Dear Don,
In response to yours of July 3rd, I must disagree with your concept of what had occured. The Exec. Comm. was requested to take action and investigate Smith's way of managing and they chose not to and wanted to have a meeting to discuss the problem. Too many employees were unhappy and ACTION was called for. The Board of Incorporators was not taken over. A majority chose to exercise their responsibility in solving the problem. Smith would have been fired had he not resigned, but no other dismissals would have occurred. Rickert and Ruckles [sic] decided to resign, as well as Van Buskirk. This took from JBS a valuable source of funds which, in turn, caused new management to adjust to a lesser flow of funds, resulting in not replacing some coordinators who left.
I am certain that your heart is still with JBS, in spite of your dislike for the current management. But the three mentioned above, obviously, are not concerned about the continuance of JBS. But, Don, your actions on the internet and in your mailings will harm JBS, mainly because you have misinterpreted events in line with inaccurate staements [sic] made by Gow and Smith.
The current management, in my opinion, is doing a fine job considering the reduction in contributions from Rickert and Ruckels. The latest mailing from Thompson is definitive as to what really took place and the authority behind that action. I AM SATISFIED THAT WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE ONLY LEGAL WAY TO CORRECT A LONG STANDING PROBLEM.
Sincerely,
David Eisenberg
Wayne Rickert responds to David Eisenberg
|
|
