David,

Given your background as a journalist, I wish your post would have been labeled as an "editorial".

Your wrote: "I wanted to express my distress and displeasure in your action in encouraging Jim Reilly to leave his position as claims director of our organization."

How do you know that Jim Reilly was "encouraged"? It is clear in Nate's post that it was a mutual decision. Did you talk to Jim? to Nate? I would really like to know?

You wrote: "It also makes it appear that you do not approve of Jim's thorough investigation and perhaps want someone who will be a "yes" man to the board."

Where are the facts to back up this claim? Have you seen Jim's report? Do you know what the disagreements were between Jim and the board? Again, I would like to know about this, as would everyone I imagine. Is there something you know that you are not sharing with us?

You wrote: "As far as seeking legal counsel to advise you on what you can publicly disclose, I can assure you that from my long journalism experience, it is very possible to receive that advice in less than 24 hours. The board using that as an excuse to withhold information for a long period of time is pure nonsense"

Yes it is possible to get legal advise in less than 24 hours, but everyone involved here, including legal council, is a volunteer. Their world does not stop at a moments notice to handle Club responsibilities. Sometimes it takes longer than 24 hours. Why is 24 hours an issue? I would like the boad to do a thorough job, not a rush job.

The nature of this post demonstrates that you do not understand why Jim Reilly is no longer the Club's Claims Director. Unless there is something that you know and are not sharing. I don't understand it either, but I did not open my mouth about it. This is a private matter between Jim and the Board of Directors. I don't think that your editorializing on the matter serves well for anyone involved, including Jim. I wish you had some factual basis to your claims.