3 of a quorum of AB members thought there should be an initation of the procedure. I pointed this out because a truly "out-to-get-someone" AB could have interpreted the poll this way. In other words, "facts" gained from a poll can be slanted in many ways, depending on who might be interpreting them. Fourth: As far as I know, there will be no such motion presented. However, keep in mind that I speak only for myself. Fifth: The USGWP bylaws state that the Advisory Board {paraphrasing} is to help with state problems when asked. That leaves the question as to who does the asking? Certainly, if the SC is the problem, there has to be some way for CCs to ask. There is now a procedure in place for them to ask for help in removing that SC. In my opinion, another standing rule should be adopted that gives the CCs the right to request a poll be conducted, or an SC to make the same request. Furthermore, I do not believe that the AB should use a poll in a state where no request for help has been made. Although, a national poll, might be beneficial in aiding the Advisory Board to better help the Project. Sixth: This is an all volunteer organization. I do not understand why someone would want to come into it and immediately set about to destroy it. If they decide they no longer want to be a part of it, why don't they just leave? Because money is the root of all evil, I can understand [but never condone] someone wanting to take information that has been contributed for free access and try to profit from it. Therefore, when these types of activities do become known, those responsible should be removed immediately. But, having said that, I do not believe that the situation should be taken before a national "audience", especially by the SC who only emboldens the dissidents with this approach. Seventh: You know that Diane Kelly, Daryl Lytton and others like them are going to continue to disrupt the Project. Every time a new AB member is seated, that member is going to hear from Diane. That member is going to be curious about the process used to remove Diane....or any other member. Charles Barnum is not one of my favorite people. But when we heard from him, we needed to know about why he was removed.......especially in light of another fact that we had just learned. My personal opinion is that he belongs in the same padded room with Daryl and his ridiculous assertion that he can bring racial discrimination charges against anyone in the Project, or that the NAACP is even considering anything he might have to say.........well, is just that "ridiculous." As for the AFL-CIO being interested in organizing the CCs......even Jimmy Hoffa must be rolling around in his grave, laughing his head off. Eighth: Hate/dislike me if you will. But, I am one individual and I am not ashamed of anything that I have done in regard to Project business. I am one individual who does not need the carving of a niche. I am one individual who has always walked to the beat of my own drum. I am one individual, who does not speak for anyone other than myself. I am one individual who does not give anyone the right to speak for me. I am one individual upon whose shoulders you may choose to place the blame for everything that is wrong with the Project, but to do that means that you have to exonerate the other members of the AB and that takes away the ability to "lump." Ninth: You are not the only one looking forward to the "soon" of getting out of what is considered to be a "position" of responsibility. Phyllis Rippee SW/SC CC Representative