Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

A Family-Friendly Candidate Debate

By Greg L | 2 October 2013 | PWCDC, Prince William County | 33 Comments

Nothing makes you feel more at home at a public candidate debate than to have an officer of the Prince William Committee of 100 invite you to photograph his balls.

Tonight I attended the debate in Lake Ridge for the 31st and 51st House Districts, and as I have done for the past five years or so, I brought along cameras.  I’ve filmed Bob Fitzsimmonds and Chuck Colgan, Toddy Puller and Jeff Frederick,  Bob Marshall and Shawn Mitchell, Keith Fimian and Gerry Connolly, Jeanette Rishell and Jackson Miller, and well, you get the idea.  I’ve been filming every one of these in the county that I could get to for many years now.  When Denny Daugherty politely explained to me that filming by bloggers wouldn’t be allowed, and that has been a longstanding policy, I was awfully surprised and a just bit upset.

Lillie Jessie's Daughter shooting video at PWC100 debateA whole room full of people, just about all of them carrying smartphones, and you have to be credentialed media to film anything at a public event?  That’s just stupid, and absolutely counter to their mission of engaging the public in the political process, but it’s their room.  If they want to make inane, counterproductive rules they can’t hope to enforce, well good luck folks.  Here’s School Board Member Lillie Jesse’s daughter shooting video with her phone during the debate, as one example. Somebody on the committee must be awfully nervous about Reed Heddleston or Jeremy McPike if they are afraid of having them filmed at public campaign events.

I went to the Committee’s videographer anyways and offered my spanking-new, state-of-the-art equipment to them as a “B” camera, which would at least allow them to get some close-ups in the mix, which they never get.  They typically shoot one static angle with an obsolete camera, for the whole event, which drives me nuts.  He declined, saying it would add too much work to the edit, which he wanted to turn around quickly.  Okay.

So I pulled out a stills camera with a big telephoto lens, and for good measure got a voice recorder so I’d be able to make sure I remember what I’ve heard correctly.  I find a good sight line, sit on the floor, and snap away during the first Debate between Scott Lingamfelter and Jeremy McPike without incident.

Just as the debate between Rich Anderson and Reed Heddleston gets underway, up comes Harry Wiggins sporting his badge that identifies him as the treasurer of the Committee of 100 who starts accusing me of breaking the rules.  He stands right in front of me, blocking my shot and says  in a voice loud enough that plenty of people overheard “you can take a picture of my balls.”  Wiggins then tells me that now I am not allowed to photograph, either.  I was kind of shocked, because we’d previously gotten along pretty well despite being on different sides of the political aisle.  He’s making up new rules, just to harass me, while Rich Anderson is making his opening remarks?  This is crazy.

I figure at that point it’s time to stand up and use some of my height advantage, and Wiggins decides he’s going to put his hand in front of my lens and prevent me from taking pictures.  We end up in a standoff for a while with me holding my camera and lens up and him holding his hand up to see who will tire first as people in the audience start getting distracted by this spectacle.  Even though I’ve got about five pounds in my hands and he’s got nothing, I end up winning that contest, and then Wiggins decides to turn around and try to block my lens with his head.  At one point he gets a demonstration about how it’s not a great idea to be backing up into a Canon EF 70-200mm IS USM lens and bumps his head.  He seemed fine though, thankfully, and soon afterwards just gives up on the harassment.

The score at that point: Professional camera guy one, petty tyrant with a name badge and an attitude zero.  But really, you have to add this to the score: the public minus one.

The Committee of 100’s purpose, according to their website, is as follows:

The Prince William Committee of 100 provides a non-partisan, educational forum to study essential interests, problems and goals of the people of Prince William County, Manassas and Manassas Park.

Anyone showing up to one of their events with the intent of disseminating content from that event to a wider audience, and not asking them for money to do so should be welcomed, not harassed.  If the committee wants to have closed, members-only, plus mainstream press and a small smattering of local citizens events it absolutely takes away from their mission.  Making a low quality video recording generally available after the fact is a good concept, but hardly anybody is going to suffer through an hour-plus long security camera view of an event.  Their last program video has 28 people who watched at least part if it, and according to the YouTube stats the average length those viewers stuck with the hour and seventeen minute program was 10.7 minutes.

