Chris
My comment was not in reference to the decision made, but rather the willingness to make a considered decision at all.
By "harder path" I meant being willing to consider the matter regardless fo the final decision. The "easier path" I refer to is to have just said "the Club's Rules are the Rules" and to have not examined the matter.
As you say, regardless of what the Cabinet did some people were not going to be happy, but to me that begs a bigger question.
The Cabinet does it's best to serve the Club, at some cost to themselves in terms of time, and sometimes even abuse from members.
While this is no reason to support every decision, nor reason necessarily to support any given individual in continuing with the Cabinet, it most certainly <u>is</u> reason to honour and respect the effort and work they put in, and to refrain from abusing them or questioning their motives or character.
Can we find a way to operate as a Club that encourages more of that respect than we have seen? while at the same time encouraging and supporting respectful dissent when it is appropriate?
We cannot operate without a decision making body of some sort, call it whatever you like, and bless the guys who have been willing to fulfill this role for the Club.
But equally we cannot operate without a reasonable level of trust in that body, nor can we expect anyone to subject themselves to the job if it involves nothing but work, dissent and abuse.
So how do we collectively create a process whereby the ones who take on this role enjoy our trust and gratitude? and at the same time when they do err (and of course being human they will from time to time) the membership is able to intervene appropriately and above all, respectfully?
Maj Gen Mike Kaulbars
3rd "Freiheit" Division
VIII/AoS
ACWGC 
ACWGC Memorial
CSA HQ
VMI
Join CSA
Union HQ
Join Union 
Login
FAQ
Search
Members
