Options
Arthur Fitts basically defends the status quo on ANA policies
Michigan
Posts: 4,942 ✭
In a Numismatic News viewpoint article among other things he says:
"It has become fashionable to blister the ANA board, but most of what we hear is pure rhetoric; unfounded allegations laced with
unconstructive criticism and invective. To be effective, the critics should ask questions about what concerns them, explain their
reasoning, offer suggestions of how the matter might be improved or corrected - and listen to the responses. Engage in dialogue,
discuss the problem. The solution may not always be to their liking, but their voices will have been heard".
I think that various people have done the above at various times but gotten either lip service or nothing in return from the ANA.
Communication still remains a big problem for the ANA.
"It has become fashionable to blister the ANA board, but most of what we hear is pure rhetoric; unfounded allegations laced with
unconstructive criticism and invective. To be effective, the critics should ask questions about what concerns them, explain their
reasoning, offer suggestions of how the matter might be improved or corrected - and listen to the responses. Engage in dialogue,
discuss the problem. The solution may not always be to their liking, but their voices will have been heard".
I think that various people have done the above at various times but gotten either lip service or nothing in return from the ANA.
Communication still remains a big problem for the ANA.
0
Comments
<< <i>To be effective, the critics should ask questions about what concerns them [...] and listen to the responses. >>
I haven't heard any responses regarding the Legal Defense Fund and ACG yet.
<< <i>The solution may not always be to their liking >>
Secrecy pacts, gag orders and the like? I can see how people might be frustrated with those solutions when they're told to listen for responses
Apparently when concern is raised the board feels blistered and considers it rhetoric; unfounded allegations laced with unconstructive criticism and invective. So it is now necessary for you to explain the reasoning for concern, have the answer for you concerns, and then shut up, listen, and take no for an answer. But it will all be good now because you have been heard.
<< <i> But, even standing alone, I think that his remark is entirely reasonable and that your characterization of it in your thread title is unfair. >>
Really? Let's look at the quote again:
"It has become fashionable to blister the ANA board, but most of what we hear is pure rhetoric; unfounded allegations laced with unconstructive [sic] criticism and invective. To be effective, the critics should ask questions about what concerns them, explain their reasoning, offer suggestions of how the matter might be improved or corrected - and listen to the responses. Engage in dialogue, discuss the problem. The solution may not always be to their liking, but their voices will have been heard".
My responses:
(1) What isn't constructive about wanting to know how people felt about the way the Ostromecki situation was handled? Or asking for why the board pushes for bylaw changes putting them in charge of who can run for the board? Or where the Legal Defense Fund money (for which I held an auction on this forum and raised $200 for them) went, since none of the individual defendants ever recalled getting any assistance with their legal fees?
(2) Notice anything missing in the above quote about how the ANA Board would respond? Where does it say or even imply that maybe they would *move* on constructive crtiticism? Fitts makes it sound as if it's a foregone conclusion that they're going to do what they are going to do regardless of the input.
(3) To me, it feels like "hand-waving" to simply dismiss the criticism as "unfounded" or "unwarranted" or "invective." It's easier than addressing the criticism, at which the ANA Board has been woefully deficient.
(4) I believe many of the critics HAVE provided suggestions about how to improve things. I agree with Fitts that if people are going to complain about how things are, they should prepare to offer solutions. I think some people have done that -- stop abusing the executive session, abandon the proposed bylaw changes, stop prostituting the "official grading service" to the highest bidder, et cetera. To say no one is providing alternative solutions is absurd. They just don't like them, so they act as if they didn't come in.
