Quote Originally Posted by lateapex911 View Post
Guys, before you all dive off the deep end, read what Kirk wrote again. I see some serious jumping to conclusions here.

And remember who the bosses are: BoD > CRB > ITAC.

In MY opinion, that's not exactly accurate, I think it's more like:

Members > BoD > CRB > ITAC.

To that end, I've always tried to talk to members, and to try and get the pulse of members. Of course, members are usually self centric, at least in the day to day stuff. It's sometimes hard to force their thinking into the 10,000 foot view. That's, I think, what the committees are supposed to do -distill the members often conflicting wishes into effective policy.

In any case, let's not hurl stuff at the CRB before the facts are out. There's always two sides to the story. And that the difference between dark gray (black) and light gray (white) can be as little as 1%.

And remember, the CRB answers to the BoD. Hint hint, nudge nudge.

(insert standard :"if you want your world the way you want it, get involved, make your opinions known, talk to your reps, vote, vote, vote")
Damn, where did I put my hip boots?????

In MY opinion, that's not exactly accurate, I think it's more like:

Members > BoD > CRB > ITAC.
Spoken like a true politician Jake. The members haven't run this club in a loooooong time. And spare me your "but the members vote in the BoD rhetoric".

Any time you have people in positions that impact policy decisions, that are appointed by those above them, you create a situation where the appointees are subject to political pressure from above.

I don't think anyone on this board would characterize Kirk as a loose cannon, and to have the CRB (be it the entire board, or one individual), attempt to gag him, when he's doing what he feels is in the best interest of his constituency, is pure BS. Rather than actually deal w/ the issue(s) directly and openly, the CRB have chosen to keep it in the shadows and quiet the person that brought it to light. It's interesting to see who the people are, that are defending the CRB's actions.

Greg,

Tough call on that one. I probably would have been inclined to leave that info, as I think people in those kinds of positions should be accessible. But I can certainly see your point in removing it.