[extropy-chat] Re: Dr. James Hughes responds to Harvey Newstrom

[Harvey Newstrom]

starman2100 at cableone.net writes: 

> I would hope that should Harvey decide to respond blow by blow it might shed 
> even greater light on exactly what happened.

I have already posted the actual board notes to this list with the prefix 
WTA-BOARD.  People can read for themselves what happened.  If the archives 
ever get opened to the public as promised, everyone could see it.  However, 
we already have one case (of the approved minutes) where the archive entry 
has been deleted.  I am not sure what the archives will contain when they 
finally come back on line. 

>>selling members e-mail to spammers to make money 
> 
> A lie - never happened. 

Yes apparently we exchange them for other lists, not money.  And the deal I 
quoted never actually went through, it was just approved by the board to get 
through.  But this does not change the fact that the WTA reserves the right 
to give out member names if they want, and members have to "opt out" of this 
program if they don't want their names given out.  Reference the join form 
which has an "opt out" section. 

>> adding people to the membership rolls without 
>> their knowledge or permission, 
> 
> 77 members of the Finnish Transhumanist Association which has voted that their members are also WTA members 

Right, but we argued on the board whether we had to actually ask each 
individual if they wanted to join.  The majority vote was we did not.  We 
were even told by James that it was "apparently legal" to add members 
without their knowledge, so there was no problem.  But this does not change 
the fact that members have been added based on their other membership 
organizations without their individual consent. 

>>> The Oxford board meeting was one example where we were not 
>> allowed to vote on whether to hold the international meeting or not. 
> 
> We voted, Harvey lost. 

We were told that Peter donated the money and that the money would be spent 
to have the meeting and fly people there no matter how the Board voted.  I 
didn't consider this much of a "vote". 

>> The conference on Transhumanism and Spirituality is another example 
>> where the "leaders" went ahead despite board objections. 
> 
> It wasn't a Board decision - it was a conference committee decision, and Harvey could have moved to disavow the 
> symposium and decided not to. 

Several board members objected to this when it was discussed, and objected 
when the public announcement came that they did not know that this event was 
proceeding.  James even apologized after he reviewed the wtaboard archives 
and realized that he had not garnered support and had not informed the board 
that he would proceed anyway.  And again, he argued that it was a committee 
decision and not up to the board to vote. 

>> There also were complaints about inaccuracies and plagiarism in the "WTA FAQ" 
>> which the board was not allowed to address. 
> 
> Harvey repeatedly tried to get us to disavow the Transhumanist FAQ because Natasha was annoyed it didn't in her view 
> give enough credit to Max and herself. Then she put up her own "Transhumanist FAQ" which barely even mentions the WTA 
> in passing. We repeatedly debated and voted down disavowing our Transhumanist FAQ. 

Wrong.  As Liaison between WTA and ExI, I never heard the complaints James 
gives above.  The complaints of plagiarism did not come from ExI.  James 
attributes all sorts of evils to Natasha and ExI, but this had nothing to do 
with it. 

>> They are now pushing for 
>> a new Executive Director position who can run WTA independently of the 
>> board with little or no oversight or control. 
> 
> I report to the Board and am accountable through them to the membership.

Theoretically, yes.  But the Executive Director has even more authority to 
act without the board than James did before.  This move obviously increases 
rather than decreases James' freedom for independent action without the 
Board. 

>> James wants to be 
>> Executive Director just as he has been chairman, treasurer, secretary, 
>> publications director, newsletter editor, and website master. 
> 
> As if I haven't begged for someone to take up some slack? I only took on the Treasurer role because no one else would.

The fact remains that more than half of all WTA officers and committee 
leadership positions are held by just a couple of people who control 
everything.  Under Connecticut corporate law, it is illegal for the Chairman 
and the Treasurer to be the same person.  James just resigned from his 
Chairman role to resolve this illegality.  This was not just an idle 
complaint, but a point of law.  Other conflicts of interest still arise if 
James is on the Board, hires himself, pays himself, and is the Treasurer in 
charge of auditing himself.  I am not saying he is doing anything illegal 
(now that he dropped the chair role), but that it is a conflict of interest 
that may not pass financial audits. 

>> The final straw was when James self-declared himself as Executive 
>> Director and said he wanted to start taking a $60,000 salary. 
> 
> I was appointed by acclaim at the Oxford meeting, as affirmed in the unanimously approved minutes,

For those who don't know "acclaim" means by general discussion.  No actual 
vote count was taken.  It is only allowed under Roberts Rules of Order if 
there is a valid motion and a second, which did not occur in this case.  It 
also is only allowed if there are no objections.  Jose insists that he 
objected.  Other board members who were there said they don't remember any 
such vote.  I have also posted on this list a thread showing James himself 
and others discussing the fact that he wasn't voted in yet and needed to be 
in the future.  The story (and the minutes!) changed after the fact. 

> reappointed by a vote of 5-3 two weeks ago. I draw no salary.

Not yet, because we don't have that kind of money.  James plans to draw a 
salary and has included it in future budget projections.  This is the plan 
voted by the majority of the board.  Arguing that "he draws no salary" does 
not change the fact that he wants to pocket the first $60K raised by WTA 
every year. 

>> They even abridged the official meeting minutes to add 
>> this non-existent vote, and sent this out to the membership. 
> 
> The Board unanimously approved a version of the minutes, already published, which said I was nominated for the 
> position and I met with general acclaim in Oxford. Then I presented an abridged version of the minutes to the Board 
> for the newsletter, which were also unanimously approved, including by Harvey, which simply said I had 
> been "appointed."

True, the original minutes said he had been nominated.  True, the board 
members approved the printing of the minutes in the newsletter.  However, 
none of the board members realized that the minutes had been changed between 
these two votes.  There was no vote to amend the minutes.  James changed 
them without anyone's knowledge. 

