MINUTESCorvallis Duplicate Bridge Club (CDBC)

July 2, 20191650 - 1830

Directors in attendance Nick Warden; Walter Dobek; Joyce Willcox; Mary Vance; Catherine VanFleet; Karla Stewart-Layton; Mavis Tuten; Sandy Allen; Peter Harr

Unit 477 Liaison Janie Peery

Others Mary Marsh-King; Paul Hochfeld; Carol Harms; Mitch Willcox

Topic Discussion Action/Responsible Person

Call to order The meeting was called to order at 1650 by Board President, Joyce Willcox.

Minutes The CDBC Board Minutes of May 22, 2019 were approved by a majority of CDBC Board Members via email vote on May 26, 2019: 8 Board Members approved; 1 abstained (Allison Walkingshaw)

No further action. Minutes of 5/22/2019 are posted at the Club and on the Website

Financial Documents A request was made, seconded, and unanimously approved to accept the following CDBC financial documents by Consent Agenda. Documents were sent to Board Members via email on 6/12/2019:• Comparative Revenue/Expense, 5/31/2019• By Activity, 5/31/2019• Balance Sheet, 5/31/2019• Table Count, 5/31/2019

Accepted. Sandy Allen will send documents for posting on website

Board Member Resignation: Allison Walkingshaw

Allison Walkingshaw submitted her resignation from the CDBC Board on 5/24/2019, stating her refusal to work for an organization that does not have its members best interests at heart (see attached)

Resignation accepted with regret

Board Member Replacement

Peter Harr accepted an appointment by Joyce Willcox, CDBC Board President, to replace Allison Walkingshaw on the CDBC Board, term ending December 2021. This appointment was approved by unanimous email vote of all Board Members on 6/6/2019

Peter welcomed to Board, term ending December 2021. New grid of CDBC Board Officers, June 2019, attached.

Inspection of Club Financial Records: Mary Vance

• Mary Vance reported her notation of the CDBC MOPP requirement that financial records of the Club are to be inspected annually, every January, by a club member with bookkeeping/accounting background and that a report of the inspection be made to the Board each year. Upon investigation, Mary determined that a financial inspection had never been done.

• Mary Marsh-King, Club Member, was approved by email vote of the Board to conduct the inspection and agreed to do so for this calendar year.

Page � of �1 5

Status of Financial Inspection: Mary Marsh-King

Mary Marsh-King verbally presented and explained the attached written report of her 2-3 hour inspection of financial records. Questions answered. The following information, recommendations and requests made:• Mary M-K looked at records with Mary Alice

Seville and found entries appear to be done attentively, accurately, and thoroughly with financial responsibilities split between Mary Alice Seville and CDBC Board Treasurer, Sandy Allen. Mary M-K recommends that Mary Alice Seville have access to the credit card account so she can double check charges made on credit card. Sandy will follow up on this.

• Mary M-K reported that Board needs to consider a contingency plan should Mary Alice Seville be unable or unavailable to continue maintaining financial records. No recommendations made at this time but the Board noted the need for the CDBC Treasurer to provide strong oversight over financial records. It was noted that Sandy Allen, as Treasurer, ensures all aspects of financial records and documents. Mary Alice Seville is the bookkeeper and Sandy reviews and verifies all records.

• If Board would like Mary M-K to continue with inspection of records, she reported it would be helpful for her to have a copy of Quickbooks so she can inspect from home. The Board requested that Mary Marsh-King continue and approved Joyce Willcox purchasing a copy of Quickbooks. The Board discussed the importance of 2 people having the password to Quickbooks.

• Mary M-K stated need to determine whether gross receipts will be such in 2019 that a 990 IRS tax return will be required rather than the prior 990-N IRS form. Sandy will pursue

• Sandy will ensure Mary Alice Seville has access to credit card account

• Sandy to oversee all CDBC financial records and documents

• Joyce Willcox will pursue purchase of Quickbooks for use by Mary Marsh-King to continue in future inspections

• Sandy will ascertain gross receipts anticipated for 2019 and ensure that proper IRS tax form used.

“A Taste of Bridge” correction: Joyce

At the 5/22/2019 CDBC Board Meeting, it was incorrectly reported that “A Taste of Bridge” was an Audrey Grant Program. Rather, Mary Alice is developing a class using material from a book called “A Taste of Bridge” with permission from the author and with approval of the CDBC Education Committee. The name of the class has not yet been determined

No action needed by Board at this time.

Topic Discussion Action/Responsible Person

Page � of �2 5

Club Internet Access: Joyce

Joyce reported that Dick Jarvinen has been investigating business internet access for the Club and is recommending a plan to use Mint Mobile wireless carrier for an annual expense of $200. Additional initial expenses would be approximately $100. Dick believes this will be a cost-effective solution for the Club’s need for phone service and internet access. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously approved to have Dick pursue the plan with Mint Mobile.

