Gordon Lewicky wrote to Bob Seaborn on Sunday June 06 2004 at 07:04:

BS>> It was longer ago than last summer that Bob and I lunched together,
BS>> however what you relate both matches what Bob has told me (on
BS>> multiple occasions), _PLUS_ what I personally witnessed (I was an
BS>> invited guest in the ZCC conference).

GL> One doesn't have to go off of our "hearsay", they can just look at
GL> Fidonews Volume 17, Number 25, 19 Jun 2000

Thanks for the long quote, Gordon. It confirms what I had gathered to this
point: there was NO ZCC vote to REMOVE Bob Satti from office.

However, I also now see why there is some confusion on the matter, since
the IC election was apparently pushed for the same nominal reason
("noting that such an election should be held every two years")
as the present one.

The quote makes it clear that Bob Satti did not resist the election, and
also did not stand for re-election. In effect, he resigned by doing that.
The difference in this case is that Ward has not resigned, nor was he even
given the opportunity of standing for re-election. He was _removed_ from
office, which Bob Satti was not.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613