Thursday, July 18, 2013

Conser: Captain of S. S. KBOO Apologizes while Ship Sinks

We were wrong!

Glorious Leader may be in charge of rearranging deck chairs, but Stephen Conser is CAPTAIN of the ship(presumably Moelich is First Officer).  And the captain, while admittedly still valuing the Deck Chair Plan, has apologized...for stuff:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hadrian Micciche <>
Date: Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:42 AM
Subject: Conch apologizes for unauthorized use of KBOO lawyers...
To: Hadrian Micciche <>, Jeff Kipilman <>, Lisa Loving <>, Lyn Moelich <>, Mark Sherman <>, Matthew Bristow <>, MichaelP <>, Paula Small <>, Rabia Yeaman <>, "S. W. Conser" <>, Sue Bartlett <>, Timothy Welp <>

...except its for the time he spent chatting with them about FCC matters.

The topic of the GovCom report was his unauthorized use of KBOO lawyers to have a $1500 chat with them about a matter related to the last KBOO elections. This was before he spoke to our lawyers about the FCC related Emergency Alert System (EAS) issue
How many issues has Conch discussed with KBOO lawyers, without authorization?

The GovCom followed up on the concerns of 1/3rd of the Board about Conch's misuse of KBOO funds. As a courtesy, I let Conch know we were looking into his unauthorized spending to determine if it was wasteful. Conch insisted on telling me about his reason for discussing the FCC/EAS issue with our lawyers. When the GovCom looked into Conch's unauthorized spending, we were told it totaled approximately $1500 and was not about the EAS matter.

Was Conch trying to mislead us by discussing this unrelated matter, or was he admitting to even more unauthorized use of KBOO lawyers?

The fact is, he mis-used approximately $1500 to discuss a matter NOT related to the FCC/EAS, a matter already discussed with the lawyers, and a matter which the lawyers advised KBOO to do nothing. Even so, Conch did something. It was unnecessary and unwise -- and it was a mis-use of KBOO funds. It was not about the FCC/EAS.

Attached -- the GovCom report. Please note the statement from the Executive Director about the wasteful spending. The legal costs I am commenting on happened before the EAS situation in October.
Below, selected emails from a discussion between Conch and I, and myself and the GovCom. Other than the first email to the committee, these are all between Conch and I, and in some cases, excerpted for the sake of brevity.   

Hadrian Micciche <>
Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM
To: Jeff Kipilman <>, Matthew Bristow <>, Michael Papadopoulos <>

We plan to meet every month on the second Monday at 6pm in the KBOO large meeting room. Our first meeting will be this coming Monday, March 11th, at 6pm. We will meet in the reception/kitchen area (see note below about why).

Here are the agenda items I first proposed on Feb 7th, with additional items I suggest we take up.

3. The rather insistent request from a member (presumably) of the Finance Committee for the Board to consider this matter and to determine if this Board member should be removed prompts this item. My expectation is that we will find that this matter does not rise to the level requiring removal of the member from the Board, however a formal statement about the limits on the powers granted to the Board President may be warranted. Reporting to the Board that GovComm has considered this issue and our presenting this recommendation should resolve any concerns about favoritism and put this matter behind us. We can report at the next Board meeting that we have this item on our agenda. We need not act on it at this time, and may be directed by the Board to not do so. A discussion of what governance issues, if any, might be involved in the recent unauthorized expenditure of funds by the Board President and what disciplinary actions might be warranted. (5 minutes)

Hadrian Micciche <>
Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 4:14 PM
To: "S. W. Conser" <>, Lynn Fitch <>

I think our Board President and Executive Director should be informed of any committee's proposed agenda, so that any input you two might have into these items can be considered and so that nothing that comes to the Board out of a committee is a surprise. If you'd rather not get our agenda, let me know.

Also, as a courtesy, I want to let Conch know we have an item on our agenda that concerns him.

Sorry about getting this out late on a Friday for our Monday meeting, but hopefully you both will have time to provide any input you'd like prior to the meeting at 6pm.

