SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table)

Al; 

In this post you seem to suggest that our current coordinators are not 'organiz(ing) events or activities" and "negotiat(ing) with others in order to ensure they work together effectively" and instead are "wield(ing) personal power."  Is that your intention? If so, that's a fairly serious accusation, and it doesn't get any less serious just because you've chosen to frame it as a general statement of SRRT's values as you see them. If that's not your intention, I hope you will clarify. 

A 'veto' is an authoritative prohibition on an action. Nobody has prohibited you from attempting to get action council's consensus on whatever items you want added to the agenda. You can propose any additions you please tomorrow at the start of the meeting. So no, the coordinators didn't 'veto' you. They politely declined to make a change you requested in how they listed their report to action council on the agenda they created for tomorrow's meeting. Instead of immediately deferring to you, they courteously explained to you their plan for how to handle the issue, and their proposed next steps, in a way that respects everyone's time. Based on their response, it seems that they are in fact doing their best to ensure we work together effectively. Even in a 'non-hierarchical structure,' sometimes people disagree, and nobody should expect to automatically get their way over anyone else's objections - not even the coordinators.' 

So, again, if this was just a general statement and not an attempted indictment of the coordinators, I hope you will clarify. 

Al; 

In this post you seem to suggest that our current coordinators are not 'organiz(ing) events or activities" and "negotiat(ing) with others in order to ensure they work together effectively" and instead are "wield(ing) personal power."  Is that your intention? If so, that's a fairly serious accusation, and it doesn't get any less serious just because you've chosen to frame it as a general statement of SRRT's values as you see them. If that's not your intention, I hope you will clarify. 

A 'veto' is an authoritative prohibition on an action. Nobody has prohibited you from attempting to get action council's consensus on whatever items you want added to the agenda. You can propose any additions you please tomorrow at the start of the meeting. So no, the coordinators didn't 'veto' you. They politely declined to make a change you requested in how they listed their report to action council on the agenda they created for tomorrow's meeting. Instead of immediately deferring to you, they courteously explained to you their plan for how to handle the issue, and their proposed next steps, in a way that respects everyone's time. Based on their response, it seems that they are in fact doing their best to ensure we work together effectively. Even in a 'non-hierarchical structure,' sometimes people disagree, and nobody should expect to automatically get their way over anyone else's objections - not even the coordinators.' 

So, again, if this was just a general statement and not an attempted indictment of the coordinators, I hope you will clarify. 

Al; 

In this post you seem to suggest that our current coordinators are not 'organiz(ing) events or activities" and "negotiat(ing) with others in order to ensure they work together effectively" and instead are "wield(ing) personal power."  Is that your intention? If so, that's a fairly serious accusation, and it doesn't get any less serious just because you've chosen to frame it as a general statement of SRRT's values as you see them. If that's not your intention, I hope you will clarify. 

A 'veto' is an authoritative prohibition on an action. Nobody has prohibited you from attempting to get action council's consensus on whatever items you want added to the agenda. You can propose any additions you please tomorrow at the start of the meeting. So no, the coordinators didn't 'veto' you. They politely declined to make a change you requested in how they listed their report to action council on the agenda they created for tomorrow's meeting. Instead of immediately deferring to you, they courteously explained to you their plan for how to handle the issue, and their proposed next steps, in a way that respects everyone's time. Based on their response, it seems that they are in fact doing their best to ensure we work together effectively. Even in a 'non-hierarchical structure,' sometimes people disagree, and nobody should expect to automatically get their way over anyone else's objections - not even the coordinators.' 

So, again, if this was just a general statement and not an attempted indictment of the coordinators, I hope you will clarify. 

Yes, Al, I understand that you dislike the wording of the agenda item, and by now I think we all fully expect an attempt to modify it via a vote at the meeting tomorrow. No clarification needed there. 

What I asked was for you to clarify whether or not, when you spoke about what a coordinator should and should not do, you were commenting on the current coordinators. When you make statements about what certain roles within the round table should and should not be for, or how those who fill those roles should and should not behave, without naming names but very pointedly and clearly in response to current events (as you have done several times now) it is unavoidable that you will be seen as criticizing the current occupants of those roles, but doing so in a way that makes it difficult for them to defend themselves or others to speak against your accusations on their behalf. 

In light of that, I would appreciate it if you please answer my question directly:  are you contending that when the coordinators declined to obey your unilateral demand to revise the agenda to a wording more to your liking they were "wield(ing) personal power" to "veto" you? 

Al; 

In this post you seem to suggest that our current coordinators are not 'organiz(ing) events or activities" and "negotiat(ing) with others in order to ensure they work together effectively" and instead are "wield(ing) personal power."  Is that your intention? If so, that's a fairly serious accusation, and it doesn't get any less serious just because you've chosen to frame it as a general statement of SRRT's values as you see them. If that's not your intention, I hope you will clarify. 

A 'veto' is an authoritative prohibition on an action. Nobody has prohibited you from attempting to get action council's consensus on whatever items you want added to the agenda. You can propose any additions you please tomorrow at the start of the meeting. So no, the coordinators didn't 'veto' you. They politely declined to make a change you requested in how they listed their report to action council on the agenda they created for tomorrow's meeting. Instead of immediately deferring to you, they courteously explained to you their plan for how to handle the issue, and their proposed next steps, in a way that respects everyone's time. Based on their response, it seems that they are in fact doing their best to ensure we work together effectively. Even in a 'non-hierarchical structure,' sometimes people disagree, and nobody should expect to automatically get their way over anyone else's objections - not even the coordinators.' 

So, again, if this was just a general statement and not an attempted indictment of the coordinators, I hope you will clarify. 

Yes, Al, I understand that you dislike the wording of the agenda item, and by now I think we all fully expect an attempt to modify it via a vote at the meeting tomorrow. No clarification needed there. 

What I asked was for you to clarify whether or not, when you spoke about what a coordinator should and should not do, you were commenting on the current coordinators. When you make statements about what certain roles within the round table should and should not be for, or how those who fill those roles should and should not behave, without naming names but very pointedly and clearly in response to current events (as you have done several times now) it is unavoidable that you will be seen as criticizing the current occupants of those roles, but doing so in a way that makes it difficult for them to defend themselves or others to speak against your accusations on their behalf. 

In light of that, I would appreciate it if you please answer my question directly:  are you contending that when the coordinators declined to obey your unilateral demand to revise the agenda to a wording more to your liking they were "wield(ing) personal power" to "veto" you? 

Al; 

In this post you seem to suggest that our current coordinators are not 'organiz(ing) events or activities" and "negotiat(ing) with others in order to ensure they work together effectively" and instead are "wield(ing) personal power."  Is that your intention? If so, that's a fairly serious accusation, and it doesn't get any less serious just because you've chosen to frame it as a general statement of SRRT's values as you see them. If that's not your intention, I hope you will clarify. 

A 'veto' is an authoritative prohibition on an action. Nobody has prohibited you from attempting to get action council's consensus on whatever items you want added to the agenda. You can propose any additions you please tomorrow at the start of the meeting. So no, the coordinators didn't 'veto' you. They politely declined to make a change you requested in how they listed their report to action council on the agenda they created for tomorrow's meeting. Instead of immediately deferring to you, they courteously explained to you their plan for how to handle the issue, and their proposed next steps, in a way that respects everyone's time. Based on their response, it seems that they are in fact doing their best to ensure we work together effectively. Even in a 'non-hierarchical structure,' sometimes people disagree, and nobody should expect to automatically get their way over anyone else's objections - not even the coordinators.' 

So, again, if this was just a general statement and not an attempted indictment of the coordinators, I hope you will clarify.