I'm a bit sensitive to the Board's situation here. Until last year my wife was on the board for the HOA where we lived (until we moved last summer). I know, from her experience, there were always going to be a small, unreasonable group of people who would not rest until all the incumbents were kicked out and their character thoroughly assassinated. She used to come home near tears sometimes with what some of those vicious people did. But the difference is, when they levelled bad allegations, the association responded in most cases -- they would say "this is what we did and this is WHY we did it." And the vast majority of reasonable people were satisfied. Here, a lot of reasonable people are still waiting for responses other than "shut up, you're being unconstructive and unreasonable." The "why we did it" is missing.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Perhaps a big part of the ANA's "communication problem" is that ANA members don't listen very well. >>
Or maybe they communicate more to a few connected folks who defend them.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>It's like people are so sure they know what everyone else would say that they don't bother listening to what is actually said. >>
I think it's more that people are listening but there's nothing of substance to be heard. Many issues have been raised on these boards over a long period of time. Many of those issues seem to be unaddressed by the ANA. When people bring up issues, you never hear something like "oh wait, the ANA addressed that, here's their response." There must be a big disconnect if the issues that seem to come up over and over again are considered unimportant to the board.
<< <i>Perhaps a big part of the ANA's "communication problem" is that ANA members don't listen very well. >>
Andy, it seems clear to me from Fitts quote above that the communication problem is just the opposite. I cannot speak to all criticisms, but to label most member criticism as:
<< <i>pure rhetoric; unfounded allegations laced with
unconstructive criticism and invective. >>
leads me to believe the board has a tin ear. I am sure that some of what they hear could be described as above, but to say most seems to be a slap in the face to the large contingent of concerned members.
Based on the criticism I see on this forum, "most" is probably accurate. However, it may not have been wise for Fitts to actually say that.
BTW, I'd also like to know more about the legal defense fund. Has the ANA issued a statement about this?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>In a Numismatic News viewpoint article among other things he says:
"It has become fashionable to blister the ANA board, but most of what we hear is pure rhetoric; unfounded allegations laced with
unconstructive criticism and invective. To be effective, the critics should ask questions about what concerns them, explain their
reasoning, offer suggestions of how the matter might be improved or corrected - and listen to the responses. Engage in dialogue,
discuss the problem. The solution may not always be to their liking, but their voices will have been heard".
I think that various people have done the above at various times but gotten either lip service or nothing in return from the ANA.
Communication still remains a big problem for the ANA. >>
Fitts is not getting my vote.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>Perhaps a big part of the ANA's "communication problem" is that ANA members don't listen very well. >>
Yeah! That's it! It's always someone else's fault!!!! You got that right, man!
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>...unfounded allegations laced with unconstructive criticism... >>
Now isn't that a load of condescending polititalk? With an undertone of legal threat at that.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>BTW, I'd also like to know more about the legal defense fund. Has the ANA issued a statement about this? >>
Me too. I was one of the original 46 defendants in that frivolous AGC lawsuit. The main reason I renewed my ANA membership a few years ago was the promise of this fund. I can't say that the current board has done anything to help me or the average collector since announcing that fund, nor can the ANA divulge how collected funds were spent.
So, while some see Mr. Fitts's comment as either a denial of or disregard for legitimate concerns, I see it as an opening for progress. He issued an invitation: "To be effective, the critics should ask questions about what concerns them, explain their reasoning, offer suggestions of how the matter might be improved or corrected - and listen to the responses. Engage in dialogue, discuss the problem." Why not accept the invitation and send him a letter or an e-mail laced with reason instead of with anger?
<< <i>So, while some see Mr. Fitts's comment as either a denial of or disregard for legitimate concerns, I see it as an opening for progress. He issued an invitation: "To be effective, the critics should ask questions about what concerns them, explain their reasoning, offer suggestions of how the matter might be improved or corrected - and listen to the responses. Engage in dialogue, discuss the problem." Why not accept the invitation and send him a letter or an e-mail laced with reason instead of with anger? >>
I've already addressed that above. People *have* made suggestions to the board.
Instead of responding and addressing those suggestions, they seem to ignore this and accuse concerned members of engaging in "pure rhetoric; unfounded allegations laced with unconstructive criticism and invective."
It's not only the people fed up with what they see who are engaging in invective here.
Fitts, and other before him, are making it sound as if their hands are totally clean and that the entire fault of the dispute is with the people concerned about the Board's actions, and not at all with the board. I read this as blaming the other side entirely.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>I'd need to see the context from which the quote was taken. But, even standing alone, his remark seems entirely reasonable to me, and your characterization of it in the thread title seems unfair. >>
OK, well read the entire editorial and you will see that he is basically arguing for the status quo, I didn't want to post the whole thing.