S.W. Conser <>
Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 8:49 PM
To: Hadrian Micciche <>
Cc: Lynn Fitch <>


Thank you for sending the information.  At the moment I'm in San Antonio and not expected back in Portland for a week.  I'll look forward to hearing more when the minutes are published.


               -- C.

S.W. Conser <>
Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM
To: Hadrian Micciche <>

Hi again Hadrian,

It just occurred to me that you may be unaware of the context of the legal expenditures that occurred during the period last year when our Executive Committee was nonfunctional.  There was a sort of informal Q&A with a couple of board members during the break in last month's meeting.  If you'd like to discuss the background personally, feel free to give me a call tomorrow.  If I don't pick up right away, it's likely because I'm driving, but I'll be happy to call you back.


               -- C.

Hadrian Micciche <>
Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:01 AM
To: "S.W. Conser" <>

I have to turn down your invitation to meet and discuss this matter. It might not even be necessary and its not how the GovCom wants this to be done. Details about both those points in the last paragraph.

First, I want to clarify for you the very elegant and simple process the GovCom has approved we take.

We will simply ask Lynn and the ExCom if the funds they would have needed to approve be spent were spent wastefully or not. Thats it. No need for confidential documents to be involved.

I'm going to think that other than acting outside of policy, your actions were needed and beneficial. I anticipate Lynn and the ExCom will say, no, there was no wasteful spending.

The next step is for GovCom to review and reaffirm the policy about the process needed before you incur any expenses. We would simply ask the ExCom if this policy was followed or not.

If not, we would ask you to follow the approved process in the future.

We would really only need your explanation about what you did and why if you are asking us to consider a change in policy. The GovCom has requested that any communication about this matter should be in writing and directed to the GovComm as a whole.

I hope that puts your mind at ease. If you have any additional questions of concerns, please send an email to all of the committee members. Thanks!

S.W. Conser <>
Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:29 AM
To: Hadrian Micciche <>

Thanks for the clarifications.  Of course, the same matter that the GovComm is considering revisiting was in fact resolved at a recent board meeting, in approval of an agenda item that Paula brought forth.  (I'm writing from a motel room in Las Cruces at the moment, so don't have the exact date, but I believe that it was a meeting that you weren't able to attend.)  At any rate, the minutes would not reflect the full scope of the discussion, but the upshot of the background was as folllows:

KBOO had a potential crisis when FCC-owned equipment was accessed without authorization and possibly tampered with.  Marc Brown advised against contacting the police since a board member was involved and the publicity could be ruinous.  The Executive Committee was non-functional, as Keller had just left the board following a long period of absence.  Lynn and I collected statements from people who witnessed the incident, discussed contacting our FCC attorney Melodie Virtue, and decided it would be a good idea to do so sooner rather than later.  Very shortly thereafter, I was contacted by phone by our FCC attorney about the KBLU frequency, and casually mentioned to her that we'd like to send her some documents.  Melodie recommended that we do so ASAP, and thinking that Lynn and I were in agreement, I e-mailed them to her.  That same morning, Lynn called me to recommend that we hold off on sending the docs.  I apologized for jumping the gun, and later that day Lynn and I received advice from Melodie on how we should proceed.  As events would have it, KBOO was visited the very next day by an investigator from the FCC, so in retrospect it seems fortunate that we were on record consulting our attorney prior to the visit.  And of course, the legal expenses would have been made regardless of the timing.

A personal note: I sat down separately with Lynn, Paula, and Marc after the fact.  There was some clarification about protocol, and I freely admitted to a breach.  It was generally considered, though, that the breach was not intentional but rather based in errors of timing and communication.  There has also been discussion in the wake of this incident about possibly expanding the ExecComm to include all the officers, so that the committee would not be crippled by an absence or open seat.

Again, feel free to talk with Lynn and/or Paula if you need further clarification.  My sense, though, is that both of them are a bit weary of the whole FCC discussion.


               -- C.

Don't blink or you'll miss it:

  There was some clarification about protocol, and I freely admitted to a breach.
Listen to that whistle blow!  WOO WEE!