If they cared at all about their stated purpose, they’d be offering a free meal or something to anyone who might come and provide any coverage at all of the events they hold.  They wouldn’t be pushing their junk into people’s camera lenses trying to harass them.

UPDATE (10/3/2013): Harry Wiggins phoned me tonight and apologized for his behavior, and I accepted that apology.  Our conversation was cordial and friendly, and I was pleased to have the chance to return to that kind of relationship with Mr. Wiggins.  I appreciate him reaching out to me this evening, and I am pretty confident that the ultimate result of this episode will be for the Committee of 100 to get a chance to review their policies so they work for the benefit of their organization, the participants and the public.  Perhaps even more significantly, this may end up inspiring a higher level of cordiality among political partisans in the county.  If in the end this all turns out for the better, I don’t really mind something like this happening all that much.

UPDATE 10/7/2013: The video from the forum is finally available.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

33 Comments

  1. Al Alborn said on 3 Oct 2013 at 7:48 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    When you’re right, you’re right. I like Harry, but he was (IMHO) way out of line.

    The obvious conflict of Chairman of the PW Democratic Party using his his role as Treasurer of the Committee of 100 to selectively censure and block reporting a well known local Conservative writer appears way out of line. The picture you provided and the quote you provided don’t really improve the Committee’s standing on this issue.

    Last night was an otherwise well managed, outstanding event. Its a shame this happened. The President of the Committee of 100 needs to step up, apologize on behalf of the Committee, and ensure this doesn’t happen again.

    It would be reasonable for Harry Wiggins to resign his Committee position over this.

    The First Amendment is the “First” Amendment for a reason.

  2. James Young said on 3 Oct 2013 at 9:17 am:
    Flag comment

    Well, aside from what “drives [you] nuts” — I think we can all agreed that it’s a short drive — I must take exception to your suggestion. The policy against filming by guests IS a long-standing policy, adopted for good and sufficient reasons at least a few years ago (I have been on the Board for some time). And chief among those reasons is that, in the past, an independent videographer of an event was obnoxious, intrusive, and interfered with the ability of some of our attendees to hear and enjoy the event. Furthermore, in the interests of promoting a full and free exchange, we have adopted the policy so that, as has happened in the past, and at the same event, candidates won’t be subject to cheap-shot clips run in commercials by candidates, as we are interested in content, not less-than-complimentary portrayals of candidates’ fleeting and probably out-of-context facial expressions.

    This may be a concern with which you take exception, but it is/was ours, and I think you’ll agree that we are entitled to it. Of course, the suggestion that the First Amendment is implicated at all is nonsense: the Committee of 100 is a private organization, and is not subject to the limitations of the First Amendment. Whether the Committee’s policy is appropriate or Harry’s attempt to enforce it is consistent with that policy is, obviously, an eminently debatable point.

    Whether or not Harry’s behavior was appropriate I cannot comment, as I was not there to witness it. However, if true, then an apology is probably in order, though I hardly believe that it calls for his resignation.

    And I won’t disagree with your criticisms of the quality of our video, but understand that the individual who does it does so on a volunteer basis, and solely for the Committee’s use. If, on the other hand, YOU would like to volunteer to assume that role, subject to the limitations of the Committee that it not be used by you for partisan purposes (consistent with the Committee’s mission), we might want to talk.

  3. Brendon said on 3 Oct 2013 at 10:25 am:
    Flag comment

    This is pretty bad. You always do a great job taking these photos and do so at most events in the county. I cannot believe they gave you such a hard time. You are spot on with the camera phones that everyone else has too. Its a public debate… Everyone takes pictures!! The committee is mistaken if they believe that BOTH campaigns were not doing so with the intent to distribute later. Geez… I could go on and on but it seems like everyone is on the same page with this one.

  4. Scott said on 3 Oct 2013 at 12:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    What I want to know is did you take Mr. Wiggins up on his offer?

    And while I understand the rules, I don’t know how any of those candidates wouldn’t expect to be watched or recorded anytime they make a speech or have a debate at anything even close to a public event. (Ask George Allen about that…) They just need to be prepared for it. From what I know of the four candidates, I doubt any of them aren’t prepared and capable of taking criticism. After all, they each have a major political party to back them up.

    If it was announced at the beginning of the event that NO private pictures or videos may be taken during the event then you’re in the wrong here, but if they didn’t, then the committee is at fault as it seems clear others were using smaller cameras to do the same thing you were doing.