>> When we 
>> pointed to the public archives for historical evidence, the board voted 
>> to shut down the public archives. 
> 
> Harvey made a motion to open all our Board list archive to the world, which we voted down. Instead we voted to open 
> the Board list to our voting membership. 

True.  I wanted to open everything to the public.  The majority of the board 
voted that down.  They then voted to have a public list and a private list.  
This passed.  This does not change the fact that some board actions have 
been hidden from the public and that future board actions may be hidden from 
the public. 

>> When we pointed to the wtaboard 
>> private archives for evidence, the original motion and minutes were 
>> deleted. 
> 
> I had attached the minutes in Word, and we later discovered that neither the BBS nor the Mailman archives were 
> preserving attachments. However we immediately reposted the minutes in text. 

Yes, and the text minutes were the altered version, not the version 
contained in the original motion for approval that was sent to all board 
members for vote. 

> BJ went public first, arguing that I should be expelled from the WTA on the grounds that I am "political". 

Wrong, as BJ has already addressed.  However, I don't know why it should be 
a crime to go public with Board activities.  I wish all board activities 
were publicly known.  I am appalled at how many votes seem to deliberately 
hide information or mislead the membership.  This is wrong. 

> And then Harvey started his public meltdown. 

The public demanded to know why I was removed from the WTA board.  They, and 
the members who elected me to the Board, have a right to know.  This is not 
a personal attack on James or anybody else.  This is documentation of what 
our elected WTA officials did while in office.  I do not apologize for 
telling the truth and keeping the members informed.  I wish all board 
members would do so.  Sadly, those who did are now off the board. 

> I would say the overall effect has been disconcerting for observers, but the three of them have been so obviously 
> nutty and self-contradictory that I haven't felt moved to much of a defense. 

There is no defense for the truth.  I have posted the actual board e-mails 
showing the events I claimed.  I have been arguing for the opening of 
wtaboard to the members and the public.  Three of us voted against shutting 
down the public wta archives.  Naturally, those who want to hide this stuff 
from the members don't want to defend their actions in public. 

>> Our motions and seconds were ignored. 
> 
> They were all duly voted on defeated, when they were in order, which wasn't always. 

The motion to actually vote for or against hiring James as ED was one such 
motion that was declared out of order.  All motions concerning the WTA FAQ 
were declared out of order (because WTA supposedly has no FAQ).  The vote to 
elect a chairman instead of letting Giulio be appointed acting Chairman by 
Nick was declared out of order.  The motion to require the actual chair to 
confirm votes out of order instead of letting an acting chair do so was 
declared out of order.  Every motion that the top three WTA officials didn't 
like was simply ignored.  If the archives were accessible, all this would be 
clearly visible. 

>> There were 
>> private discussions by the majority how to boot off the minority 
>> without appearing to kick them out. 
> 
> Because Harvey was acting disruptive and frankly crazy. 

That does not make it legal.  Just because you disagree with my standards 
for openness and legal compliance doesn't mean I'm disruptive and crazy.  
Was it crazy when I discovered that we hadn't renewed the WTA corporate 
filing for years?  (We may have lost out corporate status temporarily.)  Was 
it crazy when I discovered that we hadn't filed the required IRS forms for 
nonprofits?  (We may have to pay penalties for tax filing avoidance.)  Was 
it crazy to demand a written contract and actual vote count to hire an 
Executive Director?  Besides, even if I were crazy, that doesn't excuse you 
from the obligation to follow wta bylaws to remove officers instead of 
resorting to dirty tricks and hidden processes to do so. 

>> Finally, I was told I was removed and had my 
>> access to the wtaboard revoked. Later, they denied this ever happened 
>> and made their motion that I had to resign or be removed. 
> 
> Harvey's yahoo account was bouncing and he interpreted it that we had expelled him. When we told him he wasn't 
> expelled he went silent for two weeks, and all his email started bouncing. Then we finally started to take a vote that 
> if Harvey didn't tell us if he had resigned or not, we would expell him. Which is when he claimed we expelled him 
> again. 

That wasn't what the WTA motion said.  It said I had to give a clear 
resignation by June 30 or be expelled.  It did not give me the option to 
remain on the board either way. 

>> They say the "umbrella" status of the WTA is now dead. 
> 
> We're not an umbrella, and never were. We're a membership organization with affiliates. If ExI disaffiliates it would 
> be a relief IMHO. I think the transhumanist movement is ready to move on. 

This is not what the founding papers and FAQ for WTA claims.  As I 
repeatedly told the board, I don't care what they do, as long as it is 
legally voted by the board and documented to the members.  As long as the 
WTA public statements claim it is an umbrella organization, it is.  It is 
wrong for them to say one thing in public, but secretly do another.  If they 
don't want to be an umbrella organization for all transhumanist groups 
anymore, than they need to officially vote to change this, and stop claiming 
it in their public statements. 

>>I hope the WTA situation can be resolved 
> 
> Already has been with Harvey and BJ's resignation. Jose we can work with - chock his craziness up to the political 
> pressure he's under at home and his Latin temprament.

Yes, this is their answer to the problem.  Remove the complainers.  These 
are elected board members.  If the members want our brand of "craziness", 
they should get it.  It is not up to a self-appointed few to override the 
member elections. 

> As for the ExIst machinations, I really couldn't care less.We haven't been pals since about...1994. 

This is the root of the problem.  The WTA leadership really have no desire 
to work with Extropy Institute.  They see them as competitors to be beaten 
rather than transhumanists to be supported.  These are the exact attitudes 
and actions that they want to keep quiet from the membership. 

 --
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>