I'm in agreement with David and Marilynn, that it is vital we meet with all
five Trustees.
Marvin
=======================================
----- Original Message -----
From: David Kantor <dkantor@system.cnchost.com>
To: <jfarr@eoni.com>; <JLange2000@aol.com>
Cc: <ec@ubfellowship.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2000 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Dupont letter - draft work


> Dear Friends;
>
> I think it is absolutely essential that we meet with all five trustees,
> particularly given the differing views which we have heard from them.  I
> feel that dealing with all five of them together is the only way we're
> going to achieve anything worthwhile.  I think this is critical.
>
> David
>
>
> At 06:13 PM 02/13/2000 -0800, Janet Farrington Graham wrote:
> >Dear John,
> >
> >You have suggested a strategy that departs from the one we have been
> pursuing for
> >four months.  I feel uncomfortable proceeding while this new suggestion
> remains on
> >the table; we need to speak with one voice.
> >
> >Let me provide a reason for staying the course in addition to Marilynn's
> >rationale.  This is more of a "what if" but we need to think completely
> through
> >this delicate situation.  What if we agree to meet Georges and his
> >"representatives" in Paris, people he has not yet named, and we discover
> he has
> >picked two staff members and two lawyers to meet with us?  What if, in
our
> efforts
> >to meet in good faith, we discover he has no interest in diplomacy but in
> leading
> >the legal charge against us?  What if we realize, too late, that we have
> played
> >into his hand and given him the leverage he needs to complete his
apparent
> coup?
> >
> >If you still believe we should send representatives to meet with
> representatives,
> >then The Fellowship president should stay home.  If we meet with the
> trustees, then
> >we need a limited amount of decision-making ability.
> >
> >Please advise, my friend.  We cannot send the letter until your
suggestion
> is voted
> >upon by the EC or removed from the table.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Janet
> >
> >
> >
> >MKulieke wrote:
> >
> >> John et al.
> >>
> >> Just a reminder that the original reason we chose only five people to
> >> negotiate was at the request of Urantia Foundation trustees. (We sent
five
> >> people to the October 98 meeting where we determined the disposition of
the
> >> Uversa Press books). At that time they felt that having the entire EC
> would
> >> "create an uneven playing field". We assumed that they would prefer the
> >> smaller group again, but maybe that is the wrong assumption. Also,
after
> the
> >> negotiating group and Foundation agreed on the points  we brought it
> back to
> >> the EC.
> >>
> >> The reason that I continue to believe that it is necessary to have all
five
> >> trustees is their current way of functioning. It is apparent that
decisions
> >> are being made by one or two individuals (trustees and/or Tonia) and
that
> >> they are presented as group decisions. We also know that some major
actions
> >> are not being communicated to all trustees. I think that it is
essential
> >> that we make them accountable to operate as a board and use group
process
> >> based on complete information.
> >>
> >> Some might say that our organization has a similiar problem to the
trustees
> >> and how can we be sure that our group of five will not step over the
line.
> >> The difference to me is that we have 36 general councilors, many of
whom
> >> would not hesitate to tell us that we have gone too far. These 36
> councilors
> >> could also take us out of office and put others in our places. We are
> >> accountable by our organizational structure and I hope that the Council
> >> would take its role seriously if an individual or group goes go beyond
> their
> >> role in the organization.
> >>
> >> Marilynn
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> >From: JLange2000@aol.com
> >> >To: jfarr@eoni.com
> >> >Cc: ec@ubfellowship.org
> >> >Subject: Re: Dupont letter - draft work
>
> >> >Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000, 4:13 AM
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Dear Janet,
> >> >
> >> > Good faith negotiating requires the team be blessed with some
> lattitude of
> >> > decision making. Nevertheless, a negotiating tactic one likes to have
in
> >> > reserve is the need to appeal to higher authority.  In this case it
> would be
> >> > our entire XC. I do not think it would be a good idea to arbitrarily
give
> >> > this up.
> >> >
> >> > Furthermore, we are taking this away from the Foundation by requiring
all
> >> > five to meet with us. Even though I spoke in favor of this, I now
> favor Dick
> >> > Johnson's comments regarding these demands. We are making more
demands
> for
> >> > them than we are for ourselves. Thus we attempt to create an uneven
> playing
> >> > field giong into the meeting.  We should relax our demands and let
> them pick
> >> > the team.
> >> >
> >> > Another point of information: At our XC meeting in October, an
additional
> >> > item on the agenda for discussion was the intimidation of our
> international
> >> > friends by Foundation representatives. Is this on the back burner or
> entirely
> >> > off the radar screen? Where does it stand?
> >> >
> >> > All the best,
> >> > John
> >
>