    Trying to figure out during an event which cameras are OK and which ones aren’t doesn’t work anymore. I’m sure at least one officer has seen the smart phone commercial with the parents in the back row sitting calmly as their phone takes high resolution photographs.

  5. Ray Beverage said on 3 Oct 2013 at 12:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, first read about this via Bill Golden who put up his piece at PWCPolitics:
    http://pwcpolitics.com/2013/10/03/about-greg-letiecqs-critique-of-pwc-committee-of-100s-awkward-policy-on-bloggers/

    As a disclaimer, I am a former member of PWC100 and last year was the Secretary (or as I came to call it, the Chief Hauler and Gopher job since the work I had to do each month was beyond Secretary Bylaws function). If still a member/officer, I would be extending you an apology as I am in complete agreement with Bill Golden.

    The “Fourth Estate” is more than just the paper journalist anymore. The C100 policy is archiac, as I pointed out last year since with the loss of “paper” newspapers and growth of such sites as Potomac, Bristow and other Local sites with “Independent Journalists”, the policy needed to be review and adapted for the current world.

    Yes, disruptive people - journalists of all shapes and sizes today, individuals just attending - should be asked to leave and if necessary, police called to do so. However, having been at events in the City of Manassas and C100 and watched you do your work, I would put you in that category. I consider your performance at such events to be respectful and professional.

    The whole idea of “cheap shots” is ridiculous since I could sit there with paper and pencil and write down the quote, then make a video with still photos from anywhere of the person and do a voice-over. Welcome to the 21st Century as that happens a lot - just look at the paid-for-on-television ads that do the same thing!

    And as for the mention above by Mr. Young that PWC100 is a private organization….on one hand yes, on the other hand no. Yes, it is a membership organization structured under IRC 501(c)(3). However, Mr. Young, the minute you open your meeting to the GENERAL PUBLIC, then ALL Federal law applies - check IRS Section 171 which applies to public supported nonprofits for the rules.

    I did not renew my membership in PWC100 for multiple reasons. As I said last year and say again, the Membership needs to sit down and take a hard look at Bylaws, Policies, Procedures…and then figure out where it is going instead of trying to hold onto an image by older members that just is not there.

  6. Al Alborn said on 3 Oct 2013 at 12:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Let’s stay on point here and connect the right dots.

    This was a political event, a debate between Democratic and Republican candidates for public office. While Committee of 100 policy is interesting, it is a footnote.

    The photo of the Chairman of the Democratic Party (see Greg’s post) under the authority of his Committee of 100 position attempting to personally obstruct a Local Conservative (well known Republican) writer from taking still pictures of a public event says it all.

    There were several folks taking pictures and videos in the audience. I merrily snapped away on my iPhone and posted pictures on Facebook while sitting across from Denny Daugherty, President, by Connie Moser, Publicity Chair, and close to James Young, Potomac Director. Most of the people with smart phones or cameras were also freely taking pictures.

    Only one was singled out. It is ironic that a still picture taken by another attendee pretty much sums up the issue.

    I didn’t see a Sergeant of Arms position on the Committee of 100’s website. Perhaps such a position is in order. One only has to look at the picture on Greg Letiecq’s post to understand this confrontation could have gone very badly very quickly. Putting one’s hand on the (very expensive) equipment used for another’s livelihood is not generally warmly received.

    Any policy should also include consequences for non-compliance. I think that was the real problem here.

    An apology to Greg Letiecq is in order. This issue won’t get better with age.

  7. Connie Moser said on 3 Oct 2013 at 1:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    I posted this comment on pwcpolitics.com:

    Our Committee of 100 president has called a board meeting specifically to address this issue. On Monday evening, we’ll each have an opportunity to express our point of view and then reach a majority decision. I expect a public statement will be forthcoming.

    Thanks to Bill Golden for fair and unbiased posts and to each person who takes the time to respond. I appreciate all comments and assure you my own opinion will remain fair and unbiased as well.

    Mr. Letique, I personally apologize if you were insulted as stated. Al raises a sensitive issue, if that action was based on political preference. C-100 is non-partisan and all board members are aware their personal politics may not interfere with C-100 policy. Still, we have not heard Mr. Wiggin’s side of the story, so as a man I respect and admire, I have not made any judgement as yet.

