... in the "Sunshine laws" which apply to governmental agencies in most states (in California, the Ralph M. Brown Act).

Essentially, they require that virtually all matters of public interest be conducted in public (discussions and votes). Exceptions generally include specific personnel matters, pending litigation and perhaps a few others.

While our club structure does not lend itself to public discussion of most issues, it is nevertheless my opinion that to the extent possible, our club's business should be open and a matter of "public" record for club members. Specifically, I believe that every board action should be taken by a recorded vote that is published in some manner (club bulletin board, announcement board and/or magazine).

>> If the nature of the disagreement was not disclosed, I assume
>> that it is a private matter between the individuals involved.

The "disagreement" in this instance was not a private matter between individuals. It is at least a two-fold matter of significant club policy. I am still deciding exactly what I intend to say about it, but will figure that out tonight or tomorrow and will thereafter post what I consider appropriate.

>> We may or may not ever learn more about the disagreement, but I
>> do not think that it is really important to know anyhow.

I disagree with your observation in that regard, Charles. When the disagreement is over policy, rather than merely a personality conflict, I think the membership has a right to know the underlying basis for the disagreement.

>> What is important is to recognize that Jim Reilly performed a
>> valuable service for the Club and I feel that it is very unfortunate
>> that he is leaving.

I appreciate the compliment, but not everyone will agree with you ...

>> I am on a couple of boards and we have disagreements more often
>> then we have agreement. But regardless of our personal positions,
>> once a decision has been made, we all stand behind it.

... and on this subject, I am one of those who does not. While there may be occasions that "presenting a united front" is appropriate or even necessary, I think that is a vastly overrated organizational "quality". The concept is more often used to cause dissenters to "knuckle under" than it is to build a true consensus of opinion.

I am sure you can think of many historical examples where good came of refusing to accept governmental "majority" decisions. And others where much evil came of failing to oppose governmental "majority" decisions.

Don't misunderstand me here. What happens or doesn't happen in our club doesn't amount to a hill of beans in an historical context.

But, even in our little corner of the world, insignificant as it might otherwise be, I will not be silent on matters I think important to the club simply because I am in the minority or because expressing my opinion puts me at odds with the club leadership.

----- jim o\-S