In other news, Roger Leigh is outraged, OUTRAGED, we never emailed him:
From comments on this blog post:

Roger LeighJuly 17, 2013 at 4:12 PM
Are you guys serious with this post?

I am the shadowy figure known publicly as 'Roger Leigh'. Well, actually, that's not a pseudonym, it's my real name. And a google search in Portland will usually pull up some real links to me on the first page, so I don't think I'm that hard to find. You did turn up valid contact info for me, but failed to use it.

I don't really know all of the nonsense going on at KBOO these days; though I've been the primary admin for the station for the last 7 years running the website and most of KBOO's Internet presence, I've always stayed clear of inner station politics as much as possible.

I have no dog in this fight, except for the fact that I'd like to see KBOO survive as a viable source of independent media in Portland. But this site, which claims that "Recent events at the station have been blown out of proportion" and that "We are documenting the ongoing tussle and any new fibs and misinformation the "Keep KBOO KBOO" crowd creates," is clearly trying to make something out of nothing here.

This post shows incredible ignorance of technology, a lack of critical thinking, and utter laziness in pursuit of the truth.

For the record:

I had the site on a private server at Alchemy until recently, and the address was merely an unpublished alternate handle to the same machine (not a mirror) used largely for testing. has been a business name I've used since the mid 80's.

There is no proxy in France (that's completely moronic) - that's simply the domain name registry I use - they're well established, reputable, economical, conform to higher EU privacy standards, don't have an overtly corporate agenda, and don't use misogynistic advertising.

In the time that I've run the website, we've NEVER had a security breach of ANY kind - a record I'm proud of, considering how many folks are out to sabotage the station.

I am also the owner of the Clinton Street Theater, along with my wife (you could have also contacted me there).

I have involvements with several other nonprofit organizations around town.

NO ONE HAS EVER TRIED TO CONTACT ME ABOUT ANY OF THIS NONSENSE, even though you found a valid contact email for me, nor did they ask anyone at the station, where most folks know me & my involvement.

So who, exactly, is trying to manufacture an issue out of nothing but hyperbolic and inaccurate claims?

Leaving aside the fact he never emailed US, even after we got a contact email,

-and the Inner Party never emailed HIM, even after the website issue was brought up at PIMC under the auspicious of Inner Party beholden Indy Bees who should have sent him a memo,

-and even though he's a regular repeat reader who only decided to pipe up over a month later,

-and even though his story is full of contradictions like admitting KBOO has saboteurs but continuing to do work for the saboteurs,
(though this could be why his website for KBOO sucks WebChimp balls)

-and even though he's an associate of S.W.Conser,
" Then, we're joined by Lani Jo and Roger Leigh, the new proprietors of the storied Clinton Street Theater"   
  • Producer: S.W. Conser

and excuse us if we don't want our mugshots, like this one, given to the Inner Party for ammunition,

leaving all that aside, we thank Comrade Roger for his valuable input.

We end with some wise words from our Captain in 1995:

February 16, 1995 News & Features | Letters
Customer Disservice 
Dear Editors:
The January 13 Culture Club presented the continuing saga of William Rickman, president of the increasingly irrelevant Kroch's & Brentano's bookselling empire. Once again we hear of Mr. Rickman's wrenching decision to lay off more employees because he's unable to compete with the new philistines on the block. Meanwhile, his job remains secure (but perhaps if Kroch's management had been shaken up years ago, they wouldn't be in their present state).
Like countless other Chicagoans I put up for years with the clueless staff and routine arrogance that were Kroch's trademarks, until a December 1989 booksigning at one of their downtown stores. The store quickly ran out of stock of the author's book, then the clerks refused to allow customers to buy a copy down the street and bring it in to sign. Instead we were given signed bookplates and advised to return to the store the next week for the books, since they probably couldn't ship them to us by Christmas.
On that account I wrote a letter to the district manager, expecting he might have at least a bottom-line concern for customer relations, but I never received even a standard response.
Now I do most of my book shopping at Barbara's, Powell's, and Booksellers Row, as do many of my other friends who have soured on Kroch's. It's no coincidence that the versatile Barbara's has thrived while Kroch's has withered. If Rickman wants to pin the blame on someone for the decline of a local institution, I suggest he find himself a mirror.
S.W. Conser

 "If Rickman wants to pin the blame on someone for the decline of a local institution, I suggest he find himself a mirror."