    Ray’s statements are reflective of just about every organization I’m involved with. It is difficult to integrate new technology and new ideas, when most folks are perfectly happy with the way things were.

    All I can tell you is I believe in the mission of C-100 and we’ll do our best to resolve this amicably.

    It is very unfortunate this incident is detracting from the excellent forum and the candidates exchange.

    Thanks again to everyone for their comments. I promise all will be given fair consideration.

  8. Jack Slimp said on 3 Oct 2013 at 3:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    It does make sense to drop the current photo policy and replace it with a policy addressing disruptive actions.
    Disruptive actions can take many forms, so common sense is key because whether or not there is disruption is often subjective. No matter how definitive the policy, there will always be times when subjective judgment is needed. A level-headed Sargent-At-Arms would be the appropriate person to enforce the policy.

  9. Simone said on 3 Oct 2013 at 3:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Good idea, Jack Slimp. That would have certainly taken care of Wiggins, he would have been ejected for what was clearly a disruptive action,

  10. Webster said on 4 Oct 2013 at 8:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Re: “Whether or not Harry’s behavior was appropriate I cannot comment, as I was not there to witness it. However, if true, then an apology is probably in order, though I hardly believe that it calls for his resignation.”

    If Harry Wiggins was Chairman of the Manassas Republican Committee and blocked a libtard from taking a professional video of a libtard candidate how do you think the morons that run the Committee of 100 respond and the Democrap libtards in Manassas and PWC respond en masse?

    Mr. Wiggins would be gone!

    Quite contrary I assume to the lawyer’s hog trough analysis.

  11. Ray Beverage said on 4 Oct 2013 at 10:03 am:
    Flag comment

    Al, true the C100 has no Sergeant-at-Arms position….but add the other dot missing.

    The President or Chair of any body has the authority to stop the meeting - “gavel down” as the old expression goes.
    The Bylaws of C100 allow for ole Colonel Robert’s Rules, and such authority is defined within said Rules.

    The failure of the C100 President to do so is a grievous error. For other elected Officers not to immediately address the issue to the President is another grievous error. An apology was immediately due to not only Greg, but to the Elected and Canditates present, and also to the audience. These actions not taken are not only appropriate Parlimentary, but also just common courtesy. A Sergeant-at-Arms is a fine idea; however, an Officer or Director remembering their own authority under the Bylaws and Robert’s Rules for a small organization is one of the dots missing.

    As Connie said, “most people are perfectly happy with the way things are”. Hopefully, this is a wake-up call to the Officers and Directors.

  12. Simone said on 4 Oct 2013 at 10:07 am:
    Flag comment

    The C100 has always been a liberal group. Their tolerance for Wiggin’s actions only proves the point.

  13. Ralph said on 4 Oct 2013 at 10:52 am:
    Flag comment

    C100 a liberal group are you kidding me? What a joke

  14. Ralph said on 4 Oct 2013 at 11:12 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg, you were breaking the rules of the committee as they stand. Also, I think I saw your photo on a poster at the post office. Are you allowed to live within a mile of a school or playground?

  15. Greg L said on 4 Oct 2013 at 3:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    Is there anyone besides me that draws an interesting, and potentially informative contrast between the comment above and the update on this post?

  16. James Young said on 4 Oct 2013 at 4:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Webster, I am neither a libtard nor a defender of Mr. Wiggins. In fact, as a founding member of the County Republican Committee, former County Young Republican Chairman, longtime member of the County GOP’s Executive Board, former member of the Eighth and Eleventh District Republican Committees, longtime member of the Federalist Society (and founder, 25 years ago, of its Emory Law School chapter), former columnist for the late, not-so-great Potomac News, and 23-year staff attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (I sue unions, for a living), you’d be hard-pressed to find a single soul who would slap me with the “libtard” label. Indeed, I suspect that Mr. Wiggins would be among the first to take up for me against such a charge.

    If the fact that I think it’s hardly inappropriate to hear Mr. Wiggins’ side of the story before we demand his head on a pike makes mine a “lawyer’s hog trough analysis,” then I plead guilty. Guilty to maintain some modicum of fairness and due process. If that’s a problem for some, then I am delighted to eschew the same standards and behavior of “the Democrap libtards in Manassas and PWC.”