Joyce will notify Dick to pursue plan with Mint Mobile

Proposed Revision of Club Manager job description in MOPP: Mary Vance

Mary Vance proposed the attached revision of the CDBC MOPP job description of the Club Manager so as to conform to the ACBL requirements of a Club Manager. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved to accept the proposed revision.

Joyce will ask Dennis Harms to revise MOPP to replace prior Club Manager job description with revised job description approved at this meeting.

Status of duties & needs previously done by Club Manager; Joyce Willcox

Joyce reported that the following responsibilities previously handled by the Club Manager will be as follows:• Game supplies will now fall under the

responsibility of Facilities. Karla Stewart-Layton volunteered to pick up supplies, as needed

• Dennis Harms has completed hands for 2019; The Technology Committee will assume responsibility of generating hands and placing on Director’s computer. This committee also handles dealing machines and scheduling of dealers

• Facilities Committee will assume responsibility for picking up game supplies

• Technology Committee will continue generating bridge hands and placing on Director’s computer as well as being responsible for dealing machines and the scheduling of dealers.

Requests. Joyce Willcox

• Joyce asked for Board approval that Club newsletter include information regarding club members who have died as well as those that are sick, hospitalized, or have other personal needs. A motion was made, seconded and approved for the distribution of personal information such as this in the newsletter except if/when the person objects.

• A motion was made to purchase 16 ambidextrous bidding boxes for a cost of $170. This was seconded and unanimously approved.

• Sandy Allen to report personal information, as available, re. bridge members in newsletter unless requested otherwise.

• Joyce will pursue the purchase of 16 ambidextrous bidding boxes.

Request from Schedule and Calendar Committee: Joyce

Joyce reported that the Schedule and Calendar Committee requests Board decision by Sept 30 identifying the parameters for types of games wanted in 2020. Board decision needed by Sept 30; committee calendar issued by Oct 31. Catherine VanFleet volunteered to be Board Liaison to this Committee and will come back to Board prior to Sept 30 to elicit Board input

Catherine VanFleet to work with Schedule and Calendar Committee and come back to Board prior to Sept 30 to clarify and elicit information requested by Schedule and Calendar Committee

Apology. Paul Hochfeld

Apology sent from Paul Hochfeld to CDBC Board 6/9/2019 (see attached)

Apology accepted; to be posted with these Minutes

Topic Discussion Action/Responsible Person

Page � of �3 5

Standing Committees: Clarification of Chair and Board Liaison of Standing Committees. Joyce Willcox

Joyce presented current status of Committee Chairs and Board Liaisons and need for Board Liaison for following committees: Director; Schedule & Calendar; and Technology. Joyce Willcox volunteered to be board liaison to Director Committee; Catherine VanFleet volunteered to be board liaison to Schedule and Calendar Committee; and Peter Harr volunteered to be board liaison to Technology Committee. Below is a listing of committee chairs and board liaisons:Director Committee:• Chair: Dick Jarvinen• Board Liaison: Joyce WillcoxEducation and New Player Development • Chair: Ann Larson• Board Liaison: Walter DobekFacilities• Chair: Nick Warden• Board Liaison: Nick WardenOutreach:• Chair: Joyce Willcox• Board Liaison: Joyce WillcoxSchedule and calendar• Chair: Mary Alice Seville• Board Liaison: Catherine VanFleetTechnology• Chairs: Rick Garvin, Dennis Harms, Dick

Jarvinen• Board Liaison: Peter Harr

Board liaisons to represent committees to Board for purposes of reporting activities, as appropriate, to Board or eliciting input from Board, as needed by committees

Draft Grievance Procedure: Walter Dobek

Walter presented a draft Grievance Procedure, developed by himself, Gayle Peterson, and Mike Sailor. Questions answered and a brief discussion ensued. All Board Members are asked to submit suggestions and edits to Walter by July 16 (2 weeks from this Board meeting).

• All Board Members to submit suggestions and edits to Walter by July 16

• Walter will work with his committee to bring revised draft Grievance Procedure back to future Board meeting

Status of education on relationship of CDBC, Unit 477, and ACBL as well as on appropriate chain of command. Joyce

Joyce reported she is working on presenting an education program on the relationship of CDBC, Unit 477, and ACBL, as well as on appropriate chain of command. She reports she will is using information from the ACBL website for this education. The Board recommended that all CDBC Board Members, Unit 477 Board Members, and Directors be invited to the education and that this be done separate from a CDBC Board meeting

Joyce to set up and deliver education session, date and time to be determined.