Thank you sir, for those inspiring words.

Now excuse us as we jump into the last life boat.


  1. "and the Inner Party never emailed HIM,"

    If he's a regular reader, very unlikely. Didn't he search for himself on the blog? I think previous comments are spot on: someone from the Inner Party told him to do that.

  2. "excuse us if we don't want our mugshots, like this one,"
    Inner Party precedents can backfire. Take note, Theresa Mitchell.

  3. His website's kinda neat: http://CONCH.COM

    Too bad he acts like a dick.

  4. "Date: Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:42 AM
    Subject: Conch apologizes for unauthorized use of KBOO lawyers..."

    Five days before the board meeting. This was probably the last straw for the Inner Party.

  5. A strange post for SKFSK. I don't see the need for digging into a customer service dispute from 1995 (yes it suggests looking into a mirror) but really guys(gals?)? And why harrass the web hosting company when no one is being paid to really try to do this right in the first place? KBOO reminds me of someone who comes into a car repair shop with a jalopy in bad shape, but is only is willing to pay for spark plugs, then blames the shop when the brakes go out. Look for more about the web costs lower in this reply.

    For me, there are two relevant things to learn from this. I spent part of this morning looking at the current KBOO budget documents online. Why? To see how relevant a $1500 boo boo is compared to other line items. If you want to look at the budget go to and search for "budget". In the current budget 15,000 is budgeted for legal fees where $3500 is for FCC lawyer, $5000 is for extra fees due to license renewal, and $10,000 is set aside to be used as deductible for D&O claims. So depending how you look at it, 1500 was 10% wasted of total legal budget, or almost half of budget for ordinary FCC work, or it took away the set-aside for Director and Officer insurance claim deductibles. (BTW, that KBOO has been at a higher D&O insurance rate due to claims rate, and that the cash deductible for this insurance is $10,000 is very disturbing. I wonder what the actual claim history has been over the last few years with the lawsuits over past elections etc.)

    Another way to look at this is comparing $1500 in legal fees which can be covered by the budgeted amount for legal fees, to other line items. The entire CD budget for the year is $1000. The entire budget for building maintenance is $2500. Equipment purchase (fix microphones, CD players etc but excluding broadcast equipment) is only $3000.

    So this helps one decide how serious a $1500 oops is. It depends how you look at it but it's money KBOO can't afford to waste.

    And to the issue of harrassing the poor web guy, the line item for this year for web development is zero. The budget for web consultant (buried in the detail for contract services) is $6000. That's $500 a month. Tell me how much web fixing we can get for $500 a month. Give the poor guy a break. KBOO gets the website KBOO is willing to pay for.

    Also, while reading through the email exchange one thing that's clear is that it wasn't understood who had what responsobility for dealing with station/FCC relationships before the new policy manual was adopted. The EAC/FCC oops was last year, before the board adopted the new policies. Under the new policies (now in abeyance) it would have been clear that the sole responsobility to manage an emergent situation with both regulators and lawyers would have been with the Executive Director. Had this been in place last year no BOD member would have tried to fix this themselves. Of course, this analysis doesn't get into the weeds of if the President was calling about the FCC or about the elections, but I'm spent more than enough time today thinking about messes at KBOO.

    Going backwards to old policies at the drop of a dime is foolish and could lead to more risk and more unneeded expense. The board actions on July 15th were a poorly constructed over-reaction to the internal politics of a very vocal but minority group of the members, and leave the corporation potentially vulnerable to more damage like the events of the last year.

    Who knows what's next in the melodrama called KBOO. I almost don't want to look.

    1. Please indicate where anyone was harassed. There is a total of one month old blog post dedicated to Roger, that you read already. Maybe you should've said something then? Your incorrect use of the word harassment is worrying.

