Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FW: Person to Person

Expand Messages
  • Franklin Perez
    Hello: E-mail from Mark Clifford (LPSC Chairman) telling me that my Hispanic nature appears to start by creating conflict. The purpose of posting this
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment

      E-mail from Mark Clifford (LPSC Chairman) telling me that my "Hispanic
      nature appears to start by creating conflict."

      The purpose of posting this correspondence is as supporting evidence on a
      post by me in response to Larry Lawver's posting entitled "Regarding
      Franklin Perez" as:
      1) Message #595 at the cfliberty@yahoogroups.com Yahoo Group on July 7, 2004
      2) Message #2965 at the lpfsc@yahoogroups.com Yahoo Group on July 1, 2004


      Franklin Perez
      Libertarian Party of Seminole County Florida (LPSC)

      (Disclaimer: Not official LPSC or LP correspondence.)


      >From: "W Mark Clifford" <WClifford@...>
      >To: "Franklin Perez" <perezfranklin@...>
      >Subject: Person to Person
      >Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:53:49 -0400
      >You are a virgin to leadership so I appreciate you trying and I appreciate
      >your work at it.
      >Your Hispanic nature appears to start by creating conflict. Being machismo
      >does not serve you and it slows your progress. (It works when it serves to
      >scare away your opponent but we are not your opponents.)
      >At the moment you do not seem to understand group dynamics. (I thought
      >about asking the other members to consider removing you for cause as I see
      >you not qualified to hold the office held). You are worried about Robert's
      >Rules paragraph [zz] but you not have the 'common courtesy' part at all.
      >You HAVE a right to speak but you have one mouth and you have two ears --
      >develop wisdom to listen wisely. Individual responsibility means acting
      >responsibly. (What is going to happen when the LP offers Franklin Perez as
      >an example to lead? You need to be ready to do it because those who wear
      >the label with be prejudged by your performance.) I believe you have the
      >individual part but individual responsibility is not related.
      >Before I post our reply, I need to get your input as a member of the team.
      >(That means that the post stands by itself and it does not get responded to
      >by someone who helped draft it. Your option to comment is now, not later.)
      >Your signature block says:
      >Franklin Perez
      >Libertarian Party of Seminole County Florida
      >and you said "I do not understand why you even need approval from the
      >Executive Committee". That is the difference between speaking for you and
      >speaking for the organization. And yet you post apparently using the group
      >to add credibility to your post rather than to help the reader to
      >your message. You seem to understand the title and seem to like wearing
      >It must be more than that or this group will fail to be effective. You
      >appear driven by all about self and no humility. Each post indicates to me
      >you do not understand teams. Every effective leader understands humility.
      >The Executive Committee speaks for the group and the chair speaks when the
      >executive committee cannot be reached. The vice chair speaks when the
      >cannot be reached - not hard to reach but cannot be reached. It also means
      >that you remove the title from your signature until you are BOTH speaking
      >for the party AND you are speaking in the capacity you show. It is for the
      >reader - not the poster. (period)
      >You also speak ill of you teammates before you have the facts to judge.
      >This is why your original post offended me. You have an obligation to
      >in a neutral capacity so that you can be given the gavel to resolve a
      >dispute that originates outside of the executive committee. When anyone
      >objects to the resolution of a dispute, you will be given the opportunity
      >resolve it. Point out oversights in private and save the cheap shots for
      >your enemy, not your friends.
      >Bonus TIP: Drop the need to find fault; after that you can focus on
      >Bonus TIP2: Respect the time of your chair; it is not an endless
      >Franklin - my recommendation to you is to develop the ability to listen
      >resign the post as a leader of a group until you develop the skills and
      >wisdom to lead. I am speaking only to you because I do not need to
      >humiliate you, I need you to get through to you and provide you some honest
      >If you do not want to develop leadership skills that is not a crime but you
      >should just stop pretending.
      >Others have the same view of you but they think you are so hopeless that
      >they don't provide useful feedback that you can actualize since they do not
      >believe you have the ability to learn. If you have no desire to learn, that