Topic Discussion Action/Responsible Person

Page � of �4 5

Larson/Smith letter requesting club healing

The Board reviewed a letter sent to the Board from Ann Larson, Linda Smith, Erick Larson, and David Smith requesting that the Board develop a long term plan to create an inclusive environment at the Club (see attached). The Board recommends that the Larsons and Smiths be represented on a task force to address rebuilding and healing the Club

Catherine VanFleet will invite the Larsons and Smiths to be represented on task force to address facilitation to help the Club move forward and to heal

Facilitation to help rebuild club in lieu of mediation of incident on 8/21/2019. Mavis

Mavis reported on her contacts with professional mediators Kristen Jocum and Brian B Egan. Kristen was recommended by club member Beth Aronoff and Brian was subsequently recommended by Kristen as she felt the Club’s needs were more aligned with the skills and experience of Brian Egan. Mavis had a lengthy meeting with Brian who strongly recommended against mediation of the 8/21/2018 Incident and instead recommended an eight hour facilitation session over 2 days to help the Club rebuild and heal. Brian Egan offered to do this for a flat rate of $1,120.00. A brief discussion ensued after which a motion was made, seconded and approved to appoint a task force, headed by Catherine VanFleet, and including Board Members Mary Vance and Peter Harr, to work with Brian B Egan to go forward with this facilitation session. Mary Vance expressed concerns that the Board had not yet adequately addressed the incident. She will represent these concerns to Brian Egan. It was recommended that that Larsons and Smiths be contacted and invited to be represented on his task force.

Catherine VanFleet to head task force consisting of fellow Board Members, Mary Vance and Peter Harr, to work with Brian B Egan on his proposal to facilitate 8 hour session to rebuild and heal club. Catherine will invited Smiths and Larsons to be represented on this task force. Mavis will introduce Catherine, Mary, and Peter to Brian B Egan.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 1830. The next CDBC Board Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 1 at 4:30 pm.

Agenda items to be submitted to Board President at least 4 days in advance of next meeting

Minutes recorded by Mavis Tuten, Board Secretary

Attachments to these Minutes:• Resignation. Allison Walkingshaw• CDBC Board of Directors, June 2019• Financial Inspection Report. 7.2019• Draft changes of MOPP• Apology, Paul Hochfeld• Letter to Board: Larson/Smith letter

Topic Discussion Action/Responsible Person

Page � of �5 5

From: Allison Walkingshaw allison.walkingshaw@gmail.comSubject: Re: Draft Minutes. CDBC Board. 5.22.2019

Date: May 24, 2019 at 9:26 PMTo: Joyce Willcox joycewillcox@comcast.netCc: Ken & Mavis Tuten kmtuten@comcast.net, Mary Vance maryvance@peak.org, Walter Dobek waju4@comcast.net,

Catherine VanFleet cvanfleet27@yahoo.com, Nick Warden lackey1957@comcast.net, Sandy Allen sandy_allen99@msn.com,Karla Stewart-Layton karlalayton43@gmail.com

This is my resignation from the CDBC board.

I refuse to continue working for an organization that does not have its members best interests at heart. A board thatchooses to do what is easy rather than what is right, by protecting the wrongdoings of a few at the cost of many. A boardthat takes the most minimal action possible, only after public pressure to do so, and then pats themselves on the backfor a job well done.

I expressed a real concern about not feeling valued and in response I got a patronizing response about how to addagenda items and the value of a proper start time.

I realize resigning after this may look like an overreaction, but it’s really just the last straw for me. Overall, ever since Ijoined the board, my experience has left me feeling like the leadership of the Corvallis club is not one that welcomes orappreciates my contributions.

Lately, I’ve been reluctant to play at the club at all, both because of my extremely negative personal experience on theboard and the board’s handling of the 8/21 incident. It’s increasingly clear to me that this is a purely a negativeexperience that I don’t want to participate in anymore.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 6:22 PM Joyce Willcox <joycewillcox@comcast.net> wrote:I am sorry circumstances delayed you getting to the meeting by 4:30. But more than that I am sorry you did not feelable to add your non agenda items for our discussion. Even so, we are not so formal as to not hear your concerns. Inany case. I know I brought some concerns that were not on the agenda, but needed to be addressed. However, I ammore concerned about your not feeling free to share concerns with the Board than the start time. In the future you cansend an agenda item to Mavis and you will be given a designated time and we will be sure that you can speak. You canattach information we can read prior to the meeting and you can designate it as information only or a decision item.

I see that the proposed agenda says we will start at 4:30. I looked back at previous agendas, and 4:30 is typically theprojected start time. I know we don’t always start on time. However, in consideration to those who are present andexpect for the meeting to begin at 4:30, we should always strive to start the meeting on time.

Let me assure you that the start time did not reflect negativity toward you by the board. Starting on time, was my effortto meet the goal of starting when we say we will. Board members have understandably become weary of longmeetings.

Joyce

On May 24, 2019, at 4:18 PM, Allison Walkingshaw <allison.walkingshaw@gmail.com> wrote:

I am abstaining from voting- I was not there for most of the meeting so I cannot confirm or deny what happened.

Considering the last couple of board meetings have not started until 4:50 (at the earliest) I was very surprised whenthe meeting was already in full swing at 4:45. A meeting time of 'after the 1:00 game' is very open to interpretationand I had no reason to believe I was anything other than on time. There was no effort to contact me and obviously noeffort to wait for me. I had concerns and comments I wanted to voice and did not like get the opportunity to do so.

