From: Barbara Freeman 
Subject: Re: Jamal was voted in
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 hheagy@delphi.com wrote:
> 
> 
> I don't mean to read anything in that isn't there into anything.
> I am also well aware that consultations did take place between
> the national leadership, Jamal and interested members, and I am
> very glad he is getting a second chance.  But my point is that
> should this  type of thing come up again, we should take what
> happened in 1991 into account and before we vote to expel which
> I consider to be a very serious matter which is why it takes 2/3
> vote on any level to do so, the convention should be allowed to
> thoroughly hear both sides of the issue before voting.  Our own
> policy and constitution state that if we have differences with
> the national leadership we should come to the convention and work
> them out.  While I do believe that the national leadership tends
> to play its cards too close to its chest in these matters it is
> still our policy.
Hey, were you at the same convention the rest of us were?  If a majority
of the states had wanted to talk about what the National Board had done in
this case there was time alloted for it. The majority of members decided
that they wanted to let the board decide the issue and believed that was
the best for all concerned at the time. 
Now please, let us stop talking about what happened in 1991.  Jamal has
come back and I am sure it took real courage on his part to do so.  
Let us fight over other issues if we must but let's give Jamal some room
to be a member again.  I know he reads this echo and I do not believe we
are helping him feel welcome with all this old news.  We have new issues
to fight and many jobs are at stake because of the new technology.  Jamal
wants to help let us welcome him and get on with our work. 
Barbara Freeman
barbie@pacifier.com
---
---------------