From: schuldy@zariski.harvard.edu (Mark Schuldenfrei)
Message-Id: <9403141552.AA08536@math.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: autocrat's pledge
To: DCROSS@bentley.edu
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 10:52:31 -0500 (EST)
Cc: carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <01H9YI8SWB9Q0027XO@bentley.edu> from "DCROSS@bentley.edu" at Mar 14, 94 10:05:19 am
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1305      

I answered the substance of Elayne's comments before.  I want to answer her
tangential comment separately.
  
                                            If I wont turn away unpaid members
  AND won't open myself to legal trauma, I can't ever autocrat under the
  currently proposed (but probably won't stand, so the discussion is somewhat
  irrelevant) "pay-to-play" rule.

Everybody needs to realize, this is wrong.  The Board has had one meeting
already, and it hasn't reversed a single thing.  It has had a meeting to
appoint new Board Members, and it didn't appoint any that were pro-reform.
(Duke John Bearkiller probably can be turned into a reformer, and has a very
open mind. But the Board didn't know that when the appointed him. And he is
one of six.)

The Board has failed to negotiate in any way with the Crowns, and barely
consulted with them at all.  They are still refusing to negotiate, back
down, or seriously discuss anything but the most peripheral of changes to
exactly how much money gets charged, and to whom, and who collects it.

I see no signs of change among the Board Members, and I am looking hard for
it.  Don't pretend for a moment this will all go away. The Board is counting
on this to "all blow over" (according to a close acquaintance of Randall).
Don't let it.

	Tibor