The club is currently in a rough patch of not all members feeling equally valued or appreciated so it is especiallydisheartening that I was so casually made to feel completely irrelevant by a group that should be the most sensitiveto this right now. We all deserve better.

Allison

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 9:47 PM Ken & Mavis Tuten <kmtuten@comcast.net> wrote:Hello all,

Attached are Draft Minutes from our Board meeting last night, 5/22/2019. Let me know if you see anythingmissing or amiss. I’m not sending the attachments at this time but will add them with the final Minutes.

Thanks all. It was a wonderfully mundane Board meeting!

Mavis

Dennis

Harms

(Club M

anag

er)

541-6

02-03

16

Allison

Evans

541-2

31-57

66

Allison

Walk

ingsh

aw

541-2

43-26

64

Corvallis Duplicate Bridge Club (CDBC)Board of Directors

June, 2019

Term Ending

December 2019 Nick Warden541-286-4242

Walter Dobek541-609-1885

Joyce Willcox(Board President)

541-207-8011

December 2020Mary Vance

(Club Manager)541-760-1311

Catherine VanFleet406-459-5455

Karla Stewart-Layton541-753-7631

December 2021Mavis Tuten

(Board Secretary)541-231-0063

Sandy Allen(Board Treasurer) 541-752-2888 (h)541-760-5837 ©

Peter Harr541-752-0990 (h)

541-908-7954

Language in 10/17/18 MOPP

1. Club Manager

• Acts in the absence of the President; assists the President. • Responsible for all ACBL business

o Prepares monthly ACBL Reports o Obtains/renews game sanctions o Notifies ACBL of a change in Club Manager and Club address

• Responsible for game supplies • Responsible for correcting scoring errors • Responsible for seeing that there are computer generated hands for all pair

games • Responsible for coordination of the operation of the dealing machine

From ACBL:

V. SANCTIONED CLUB GAME REQUIREMENTS A. MANAGER Every ACBL sanctioned masterpoint club game must designate an active ACBL member as its manager who is a member in good standing whose dues or service fees are current. The manager Chapter 4, Page 4 may be elected, appointed, or hired. The club manager is accountable to ACBL for the enforcement of ACBL rules and regulations in all sanctioned games the club conducts. The club manager must supervise the following activities: • Preparation and filing of the Monthly Financial and Masterpoint Report(s) • Correspondence with ACBL on club game matters • Application for sanction renewals and reporting any change of club managers or session changes on a form provided by ACBL. The signatures of the club manager or officer must be on the form when it is filed.

Proposed change to MOPP effective 7-2-19

1. Club Manager

• Acts in the absence of the President; assists the President. • Is accountable to ACBL for the enforcement of ACBL rules and regulations in all

sanctioned games the club conducts. • Must supervise the following activities:

o Preparation and filing of the Monthly Financial and Masterpoint Report(s) o Correspondence with ACBL on club game matters o Application for sanction renewals o Reporting any change of club managers or session changes on a form

provided by ACBL. The signatures of the club manager or officer must be on the form when it is filed.

To both Boards and members of the Corvallis duplicate bridge community,

I recently learned that the Unit Board had sent an email (dated 4/23) to the Corvallis Board, in which they asked the CDBC Board and several individuals, including me, to “acknowledge their part in the debacle, sincerely apologize, and strive to do better in the future.” They requested that I, specifically, address their understanding that I was “acting on my own and made promises he (that would be me) couldn’t keep.” My response has been further delayed by the process of composing this challenging letter, prior drafts of which I have shared with everyone who I mention by name. In subsequent drafts, I addressed reasonable expressed concerns. As for the concern that been my message might get lost in the length of what follows, I, too, am concerned about that, but comprehensive accuracy has trumped brevity.

My purpose in writing what follows is four-fold. 1. In the beginning, I will report the story from the perspective of a 2018 Board member.

After early January, I will speak from the perspective of a concerned member of the club who believes that the CDBC Board’s handling of Stan’s report has deeply wounded the club, making healing more difficult.

2. In the context of that story, I will offer specific apologies for that which I could have done differently.

3. I will also be very clear about that for which some individuals believe an apology is expected, but I offer no apology because I still believe it was the right thing to do.

4. I anticipate a response. That response, if any, will determine if I am going to be able to feel comfortable returning to day games at the club without being seen as a troublemaker by more than the few people who may never forgive me for so tenaciously insisting that people take responsibility for bad behavior and the Board act responsibly. All of that, of course, is out of my control.