      A question was asked on PIMC about the website. It was ignored.
      A month later, the guy decides to say something. It's full of holes. He's a Conch associate, with the same 'I have no idea what's happening' Conch story. And he wonders why no one is emailing him directly? DUH

      " I don't see the need for digging into a customer service dispute from 1995 (yes it suggests looking into a mirror)"

      Glad you got the point. That was pretty much it. You do get that the only reason Leigh made the cut is his connection to Conch, the main subject here?

      "but really guys(gals?)? "

      FWIW a mix, actually. Fishing can be risky. Especially if your friend's initials are R. N.


    2. "Give the poor guy a break. KBOO gets the website KBOO is willing to pay for."

      Too bad he didn't indicate any of this is his comment. You'd think that'd be the first thing he'd do: "Hey dudes, I only work with what they give me!"

      Instead of, you know, LYING.

    3. Ed: Thanks for your due diligence and examining the budget. One question. How much is budgeted for wasteful spending? Conch has raised the point more than once that KBOO has money in the budget to spend for legal services. What he fails to mention is that it is not his money to spend. What part of "unauthorized" does he not understand?

      Because Conch was not authorized by the Board to contact the lawyers, he obtained confidential information in violation of client/attorney privilege. The nature of the documents he obtained puts the Foundation at risk of being sued. All this in addition to this being wasteful spending. If he had followed procedures in place to protect KBOO from mis-use of funds, Conch would have learned that the issue related to the last election had already been discussed with the lawyers by the Executive Director. They advised Lynn to do nothing. Conch did something. However, about that, the Board has done nothing -- except toss a whistle blower off the Board.

      I appreciate you trying to put the approximately $1500 Conch misused in context. Here is one way to see it. That amount is more than the Board, under Conch's leadership, has raised in its attempt at Board-led fundraising. No matter how much is budgeted for legal fees, wasteful spending harms KBOO by increasing this year's deficit. Since Lynn is now relegated to raising funds, she should request, with the Board's blessing, that Conch repay KBOO the funds he misused.

    4. Gotta love it.

      Fair point about the use of the word. Give me a way to edit my posts and I can clean them up. Most likely the blog engine won't allow you to do this. I could ask over and over again, like someone did to get an email account going. But I won't. Except that it would be nice if we could edit our posts for perhaps ten minutes or so. Just saying. As the inner party teaches us, spelling is a b*&%h.

      And while we find areas where we differ, we are ok with both views being visible and shared. Now if only KBOO could be as open.

      And while curious who "the gang" is, I haven't been fishin. Guys/Gals is in this context a lame attempt at gender neutral. I remember another online community where a member had an alternate identity for several years and that identity only emerged when humor was required. No worries.

    5. Sounds like someone from the Inner Party is trying to make history: contacting Google to demand a list of comment IPs.

      All we can say is: good luck with that.

      People with far far far more worthy causes(stalking, defamation, harassment IRL) have failed to even successfully contact anyone at Google. So we'll be watching this with interest! If the Inner Party is successful, we'll be sure to pass their wining strategy on to other people who the Inner Party has used Google services to harass.

      As a note, we have no access to IP's from individual comments. Logs are hosted off site. Gosh, you'd think someone who understood technology could explain to these ppl how things work.

      It is possible that GOOGLE might have IP logs of anon comments. But again, getting in contact with Google...that's tricky. Lawyers with more money than KBOO or the Inner Party have failed.

      For the record: we have no intention of turning over IP information to a third party without a valid legal complaint.

      "The Yellow Blog is being mean and making fun of us" is NOT a valid legal complaint.

    6. @Ed

      "Give me a way to edit my posts and I can clean them up. Most likely the blog engine won't allow you to do this."

      UAMRITE. Blogger just works that way. Sorry.

  6. In his email to me, Conch confesses to a breach of "protocol" Conch did not violate protocol. He violated a policy that protects KBOO from wasteful spending. Protocol involves bowing before the king or kissing the Pope's ring. We don't got that at KBOO. What we got are policies to protect KBOO from the misuse of funds. The focus of the GovCom was not on the violation of policy but if funds were wasted. As I told Conch, I had every confidence that we would learn they had not been.

