Robert, who are "THEY"?
As far as I know, people in favor of the current leadership and those wanting to change it are AMSAT members. You're making it sound like the opposition is storming the AMSAT office and illegally ousting the current team. The GM is comprised of very smart people with good cognitive skills. I don't think there's a need to evoke anything.
As for the "legitimate" expenses, in what world is legitimate to procure legal services in order to punish a member for criticizing an officer? Or using lawyers to prevent duly elected directors from accessing information to which they have a legal right to access?
Like I expressed to you last year, I was upset that a member was penalized for voicing his criticism. Now I'm livid for the use of legal counsel to advise on proposed sanctions against that same member.
73 Fernando, KF7R
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 5:06 PM Robert Bankston [email protected] wrote:
In response to the OP <Why are you comparing the legal expenditures with membership fees?>
The simple answer is THEY are trying to evoke anger in the electorate, so THEY can take control of AMSAT.
Go back and read the intitial allegations in Michelle's and Patrick's "election edition" director reports. See how their lines of attack change each time the true facts are revealed. Their storyline has transformed from illegal expenditures to unwise expenditures.
Now go back and read AMSAT's explanation of legal expenses. You will see that there were legitimate legal questions before the Board - question that were not sought by the AMSAT, but, either a necessary part of their mission or forced upon them by their accusers. Having to expend scarce recources on legal counsel is unfortunate, but a necessary part of entering into contractual obligations and providing a safe workplace for your volunteers.
Robert, KE4AL