I will preface my story. To understand the subtleties of the unfolding events, the reader needs to have insight into a perspective on the underlying milieu that predates the inciting incident. For quite some time, some people have noted a pattern of a small group of close friends in Club leadership making self-serving decisions for the Club. A trivial, but quintessential example of this pattern was the recent New Grandmother Celebration that a small group of Club leaders promoted through the Club email account. At that time, it appeared to be a sanctioned Club event, despite the fact that the Board knew nothing about it. Transparently, both of those expressly honored new grandmothers were closely associated with that "small group." Surely, there have been plenty of other new grandmothers and grandfathers to celebrate over the years, some of whose Statute of Limitations for Celebration had yet to expire; however, they were not included in the “guests of honor.” This act is admittedly benign but before you predictably pre-judge it as pathetically petty and peevish, please understand that it is illustrative of how a small group uses the Club as their own. (Teaser alert!!! If you make it far enough, you will find a second, less trivial, example towards the end of this tome.) Part of that “pattern” is that anyone who questions any of those, maybe, self-serving decisions is treated as a threat in an "us versus them" manner. Previously, Brian, to his credit has done just that. He has questioned decisions

with predictable results. There is a circulating false narrative that suggests there are two sides or camps in the unfolding drama. I believe there is only one side, comprised of a small group of people who feel empowered to make decisions for the club that are sometimes more self-serving than in the best interest of the Club… like the decisions that parlayed a relatively small incident into a full blown debacle, and, then, manipulated the response of the Board, which seems to value personal loyalties over what is best for the Club.

My first involvement in The Debacle was during the executive session of the Board on August 29, when I learned that Eileen, as Club Manager, had reported Brian to ACBL. At that meeting, roughly a week after the incident, Eileen was asked what exactly she had told STACman. She stated that she had simply reported that the wrong director’s name had been submitted and didn’t know how to handle it. At that time, we didn't know that her answer to that simple question was a gross misrepresentation. She was not being honest with us. More accurately, in multiple emails, she had accused Brian of an ethical violation and was emphatically pushing STACman to prosecute him.

At the time of that first meeting, all we knew was that our Club Manager had directly communicated to STACman about a member of our club, with potential disciplinary repercussions. She had evidently bypassed Board leadership and direction. We should have treated this as the big deal that it was. We should have shown more interest in understanding exactly what was going on. We barely tried. That was the Board’s first collective act of negligence and I apologize for my part in it.

As for the idea that Eileen had bypassed the Board’s leadership, we now have evidence that she didn’t. Because of Stan’s investigation, we now know, in addition to sending misleading emails urging STACman to prosecute Brian, Eileen sent contemporaneous copies of those emails to the President of the Board (Mary Alice) and a selected Board member (Sandy). We don’t know what other communication they had. We now know that when Mary Alice and Sandy heard Eileen grossly misrepresent the tone and content of those emails to STACman, they knew she was being dishonest and they did not challenge her. They allowed the Board to be misled. We now have a subsequent apology from Mary Alice to the “Members of the CDBC” in which she says, “Some of us assumed the worst and thus the mistake became a major incident.” This is an admission that Eileen did not go rogue. Furthermore, by saying “some of us” instead of “both of us,” one can only assume there was a small group of people making decisions. What follows is reasonable speculation. It’s not a stretch to believe that Eileen selectively shared her emails to STACman because she was seeking advice and consent from trusted confidants. Since there is no evidence that either Mary Alice or Sandy tried to stop her from urging prosecution of Brian, it’s not much more of a stretch to believe that Eileen thought she had their explicit or implicit approval. In either case, Mary Alice and Sandy were complicit in the abuse of authority.

Returning to the timeline, for the next three months, I remained unengaged, as did the Board. For that I apologize. It wasn't until the end of November that I learned that Brian had been through hell with the accusations of ethical violations and the subsequent hearing. Undeniably,

he had been harmed. What’s more, he alleged that a member of our Board had engaged in abuse of authority. As a Board member, that troubled me. I spent several days sifting through the available evidence and spoke with many people. I found evidence to support Brian’s allegation. I also learned that, after Brian was found not guilty, Allison Evans and Dennis had urged Mary Alice, as President, to ask Eileen to resign. She said she asked, but Eileen refused. The expressed alternative to Eileen resigning was to begin impeachment proceedings against her. Interestingly, even at that time, three months after the inciting incident, when Mary Alice was presented with Eileen's early emails to STACman, she failed to reveal her prior, real time knowledge of those emails nor did she share her participation in Eileen’s decision. I spoke informally with other Board members, including Sandy and Becky. At that time, Sandy also said nothing about her part in Eileen’s decisions. We all believed that an impeachment process would be harmful to the club. Might that have actually been the most transparent approach? Yes. In any case, had we had embarked on an impeachment process, we would have started by asking Eileen if she was willing to resign. Had she not, we still would have needed an investigation. Because of the deep divisions, I judged that it would be best if Dennis also resigned from the Board for the simple reason that he was a polarizing figure to those who saw the world through Eileen’s (Mary Alice’s, Sandy’s, and Becky’s) perspective.

