salgeek said:Why is he leaving the post?
TheBottomLine said:The conversation ends there, my friend....SalGeek said:Why is he leaving the post?
2TrakR said:As it legally has to. No Board member of the CCC can speak to why/how/what Bill is leaving for. You want to his view, ask him directly. The Employer/Employee relationship dictates that we can only say he is no longer the Executive Director.
Just as I can't ask your boss why he fired you as he is legally obligated to not respond.
INCA said:"...There are some who neither understand nor appreciate democracy, what it is and how it works. They are also not aware that respect is earned before it can be given..."Young Ted
dan1608 said:What the hell was all that about?
KTM Mike said:It is all in the approach TBL - is it an approach that is "inclusive", "cooperative", seeking what is in the interest of both parties?
You tell me, Mike...is it 'now' your assertion that the so-called leadership in this Michigan orv community has been 'hard at work' DEFINING these Xanadu-like terms above for all these years...or are these simply the same fee good buzzwords that guys such as our chairman used to shame us before he took 'our' multi-user group council 'underground'?....
".....Or is it an approach that is divisive, exclusive, adversarial, and one sided?..."
Let's take the terms one-by-one....you first have to be "united" as a commmunity before you can ever be "divided"....the term "exclusive" must reference our leadership's 'management' style concerning simple issues where arrogance/exclusitivity have reigned for years..."adversarial" has become the knee-jerk term in this orv community describing any Michigan citizen asking the simplest of questions...and "one-sided" (I'm assuming) refers to people like myself questioning 'where' or "by whom" over $4 million of our sticker money will be "spent down by 2008".(a topic REPEATEDLY deleted on this forum and one of which no leader I've run into 'surprisingly' wants to discuss).
"... Is it an approach that really is seeking a win/win or one that is only satisified with a win/loose?...."
What's a "win/win" solution, Mike?
Not one mention in the public record for YEARS of anyone commited to true parallel run multi-use trails throughout the system...only a suggestion by "motorcyclists that we spend $50,000 to study the feasibility of 100 miles of "motorcycle only" trails in the Huron Forest?
Uh, 'Mike'...is THIS the "win/lose" you refer to?
"....Is it an approach that starts with areas of common interest, and expands from there, or one that focuses solely on the negatives, and where we are different?...."
Tell me something, Mike...how do you seek "common areas of interest"....when the leadership handed to you time and time again feels that either we SHOULDN'T work together; or that any discussion CONCERNING same should be at the discretion of whoever buddies up with your guy behind the rest of our backs?
In other words, if we trade in a guy who doesn't necessarily 'like' your leadership....for a guy who has some kind of strange relationship with your leadership which precludes ANY disclosure of exactly what 'does' go on when these two people meet..."differences" (as you describe them) inevitably turn into how much 'character' a leader posesses or exactly what their motives could possibly be when turning such simple subject matter into something akin to saving the free world as we know it.
I dont care what someone else did back when ever, what matters is what happens NOW and going forward by the people currently involved.
Gee, I 'bet' you don't Mike....and what happens "now" seems to involve a $4 million dollar expenditure "going forward by the people currently involved"...and certainly NOT involving simple sitizens asking simple questions! (see above if you didn't get a chance to read all the simple topics deleted earlier),
"...You say you were stymied in addressing this issue (presumably the adversarial relationship) - no wonder! If you start out a conversation assuming I am the enemy, continue the conversation in that fashion - it is very likely to end as us being enemies!...."
C'mon, Mike; nobody 'assumed' anybody was an adversary. When some leader rolls up to my first atv meeting in a big 'ol fancy trailer proclaiming that his original membership will get "preferrential benefits" beyond what the balance of us assembled will receive....'I' don't take his word or many of my regional DNR staff's off-the-record comments concerning your organization as gospel...I confirm a lot of this later when treated arrogantly at advisory board meetings by guys who won't look you in the eye or do so with their head cocked to one side and a toothpick sticking out of their mouth.
"...Even my own son, a quad rider, is finding trails that have gotten wider and wider, less enjoyable to ride. He also respects the tight trails I enjoy, and supports me having access to them....."
"Wow", Mike...your own SON "supports your access to trails"!?..."unbeleivable!!!!"
Tell me something...what trails have YOU (as a motorcyclist) EVER been denied access to? Hmm?
"...When the conversation can become a TRUE DIALOG (two way), conducted in a respectful manner, seeking a win win - that is when good things can start to happen. Work cooperatively on developing parrallel trail systems addressing both needs - again a win win. REALLY LISTEN and care about the other parties needs - you both win...."
Great idea, Mike!.....Now when is that conversation going to start?....AFTER you've spent the $4 million...or well BEFORE this next meeting and in PUBLIC? (you know, a place where your leadership can't shout down any opinion that is contrary and where citizens aren't bullied or denied their right to speak when it is formally requested...."You get 3 minutes and 3 minutes "ONLY"....).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?