(edited 11/11/14)
An Eastman Facebook Group recently changed the name of the group of owners formerly called "Eastman Members for Transparent Governance" to "Eastman Owners for Responsive Governance" and then to Eastman Members for Governance Reform. What does this mean? The short answer is that the “transparency” is gone and the owners have been downgraded to “members”. You start calling people “members” long enough and they will forget they are “owners”. Equal Owners with Equal Rights.
An Eastman Facebook Group recently changed the name of the group of owners formerly called "Eastman Members for Transparent Governance" to "Eastman Owners for Responsive Governance" and then to Eastman Members for Governance Reform. What does this mean? The short answer is that the “transparency” is gone and the owners have been downgraded to “members”. You start calling people “members” long enough and they will forget they are “owners”. Equal Owners with Equal Rights.
Supposedly this Facebook Group was a group of owners who were not part of governance however it slowly
became infiltrated by governance members. A
separate group who wanted to be known as “Eastman Members for Governance
Reform” merged themselves into the group. A leader of this group emerged who does not want transparency nor any
discussion being done in “public”. The Group wants to be “secret”, no names used and certainly no outside press or public knowledge. How does this help owners have a free and open dialog? How is being secret open and transparent? Is this model of secrecy the same as ECA Board uses for its activities?
Why are ECA governance leaders of this group demanding secrecy? Do they not have a
passing respect for owners' rights of free speech and a free press? Did their various University
educations not instill in them an appreciation for the rights of others to
express their ideas and the right of the press to publish contrary views?
Do they believe that in the future, the owners of the community should
submit a draft of their thoughts to the various governance committees so that
they can vet it for controversial material? After all, at a community of well-educated
adults, we should prevent the clash of ideas whenever possible, don’t you
think?
I think that you would support all of the group's objectives if you knew what they are trying to do. As for the name change, would you like to keep the same structure and results we have always had, just have it be transparent, or would you prefer reforms that give owners much more of a voice?
ReplyDeleteWe do not know what the group’s objectives are and therefore we don't know if we could agree with those objectives.
DeleteThe issue I raised in my Blog post about the Facebook group, was the name change and what that name change implies to me. I had previously expressed my disagreement to the name change and the reasons for that disagreement to the members of the Facebook group. We joined that group because the original name: “Eastman Members for Transparent Governance" resonated with our own Eastman governance objectives.
We define our position on Eastman governance in the following posts on this blog:
7/1/14 A Call for Eastman Governance Change
8/26/14 Eastman--A Lean Accountable Proposal
8/22/14 Take the Pledge
Our advocacy for a transparent, accountable governance has not changed in the 43 years we have lived here. As you may remember we have been attacked personally for our point of view as I believe you have been inappropriately attacked as well. We have never requested or suggested that remarks or free-speech be censored in this community despite the objectionable statements made by some. We have replied on occasion to those remarks. We think adults who are reasonably educated are capable of forming their own independent thoughts about what someone says. Unfortunately both here and in the public domain, irresponsible remarks are made. When those remarks are made from anyone who is in governance, we think each owner has the right to hold that individual accountable.