    We found otherwise.

  7. Hadrian,

    No argument about the possible confidentiality issue, that the funds were wasted, and there was no authority to spend without checking first. I only offer the above post as folks might be getting tired of your pointing these things out. The BOD sure was tired of it and essentially said "shut up already" which is it's own issue.

    But people might see the fight, and say "what's 1500 if there is a budget for legal expenses?" Just putting the cost of this into context, that's all. It might make people mad if they realize in context that for KBOO, that's a lot of money.

    And anyway, we're all waiting to see how many other shoes drop.

    1. "And anyway, we're all waiting to see how many other shoes drop. "

      Get a steel umbrella. From the a comment above they seem to be putting real money behind a lolsuit.

      Gotta wonder what for. Can't be defamation, cuz, you know facts. And can't be to punish Hadrian: he signs his comments and they already crucified him.

      Gonna be interesting to see what/if they cook up.

  8. Glorious Leader makes a tl;dr post at Blue Oregon....

    Press Watch · Obedience training
    Hi there. I'm Theresa Mitchell.

    Well, Ben and Ed, change is hard, isn't it?

    It seems that the old policies and the collective protocols work well enough to (a) run KBOO for 45 years and (b) defeat the corporatization faction handily. For a bunch of "fools" we seem to be acting rather decisively. Hadrian was removed for using bogus technicalities to attempt to bring down (what he hoped would be) expensive and devastating enforcement against KBOO. But you can't be a whistleblower if there is no infraction committed, can you? No, you can in that case only be a malevolent saboteur.

    As for union negotiations, they can be conducted by the Board or by anyone designated by the Board for that purpose. The negotiations will not be difficult nor lengthy, as the parties are now in agreement. Details will be worked out collaboratively (and cheaply).

    There will be no further attempts at "reorganization," that reprehensible business practice in which the entire Staff is "laid off" so that they can beg for their jobs in competition with new applicants. That's a common practice of intimidation in the capitalist business world, but it isn't going to fly here again. It was thwarted in April, and now we at KBOO are making sure it's history. Too bad for the citizens of the US that they think that sort of abuse is 'normal.' If that means Lynn feels "demoted," so be it. Community radio means treating Staff like community, and common business practices be damned.

    As for Thom Hartmann, although I am very sympathetic to the thousands who would like to hear him on KBOO, it is necessary to know that the proposal to erase 15 weekly hours of afternoon programming with a non-local show would displace more than a dozen programmers who contribute to the diverse sound of KBOO.

    Thom has great broadcasts, though, and I would love to see him on for an hour per week day, displacing the second broadcast of Democracy Now. That way, non-local would be displaced by non-local. I think that Thom is too close to the Democratic Party, but there could be room for his views anyway. A fifteen hour block would be excessive, though. No one gets that sort of air time--and for a reason. There are only 24 hours per day, and we are committed to diversity.

    We will now proceed to build a larger, more visible, economically flush KBOO--and we'll do it with the methods that have always worked well, even through the Re-Depression. And one more thing: Our reserves were built up after I and others on the 1995-1998 Board saw that CPB was setting itself up to exclude small community radio. We set our budget to run without CPB, and then squirrelled the funds away as the last few payments came in. We kept our eclectic, diverse, dissenting nature in the face of the Health Stations Project gentrification attempt, and won large bequests, which we also squirrelled away.

    So you see, the reason KBOO is still here, and KPOJ is not, is that KBOO has a better, more rational business model. Watch us grow.

    Theresa Mitchell

    1. "We set our budget to run without CPB, and then squirrelled the funds away as the last few payments came in. "

      So she's admitting they are living off the CPB funds. But I think this contradicts what she said at Indy?

    2. "We will now proceed to build a larger, more visible, economically flush KBOO--and we'll do it with the methods that have always worked well,"

      which methods are these?