  17. Freedom said on 4 Oct 2013 at 4:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, until I read your comment above, I had not seen your update. Clearly, Mr Wiggens accepted the advice of many and did the appropriate thing. You demonstrated considerable restraint Wednesday evening and for that, as well as having accepted his apology, you are to be commended. I am confident that the Prince William Committee of 100 officers/members learned a good bit about professionalism Wednesday evening and that it will serve them well in the future.

  18. Webster said on 4 Oct 2013 at 5:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dear Mr. Lawyer:

    You were never cast as a libtard in said post. Quite crafty, create a bullshit canard to deflect the bullshit legal analysis that was cast.

    I majored in Animal Science so I know when bullshit has no standing.

  19. Al Alborn said on 4 Oct 2013 at 7:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hats off to Harry Wiggins for apologizing. Mistakes are easy. Accepting them and “manning up” isn’t.

    Hand salute, Harry! You are a gentleman.

  20. Connie Moser said on 6 Oct 2013 at 5:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    I just read your update. You are very gracious and I appreciate your willingness to put hard feelings aside.. We (the board) are still scheduled to meet tomorrow evening to review the policy of “no recording”.

    I have Bill Golden’s comments and of course this column and comments, but if anyone has further input, please let me know.

    Thank you again, Greg….and big thanks to Harry, too, for his apology and efforts to make amends.

    I will have to say I am unsure there is one definitive description for C-100…with 22 people on the board, it’s not likely we are liberal or Democrat or Republican, but rather, some mix of all.

    Ray, I don’t think anyone was aware of the confrontation. At least I didn’t know about it until I read it here! Good suggestion about a Sergeant at Arms.

  21. Puzzled said on 6 Oct 2013 at 10:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    So the committee was barring video claiming that their guy was going to post a video of the event the next day. It’s now five days later and still no video is up. I wonder if it is ever going to appear at this point.

    It sure would have been nice to actually have a chance to see something from this event that I couldn’t attend. Shutting down anyone who might have been able to get a youtube up sooner sure looks like a bad call.

    Or was the goal not to have any video of this at all.

  22. Connie Moser said on 7 Oct 2013 at 8:11 am:
    Flag comment

    Hello Puzzled,

    No, I’m certain the intent is to get the video up as quickly as possible, but our videographer has a job and provides this service as a volunteer.

    …and the Committee was barring video based on a long standing policy. This is the policy we will discuss tonight. I am certain when the policy was enacted, there was a very logical reason. For example: Some unscrupulous character might excerpt a segment of the forum and use it to further their own nefarious interests. Film is easily edited to reflect a specific point of view. (We see that in political ads all the time.)

    I’ll be happy to come back here tomorrow and let you know what I’ve learned and if any changes are made. I suspect there is a policy and procedure manual and will be able to present that, too.

  23. Puzzled said on 7 Oct 2013 at 9:53 am:
    Flag comment

    When every one of these guys is being shadowed by some kid with a video camera even into their church the committee is worried about someone filming a debate and putting up excerpts of a candidate on youtube? That is just insane. Put on your big boy pants and stop trying to protect these campaigns in bubble wrap like they ar fragile or something. The only actual result of this fear is that by the time your volunteers put up a video everyone has already lost interst and moved on to something else.

  24. Webster said on 7 Oct 2013 at 12:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    The C-100 fears video excerpts because they are a closet liberal organization. That’s what this is all about.

    If they were a truly open and free thought of ideas outfit this would not be an issue now or before.

    What we are seeing here is the full spectrum of closet liberalism in action. However, in this instant case, because they got caught with their pants down in the full sunshine of liberal hypocrisy, they now feel compelled to have some b.s. meeting to set some b.s. standards under the guise of openness to create some mantra of faux liberal feel-goodness to satisfy the status-quo.

    They will come up with some feel-good-hard-to-understand provisions that read more like Chapter 23 of the tune up guide to a nuclear submarine and make it all more confusing for laypersons to understand while still seqestering the First Aamendment.

    In essence, simply let the First Amendment prevail and let the video cameras roll freely.

    But there’s the rub, the First Amendment is merely part of that roll of outdated toilet paper that non-liberals regard as the Constitution.

  25. Connie Moser said on 7 Oct 2013 at 2:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wow! Why all this anger? Why all these insults? Has the Committee wronged you in some way?
    I admit this is my first year on the board, and I’ve only been a member for three years, so perhaps you know more than I.