      >is an option but if you need a mentor, I can help.
      >Thank you for your work and considering things outside of the box.
      >This email took more than 6 hours to draft edit and reconsider but it is
      >readers digest version. If I have offended you then I have not
      >Your Friend,
      >Wm "Mark" Clifford
      >941 Lake Charm Drive
      >Oviedo FL 32765-6831
      >321-262-6009 (especially nights and weekends or Sprint PCS)
      >mailto: WClifford@...
      >-----Original Message-----
      >From: Franklin Perez [mailto:perezfranklin@...]
      >Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 7:46 PM
      >To: WClifford@...; LLawver@...; onebigbarr@...
      >Subject: RE: Executive Session: Robert's Rules and Due Process Draft
      >Hello Mark Clifford:
      > >Mike Barr has said that I "must" respond. Larry Lawyer suggests leading
      > >example and saying nothing. Franklin speaks in high terms but then asks
      > >to violate his and others due process and I cannot do that even if he
      > >requests it.
      >I do not understand why you even need approval from the Executive Committee
      >to post the below mentioned message in the LPFSC egroup. You do not need my
      >permission, Larry's permission, or anyone else's permission.
      >You have a right to freedom of expression. I respect that even if I may not
      >agree with everything you say.
      >But since you are asking my vote, then I will say yes, post the e-mail
      >mentioned below. Get this out in the open.
      >Franklin Perez
      >Libertarian Party of Seminole County Florida
      > >Draft
      > >--- ---
      > >
      > >Fellow Libertarians;
      > >
      > >Some of you may be surprised by my delay / silence and confusion in
      > >response
      > >to other postings.
      > >
      > >In our club we are directed to follow Robert's Rules of Order by our "By
      > >Laws". Robert's Rules embrace tradition and even defer to tradition
      > >time to time.
      > >
      > >They are a fixed set of rules that provide for changing the rules and the
      > >method by which such change is made. We can modify our Constitution and
      > >Laws to allow for electronic discussion if two-thirds of the body
      > >it.
      > >
      > >But until we create that process, I am bound to protect everyone by the
      > >same
      > >set of rules, even if they ask me to do otherwise. (A city mayor was
      > >publicly faulted for picking up a cell phone to conduct a vote before the
      > >rules were in place to permit such a vote.)
      > >
      > >To discuss a matter in an email forum excludes those members who choose
      > >to use email. Actually it disadvantages them but when it comes to equal
      > >treatment, disadvantaging someone is violating their right to due
      > >Also, email includes many weaknesses as a communications medium since it
      > >excludes 85% of the message (body language, voice inflection etc) that
      > >face-to-face discussion includes. The appropriate place for discussion
      > >the Business Meeting by placing an item on the agenda.
      > >
      > >The call has been to not follow Robert's Rules by just doing it and I
      > >to decline that invitation in order to protect the rights of the person
      > >has made the request. Go figure. Imagine you are in a police station and
      > >lady walks into the station and asks the officer at the desk to shoot
      > >The officer still must respect the lady's life.
      > >
      > >My apologies for not responding quickly and concisely -- as you deserve.
      > >Separating the personal attack from the need to protect the rights of the
      > >attacker in real time is not a trivial task. But it comes with the job
      > >my apologies to you for not delivering that level of service.
      > >
      > >I have reviewed Chapter XX - Disciplinary Procedures and the actions do
      > >appear yet to rise to a level of warranting drawing up charges so at this
      > >point we will be meeting and talking our way through the issue. We will
      > >work our way to the underlying issue or problem and deal with it in an
      > >appropriate forum.
      > >
      > >I will not reply to replies to this post and if you disagree with my
      > >since it is something I am obligated to do. To reply to this post, pick
      > >the phone and let's talk. Liberty is too important to risk.
      > >
      > >Mark
      > >
      > >Wm "Mark" Clifford
      > >941 Lake Charm Drive
      > >Oviedo FL 32765-6831
      > >321-262-6009 (especially nights and weekends or Sprint PCS)
      > >http://home.cfl.rr.com/wclifford
      > >mailto: WClifford@...
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >From must-see cities to the best beaches, plan a getaway with the Spring
      >Travel Guide! http://special.msn.com/local/springtravel.armx
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.