On the last Friday evening in November, I met with Eileen at her home, where we discussed our predicament. Although I knew I had the support of other Board members, including Dennis, Allison, Sandy and Becky, I also recognized that I was acting on my own because the Board had not authorized me to be their agent in this encounter. Accordingly, from the outset, I was clear with Eileen that I was representing only me, a concerned peer on the Board. In our discussion, she admitted that had Rick or Sandy submitted the wrong director’s name, she would have treated them differently than she treated Brian, with whom she had some prior issues and conflict. She was reluctant to resign because of the optics of Dennis "winning." I told her that I had already asked Dennis to resign. I stated clearly that he had not yet agreed to do so. In an act of good faith, I promised, if Dennis didn't resign, I would. I am saddened to report that Eileen has misrepresented this encounter to others. While I don’t apologize for talking to her honestly about her choices, in retrospect, I could/should have been more focused on Transparency. For that, I apologize for being of the same mind as everybody else. We all judged it would be best if Eileen simply resigned, thereby averting an ugly public impeachment. Transparency seemed less important than simply moving on. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.

That evening, Eileen resigned and sent to Brian a brief, mostly empty, apology which he reasonably judged to be disingenuous and not helpful. He had been through hell. His reputation had been harmed. The abuse of authority had yet to be addressed. I apologize that I had not anticipated Eileen’s shallow apology, nor Brian’s negative response. My misguided fantasy that Eileen resigning would make all of this go away was just that. I apologize for embracing that fantasy. Apparently, transparency was going to have its way..

At our next Board meeting— which turned out to be a non-meeting because Becky had resigned from the Board, which left us with only eight members, which, because of the by-laws, meant we

couldn't even meet to talk about making decisions until we had a ninth Board member-- I presented my understanding of the events leading to Eileen's resignation, starting with Brian/Dennis' indiscretion. Foolishly, I was confident that my limited understanding was the full story and expected everybody to fully embrace that version of the story. Silly me.

At the next, legal meeting, after we voted for Nick to fill Eileen’s position, I admitted my embarrassment and profusely apologized for my performance at the prior meeting. Since we still needed to know what actually happened, I urged the Board to sanction a fact-finding investigation. They agreed. The purpose of the investigation was explicit. It was (1) to determine what actually happened so there would be only one story to tell, (2) to put the final Report in the minutes of the CDBC Board for all to see, (3) to judge if the Board acted poorly, collectively and/or individually, (4) to make appropriate, meaningful apologies, and (5) to figure out what might be done so this never happens again. It was a good plan.

As for my promise to Eileen, as December progressed, I had several discussions with Dennis in which I urged him to resign. He was reasonably concerned that it seemed to be a tit-for-tat request that was not based on the severity of his indiscretion. Since he did not personally benefit from directing Brian to submit the wrong director’s name, I agreed with him that his indiscretion did not merit being removed from the board. My main concern was for the future capacity of the Board to make good decisions without the entrenchment that follows polarization. We agreed to disagree about whether his resignation was a good strategy to facilitate the Club healing. Because of my promise to Eileen, and only because of that promise, I did not run for re-election in January. She understandably believes that I did not honor my literal words by immediately resigning. That said, I believe I honored the spirit of my promise. I think most would agree that if I had resigned immediately, there would not have been an investigation. Some individuals believe the investigation was a bad idea. I disagree…as would the Spirit of Transparency.

As we anticipated Stan's report, there was sincere chatter about the importance of healing the Club, which everyone agreed was paramount. When the Narrative Report and the Executive Summary became available, I was startled by their content. They revealed more bad behavior than I had imagined. Almost immediately, I sent an email to the entire 2019 Board, who had yet to talk about it. In that email, I urged the Board to hold individuals accountable for their irresponsible behavior that was documented in the Report. In the context of assuming the Board would do so, I offered to pay for professional mediation so we could get to the root causes of the dysfunctional milieu, gain an understanding that we are all human beings capable of making bad decisions, and, if possible, find forgiveness and healing.

When the CDBC Board met to digest the Report, in executive session, they accepted it as “honest and factual.” That was a good start. Unfortunately, they reneged on the prior decision to put the Report in the minutes. Instead, they decided, “That the Narrative be kept confidential and not further disclosed (two opposed: feel this is contrary to principles of transparency, leaves some persons uninformed, & allows for false narratives to continue).” They also decided to make no judgement or comment about either individual or Board indiscretions. They vowed to

never talk about it again. Because of my prior offer, they encouraged mediation, but only for those who were central to the story, privately funded, presumably by me. They wanted nothing more to do with it. Considering the findings of the Report, it’s not a stretch to call this a cover up for abuse of authority. I believe this constituted another act of irresponsible behavior, this time, by the Board.

I had a different set of expectations. To me, it seemed obvious that the best path forward was for the Board to state clearly what the Report concluded. Eileen abused her authority as Club Manager, she told some lies along the way, she continued to urge prosecution of Brian even after the not-guilty verdict, and she wrongly alleged to ACBL’s Robb Gordon that Irva, who had nothing to do with any of this, was the “ring leader.” Additionally, Robb Gordon has admitted that Eileen’s continued prodding was a major factor in his personally unprecedented appeal of the “not guilty” verdict, causing more stress and harm to Brian. What’s more, two other members of the Board, including the President, were complicit in this abuse of power. I expected comprehensive, heartfelt apologies to both Brian and Irva. I expected the Board to reach out to them to determine what the Board could do to make this club a welcoming place for them.