    I can’t speak for 22 people, all I can do is tell you what I know and return with what I learn. I do agree with Puzzled…people want instant news. That’s what’s made Twitter and Facebook so popular.

    I live blog meetings for a couple of groups…I don’t know if we have the capability to do that. (…and frankly, what would be the purpose of hosting a dinner and inviting people to attend if everything was simply available, immediately, live?)

  26. Webster said on 7 Oct 2013 at 3:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ms. Moser:

    In essence, simply let the First Amendment prevail and let the video cameras roll freely.

    Isn’t common sense amazing?

  27. Connie Moser said on 7 Oct 2013 at 3:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Webster,

    I don’t object to anyone taping, recording, or taking notes…but I am only 1/22 of the board.

    Our meeting is at 7:00. I hope to get back here tonight…if not, early tomorrow.

    Thank you again.

  28. James Young said on 7 Oct 2013 at 8:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Webster, thank you for the Animal Science analysis of the First Amendment.

    However, it has no application here. The Committee of 100 is a private organization, and is not subject to the First Amendment, which applies only to governments, and those acting under color of governmental authority.

  29. Greg L said on 7 Oct 2013 at 8:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ugh. Just slogged through that video. The audio is heavily clipped and distorted, the sound is out of sync, speakers wander out of frame and of course the lighting was terrible and if anyone stands up you only see a silhouette of them.

    Hats off to the volunteer who put the effort in to capture and post this, but when you’re not paying the guy to does the work, you end up getting in value something close to the resources you dedicated to the effort. If this gets more than 50 views and an average view length of more than five minutes I’ll be quite surprised.

    Not a great way to have an impact on the public’s understanding of the issues and the people running for office. I think the committee can cause better citizen engagement through better policies on this.

  30. Connie Moser said on 8 Oct 2013 at 6:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Good Morning,

    I am pleased to tell you the Committee of 100 will be revising their policy. A small subcommittee is tasked with revision of the verbiage and expect that to take effect after completion and review.

    C-100 board members who have been around for a long time explained how the current “no recording” policy evolved and it seemed a logical response at the time. Since the advent of cell phone video and photos, it appears untenable now.

    Greg, I very much appreciate your comments, but we have no budget to pay anyone for recording the events. Our volunteer has donated this service and we are grateful for it. One reason there are so few views is that there is very little promotion of the video and scarce opportunity to do so.

    One thing we all have to face is that people’s attention span has diminished. We all look for information in sound bites and short video clips. I confess I am not likely to watch an entire video, just like I often skip parts of the BOCS meeting. We all want to watch just what we have time for. (I confess to the same with reading and realize I have already written so much I would have quit reading by now :-)

    I am sorry this incident occurred, but there definitely was a silver lining as an opportunity to discuss, review and revise this policy. Thanks again for your input.

  31. Greg L said on 8 Oct 2013 at 10:50 am:
    Flag comment

    I certainly understand the budget constraints. That might make it even more useful to have third parties come in as well as your dedicated videographer, as they’ll be doing this without charging the committee and might produce a higher quality product.

  32. Freedom said on 8 Oct 2013 at 7:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Connie, you deserve a good bit of credit and thanks for professionally representing and defending the C100 and at the same time, graciously listening to those who were very disappointed in the conduct of some officers. BTW, while you have been what I consider an outstanding spokesperson for the C100, and the treasurer has apologized for his behavior at the forum, does the president speak for the C100 sometimes?

  33. Connie Moser said on 9 Oct 2013 at 5:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hello Freedom,

    Thank you very much for your kindness. Believe me, it is much appreciated. I think it is just my nature to speak when needed, without regard to “Whose job is it?”

    I also think many people are not comfortable speaking on blogs. It is, after all, akin to putting your neck on the chopping block, because often a crowd mentality takes over, a bunch of people beat you up and you are left wishing you had simply kept your mouth shut :-)

    I often feel exactly the same way, but have some weird compulsion to bring positive motion every place, forcing me risk lambasting on a regular basis.

    I just try to stay on track, make my point, remain as courteous as possible, while acknowledging every one has their own point of view.

    Greg,

    Thank you again for your gracious response. You have certainly been a gentleman. I think if you are volunteering, I’d be happy to carry water for you! :-)

Leave a Reply



Views: 1808