    3. "As for union negotiations, they can be conducted by the Board or by anyone designated by the Board for that purpose. The negotiations will not be difficult nor lengthy, as the parties are now in agreement. Details will be worked out collaboratively (and cheaply)."

      Good to see the union negotiations will move smoothly now that Hadrian has been booted off the board. Or is there some other change that would affect those (Lynn is still station manager for the moment). Good to see this is on the up and up.

    4. I was removed for pointing out that Conch admitted to committing an infraction. Client/attorney privilege is but one of many "bogus technicalities" KBOO ignores. Apparently, the rules the Board have made for themselves are "bogus technicalities." And the rules members have made for the Board are "bogus technicalities." These are not matters that should need to be imposed on KBOO. The KBOO Board needs to honor it's commitments to its members and to the community. It fails to do so at its peril. The Board may not be malevolent, just profoundly inept, but either way, they are adept at self-sabotage.

  9. Ah, Theresa. Your posts always give me much to say in reply. I'll work on this one and get back to you here.

    Sure glad SKFSK is here, so there's a place to let it all hang out.

    1. Comrade Red PantsJuly 18, 2013 at 3:37 PM

      "Sure glad SKFSK is here, so there's a place to let it all hang out."

      Now you're just buttering us up. :)

  10. I wonder if the Inner Party is going to get KBOO to fund the LOLsuit.

    After all, KBOO still has all that unused money in its legal budget...

    1. "I wonder if the Inner Party is going to get KBOO to fund the LOLsuit."

      It will say something about KBOO's surreal priorities if it does approve funds for something as ridiculous as suing over a blog.

  11. We have already established that KBOO funds can be spent on lawyers without board approval...

  12. I felt it was time to ask some questions at , my comments are copied below.


    It would be responsobile if the board of directors would notify the membership what happened at the board meeting on July 15th, 2013. I'm looking forward to reading the wording of such a notice.

    It also would be nice if the page on the website that says Board Of Directors could someday be updated to say something other than in red bold type "The next KBOO Board of Directors meeting is June 29, 2013 at 6 pm." (Ironically, this meeting was held I believe on June 24th). Having contradictory information about meeting notice might have explained how the emergency meeting of July 15th was so lightly attended, when issues of lasting importance to KBOO were decided.

    It would also be useful if the "seventy page policy manual" that KBOO now has gone back to was available for people to download and study. The new board policy manual that has been put in abeyance is all I can find, let's put the old one also on the website so everyone can understand what the operating rules and procedures now are. Please especially clarify the part about human relations and employment policies.

    It also would be good for the corporation if meeting minutes of the Governance committee or Governance/Personell committee, or whatever version(s) exists or have existed now be made public by posting on the website, as the proceedings of these meetings are public meetings, and are relevant and important for the members to be informed about. And if we could have all of the board of director meeting minutes that have been approved by the board posted in a easy to find manner, that would be helpful.

    Oh, and one more thing. It would be very useful to the membership if a list was posted of all the names of people who submitted an application to be a candidate for the board of directors for the upcoming election. You can explain of course the process by which the nominating committee is proceeding to vet each candidate, who is on the committee, and how things proceed from here. All in the name of serving the members, and in the name of transparency of course.

    1. Many words can describe the issues in your comment: like the comment below, incompetence.

      But at this point in the game, when all parties are documented as being informed, and after years of toxic dysfunctional behaviour, two other words come to mind: fraud and conspiracy.

      The thing is, even if they really are incompetent, it can still amount to fraud and conspiracy. Especially if the record shows(as IMHO it does) that any reasonable person cannot make a credible claim
      of ignorance.

    2. Fraud:

      "In criminal law, fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent, and verb is defraud. Fraud is a crime and a civil law violation, though the specific criminal law definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud."


      "In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence."

  13. This election process is either being driven by incompetence or motivation to suppress the vote. It's disturbing.
    I'm told the proposed ballot submitted by the nominations committee to staff for printing did not include the date, time, or location of the annual meeting, as called for in the bylaws.
    Back to the drawing board on that one.
    Makes me wonder what other information they've gotten incorrect, candidate statements? leaving people off the ballot completely?