I sent the Board a follow up email stating, mostly, just that. I withdrew my offer to pay for mediation. It would be folly for individuals to enter mediation without agreeing on the facts and without taking responsibility for their documented misdeeds. I communicated with some Club members who I thought might be equally distressed about about the Board's decisions. I urged them to express their thoughts to the Board.

I was not alone. In a letter to the CDBC Board, the Unit Board expressed its disappointment with their actions and inactions. In response to this letter, and whatever other pressure they were feeling, the CDBC Board did talk about The Debacle again at their next meeting. Then, they offered some generic admissions about misdeeds without ascribing them to individuals. They apologized to Brian and to Irva, but did not ask them what it would take to make them feel comfortable returning to the Club... which is what a meaningful apology would have included. Furthermore, the CDBC Board still refuses to put any part of the Report in their minutes. Although the Unit Board has placed the comprehensive Narrative Report in their minutes, the crucial and easily digested Executive Summary is still not readily available to concerned club members, most of whom know nothing about its existence. I have communicated with Stan about this. Calling the summary the “Executive Summary” was arbitrary, in no way suggested that it was any more confidential than the lengthy narrative. It simply summarizes his findings and I believe there is no good reason that it should not be in both Boards’ minutes.

I remained dissatisfied with the Board’s delayed and reluctant actions. Because of our prior candid conversations, I sent a private email to Mavis in which I expressed my extreme displeasure with a very blunt assessment. I was surprised that she shared that email with others on the Board. I have already apologized to the entire Board for those specific things that I could/

should have said with more sensitivity, had I known they were were going to be shared with others.

There have been no road maps to help me navigate this difficult path. Along the way, I admit to having made missteps in my communications to individuals. To those individuals, I have already offered sincere private apologies. I have made a number of them.

That brings us to today. I have been told that we should not judge others’ apologies. I ask, “Why not?” Surely, I expect others will judge this one.

Dennis, since the Board’s first meeting about the incident, has taken total responsibility for directing Brian to submit the wrong name. He has apologized for this at every opportunity.

Mary Alice apologized for withholding information from the Board in August and admitted that, had she not, it is likely that the Board would have taken different actions at that time. Good on her. However, she did not apologize for supporting Eileen by not asking her to cease her reckless, untruthful prosecution of Brian, which would have been a reasonable thing for the President of the Club to have done. She has not apologized for being complicit in the abuse of authority.

Sandy apologized “for not simply saying ‘Please forward the emails to anyone inquiring’… I was not engaged…” She did not apologize for not correcting Eileen when she knowingly lied to the Board about the nature of her communications with STACman, unless that’s what being “unengaged” means. Again, we can only conclude that she was supportive of Eileen’s abuse of power, making it her abuse as well. For that, she has not apologized.

Eileen apologized only for not telling Brian, in real time, that she was reporting to him to ACBL. More telling is that for which she does not apologize If you parse her recent apology, you will understand that she admits to no other wrongdoing except that she is “sorry” that the 2019 Board had to deal with the “divisiveness that has appeared.” Notably, this is in a passive tense. She makes no apology to the 2018 Board. In doing so she spins a false narrative. In that false story, there was no abuse of authority, she did not lie, and she did not falsely accuse Irva of being the “ring leader” without any evidence. In her apology, Eileen also states, “To help our club heal, I resigned from the board and I will strive to help our club heal and become the friendly welcoming place it used to be.” That statement ignores the reality that, even after she resigned (and Brian was found not guilty) she continued to communicate with ACBL’s Robb Gordon, urging him to appeal the verdict, and disparaging Irva along the way. I don’t know how she can claim that is in the spirit of healing. By not commenting on Eileen’s misleading apology, the CDBC Board is allowing her to continue to deceive those who have only a passing interest in The Debacle, which includes many members of the Club, who are unlikely to read the lengthy Narrative Report and are unaware of the Executive Summary.

I have spoken at length with Mavis about all of this. She sincerely believes that “everyone” understands that Eileen abused her authority and “nobody” is happy that Brian and Irva have essentially withdrawn their participation in the Corvallis games. I disagree. There is still some confusion about who was guilty of what and I understand that many of those who have circled their wagons around Eileen are happy about Brian and Irva’s absence.

I have compassion for the predicament of the Board. I understand that some people on the Board, including Mavis, genuinely believe that not holding specific people publicly accountable for their indiscretions is the best strategy to heal of the Club. About that, we have respectfully agreed to disagree.

Given the current trajectory, what does our “healed” club look like? Brian, who was the primary harmed individual, and Irva, who was not involved and happens to be a district representative for ACBL, no longer feel comfortable playing in Corvallis. Some members of other clubs who understand how Brian and Irva have been treated will be avoiding Corvallis as well. Dennis and Allison Evans, both of whom have undeniably been major contributors to the growth and health of the Club, have not only resigned from the Board but are distancing themselves from any responsibilities, in part because they reasonably distrust the Board. Allison Walkingshaw, who was only recently elected, has also resigned from the Board. In her resignation letter, she writes,

“I refuse to continue working for an organization that does not have its members best interests at heart. A board that chooses to do what is easy rather than what is right, by protecting the wrongdoings of a few at the cost of many. A board that takes the most minimal action possible, only after public pressure to do so, and then pats themselves on the back for a job well done.”

