[fvc-wat-disc] Information night on Sept. 18th -- please respond ASAP

Thu Sep 20 01:18:57 EDT 2007

Hi folks:

I think we all realize that crises do come up, and sometimes things
don't turn out the way we expect.  I think asking Angela to resign is
blowing things way out of proportion, unless there is something beyond
this incident that is brought to our attention.

Angela has worked hard since her election in April to ensure a
successful campaign in Waterloo Region.  I think she should continue
that work for the remaining 20 days of this campaign.  A change in
co-chair would be disruptive enough at this point that there would
have to be a very good reason for this to happen, and I don't feel
this is it.

This is a good lesson, though.  We should probably be doing important
events in pairs, so if one person is called away, the other can take
over.

Kevin.

On 9/20/07, Angela Yenssen <ayenssen at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> I am sending this message to the entire discussion list responding to a
> query from Paul as to the events of last evening (Sept. 18th) because
> everyone needs to be aware of what has happened and to cast a vote as to
> whether or not you want me to withdraw from the campaign in light of last
> night's events.
>
> On Tuesdays I work for a private company that provides geriatric social work
> services.  Yesterday (Sept. 18th) at 3:00 p.m. I was called away from my
> usual assignment in Kitchener and sent to deal with a crisis situation in
> Aylmer.  I did not know who I could call to cover the information night if I
> ran into difficulty in Aylmer, so I proceeded to the work site hoping I
> could finish the job and return to Kitchener for the information night.
> Unfortunately, by the time I realized the situation was far more complex
> than I had been told initially and there was no hope in hell that I would be
> back to Kitchener by 7 p.m., I felt my only option was to call Laurier
> security and ask them to post a notice informing people the meeting was
> cancelled and to communicate that information to anyone who arrived because
> I (the person running the meeting) was detained out of town.  By the time
> Laurier security arrived on the scene there were about 10 people gathered
> looking for the meeting.  Neil Dietrich, who will be speaking at a church
> for us next week, was there (which I did not expect) and jumped into provide
> some information to people.  According to Neil, none of the message I had
> communicated to Laurier security got through to anyone in the meeting other
> than that the meeting was cancelled.  Neil apparently jumped in to speak as
> soon as the security guard arrived to say the meeting was cancelled.
> Evidently the Laurier security staff also neglected to communicate the whole
> story to our room booking contact at Laurier.
>
> The call to Aylmer was an extraordinary circumstance that has never happened
> to me before.  My line of work is very demanding but up to this point I have
> managed to handle all of the different duties on my plate and keep all of
> the balls in the air I guess because I was never called to a crisis far out
> of town and could reorganize any work that I needed to do within the
> tri-cities to meet all my obligations.  There were a couple of our team
> members at the meeting last night in addition to Neil and one of them called
> me last night demanding an explanation for the events of the evening.  The
> person indicated that I had brought ill repute on everyone attached to the
> campaign through my irresponsible conduct and I should withdraw from the
> campaign.  My initial reaction was that the person was acting a little
> melodramatic considering that anything can happen to anyone to disrupt the
> best laid plans.  For example, what would have happened if I had been in a
> car accident or become acutely ill and hospitalized yesterday?  Why does
> everyone assume that if something was scheduled and it doesn't happen that
> some sort of nefarious or belligerent act is behind it?
>
> However, in light of the fact that this incident has also created a
> firestorm with the people on whom we rely to continue to give us free
> meeting space, perhaps I was too inclined to minimize the significance of my
> error.  My intention was to turn the information nights on Sept. 25th and
> Oct. 2nd back to Paul in light of yesterday's events so we don't run the
> risk of such an incident occurring again.  I am thinking now, though, that
> there seems to be even more trouble over this incident, that I do need to go
> a step further and make the offer to the campaign team to withdraw from the
> campaign.  I still want to see the MMP system passed and thus want to take
> the course of action in the best interests of the campaign.  When I was
> speaking with one of our members last night, I was not certain that a new
> co-chair stepping in, causing a disruption and transition in leadership at
> this point was in the best interests of the campaign.  I also don't know if
> Brian wants to take over everything I've been doing and chair the whole
> campaign himself at this point.  However, on the other hand, perhaps if the
> campaign team can say that the person responsible for last night's debacle
> is gone from the organization, then the team's sullied reputation can be
> restored, as my caller last night suggested.
>
> Since this organization is focused on promoting democracy, I want to make
> sure people have an opportunity to voice their opinions on this issue.  I
> will respect the consensus of the group and act accordingly on this question
> of whether I stay or go.  I do take ownership of the fact that I was faced
> with a no win situation yesterday and did not choose to prioritize this
> campaign.  I tried to meet all of my obligations and when I discovered there
> was no way that I could, I made the choice to prioritize the mental health
> assessment for a suicidal and homicidal person that needed completion rather
> than this campaign.  I can't guarantee that such a situation will not happen
> again before the campaign is over.  I suppose this scenario is a good case
> in point as to why there is little political activism on the part of health
> care workers compared to people in other sectors (such as teachers or
> lawyers), namely the unpredictable nature of the work in health care means
> that glitches sometimes happen in other aspects of life.  I have an
> obligation I have to fulfill for the campaign tomorrow night in Cambridge
> but I will withdraw after tomorrow night if that is the decision of the
> group.
>
> I do apologize for the events of yesterday.  I have appreciated the
> opportunity I've had to meet and work with all of you and I wish you well
> with the final days of the campaign.
>
> Angela
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Nijjar [mailto:paul_nijjar at yahoo.ca]
> Sent: September 19, 2007 2:09 PM
> To: Lynn Beney
> Subject: Re: LSPRIG meeting last night at Faculty of Social Work
>
>
> --- Lynn Beney <lbeney at wlu.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > There was confusion here last night in regards to the meeting that
> > you had booked for September 19, 2007 from 6:30-9:30.  A number of
> > people did come expecting a meeting to be held.
>
> We did have a meeting scheduled! I was not going to be running it,
> but another (very reliable) volunteer was going to do it. At this
> point I have no idea what happened, but I will investigate.
>
> Oh no. I don't believe this. The fault was on our end, obviously. I'm
> so sorry. I will personally make sure this does not happen again.
>
> To answer your question: we currently have a space booked for the
> next two Tuesdays: Sept 25 and Oct 2. We did cancel October 9, but I
> need to tell the security guards that the room had been cancelled for
> that time.
>
> - Paul
>
>
> --
> Paul Nijjar  http://www.fairvotecanada.org/WaterlooRegion
> Next Referendum Info Session: Sept 18, 7pm
> (Please use this Yahoo! account for future correspondence.)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc
>