further DA feedback

It's important to point out that while the some had a very positive experience with the technology others did not. This could have all been avoided had the suggestions of rescheduling DA to allow more time to work out the technical details, but more importantly, to fully test and acclimate everyone to the change. Once the monumental change of shifting to a virtual DA was a finalized decision, there was no reason why the date could not have been changed. Making this a successful event for all involved would have restored some credibility and acceptability to the process.

That is critical because the most passionate arguments were made as a result of the loss of credibility to the process. With such enormous issues as the by-laws and dues changes on the table, anything that risked disenfranchising any of the participants needed to be avoided in order to further reinforce the view that the Board, staff and other leadership was being dismissive of the elected delegates. The request for a broad-based, inclusive review process, not just of DA but of the factors leading up to the decisions regarding DA, has been made not to assail anyone, or to undo anything that has already occurred, but to restore confidence, credibility, and trust in the leadership of the organization.

I for one am not arguing against the technology, the need for changes in DA, or even for the changes in governance. I am arguing against the autocracy, the hidden agenda, and lack of respect shown to those whose voices were raised to question the process.