She also plans on backing off from participation in games at the Club. As for me, I am trying to figure out if I can be comfortable returning to day games, where some people see me as toxic for my forthright assiduous efforts to get the Board to do the right thing in response to bad behavior.

What is that right thing? I’ll repeat it. I believe the Board needs to hold individuals accountable for their indiscretions by clearly stating in the minutes who did what. The Board needs to put the Narrative Report and the Executive Summary in the minutes and state clearly that any other story is a false narrative. The Board needs to apologize to both Brian and Irva for members of the Board— that’s plural— abusing their authority. The Board needs to ask both Brian and Irva if there is anything the Board can do to make this a welcoming place for them.

Following up on my teaser alert… What follows is the second example of a small group of people making Club decisions on their own. On May 1, Joyce submitted a letter to the Board expressing her desire to resign from being the President. In a subsequent letter, she clarified that she wanted to resign from the Board as well. On the distributed Agenda for the May 22 Board meeting, the Board was informed that Joyce had sent a letter “stating that she will be resigning from her Board position as President as soon as a replacement can be found.” It does not clarify

that she also wants to resign from the Board. In a separate, subsequent agenda item, we find “Board President: No replacement has been found and she (Joyce) has agreed to compete her term.” This a statement raises obvious questions. Who was on the search committee? Who authorized them to look? Who authorized them to decide that a suitable replacement could not be found? The short answer to all of those questions is, “Not the Board.” Walter Dobek, being just one of the Board members who was not consulted about any of this, astutely pointed this out in a letter to the Board. In commenting on the Agenda, he writes:

“Resignation: Joyce Willcox as president sets up a strange chain of events. First it’s not Joyce’s responsibility to find a new president it’s the boards. No business can be acted on until the board approves new members. Then we can select and elect any open positions.

Once the board is fully functional the board can ask if there is anyone willing to become the president, if not there should be a motion to ask Joyce to stay on as president. Then we can proceed with other business.

I think any other course could be taken as another example of a shadow board running the club with different names and create another 9 months of unpleasant problems. Let’s comply with our bylaws and MOPP being openly transparent in addressing any concerns that can affect the club.”

Walter observes that there still appears to be small group of people who think they can make decisions for both the Board and the Club. What he doesn’t say is that some of them are the same people. Not only have we not healed, we have been harmed, and a small group of people still feel empowered, by themselves, to make decisions for the Club. The dangerous milieu remains unchanged.

In the real world, outside of my birthplace, Washington, D.C., what would any righteous organization do when a thorough investigation concludes that agents of the organization have abused their authority? Reasonably, at a minimum, that organization would hold them accountable, make apologies and remove the offending agents from positions of responsibility. What makes this difficult at our club is that decisions seem to be driven by personal allegiances. The parallels are hauntingly disturbing. I encourage you to reread Allison Walkingshaw’s eloquent resignation letter.

In this long explanation/apology, I have tried to be clear about what is factual and what is my belief. I welcome responses and rebuttals that are consistent with the facts. This entire affair has shaken me. I have had to reevaluate my understanding of how others understand friendship and integrity. I would like to believe that, one day, we can all be at the same bridge table, again, with respect and trust and laughter. I believe it is not too late for the CDBC Board to make that happen. My prior offer to finance professional mediation stands, but only if everybody who engages in that mediation is willing to embrace the reality that Eileen abused her authority as

Club Manager with the advice and consent of Mary Alice and Sandy. Hopefully, this would lead to an honest discussion about everybody’s perspective on the milieu. There are many relationships that need to be healed and denial is not a river to anywhere we should want to go. To facilitate that understanding and healing, those who engage in mediation should include the central actors in this drama as well as members of the 2018 and 2019 CDBC Boards.

Finally, and preemptively, although I recognize that there is a lot of “I” in this, I know it’s not about me. It’s about the harm that has been done to Brian, to Irva, and to the Club. We have failed all of them. I apologize to everybody that my unrelenting efforts and chosen strategies have, unfortunately, alienated some individuals and, sadly, not been sufficient to accomplish the healing and the positive future for the Club that we all desperately want.

Paul

To the CDBC Board:

We, the undersigned, deeply regret that our club appears to be divided and some of our most talented members no longer want to serve in leadership positions or even play at the club. We believe it’s the board’s responsibility to try to heal the club and bring alienated members back to our bridge community.

We're asking you to develop a long term plan to create an inclusive environment that values and welcomes all members. We expect all members of the club to be treated fairly and respectfully. This will require culture change that recognizes and no longer accepts behavior that is driving people away.

Regards,

Ann Larson Linda Smith Erik Larson David Smith