(I know, not my usual MO)
<< <i>BTW, I'd also like to know more about the legal defense fund. Has the ANA issued a statement about this? >>
Not to the best of my recollection. However there have been several posts and statements made by people who were named in the suit to the effect that they never received any money from the fund. I cn't recall a single one that has ever said that they did receive money. But I haven't seen any statemments from the ANA board members who were named in the original suit. I suspect, but can not prove, that the money was probably used for the legal fees of the ANA and the board as a whole. That is NOT how the fund monies were supposed to be disbursed according the the descriptions of the fund when it was formed.
<< <i>I have already posted to so many threads regarding this ineffective organization that I am now jaded. I no longer have pity for paying members that continue to pour money into this sinkhole of effete do-nothings. Sooner or later people will wake up (as more and more seem to be doing) and see the reality before them. Good luck... Cheers, RickO >>
You are apparently ignorant of the limitations of what a non-profit tax exempt educational organization can do under the law...they can mediate between members. They can educate. They can't force non members to use certain grading standards or adhere to certain business practices. They are not a law enforcement agency, nor a government regulatory agency. They have warned members about "third world" grading companies and TV coin shows for many years.
Ignore the ANA, and enjoy your hobby. I pay dues only because it's something that dealers are expected to do. I don't operate under any illusions that the organization can be fixed or reformed.
If you want to belong to numismatic organizations that will enhance the enjoyment of your hobby, join Early American Coppers, The John Reich Society or The Civil War Token Society. ANA is just a political organization run by small group of people who have an inflated sense of their importance. Let them paddle around in their dingy, ignore them and have a nice day by having as little to do with them as possible.
<< <i>The funds were used to get the individual members removed from the lawsuit as a group, which is what happened. It was not intended to pay 25 separate defendent's attorneys to fight separately. >>
If this is the case, there may have been a miscommunication on the intention for the funds, a miscommunication that has persisted for some time. Is this type of miscommunication a concern or not?
<< <i>The funds were used to get the individual members removed from the lawsuit as a group, which is what happened. It was not intended to pay 25 separate defendent's attorneys to fight separately. >>
It would have been nice if they would have told the individual members that they were doing that instead of letting them continue having to pay their individal lawyers to continue trying to get them dropped individually. I also seem to recall that they were not all dropped as a group but as two or three groups, each time the plantiff filed a new ammended complaint.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
<< <i>The funds were used to get the individual members removed from the lawsuit as a group, which is what happened. It was not intended to pay 25 separate defendent's attorneys to fight separately. >>
If that's true, this is the first I've heard of it. And why would it be coming from you -- no offense -- and not the ANA itself?
Also, is it too much to ask for an accounting of the money? How much was taken in? How much was spent? How was the money spent? Which lawfirms were contracted to get us removed? How much money is left?
Are these unfair questions?
<< <i> is it too much to ask for an accounting of the money? How much was taken in? How much was spent? How was the money spent? Which lawfirms were contracted to get us removed? How much money is left?
Are these unfair questions? >>
No Bob, they are GOOD questions. The answers should come from the ANA. Write them at www.money.org and I bet you will get an answer. We would appreciate if you would post the answer here.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>In a Numismatic News viewpoint article among other things he says:
"It has become fashionable to blister the ANA board, but most of what we hear is pure rhetoric; unfounded allegations laced with
unconstructive criticism and invective. To be effective, the critics should ask questions about what concerns them, explain their
reasoning, offer suggestions of how the matter might be improved or corrected - and listen to the responses. Engage in dialogue,
discuss the problem. The solution may not always be to their liking, but their voices will have been heard".
I think that various people have done the above at various times but gotten either lip service or nothing in return from the ANA.
Communication still remains a big problem for the ANA. >>
One can tell that he is aligned with "the regime" but I will give him credit - at least his comment was nowhere as nasty as the one from Alan Herbert in the May 1st issue of NN. Personally, I cannot say much about his comment other that what I just stated.
<< <i>The whole situation has degenerated to the point where many critics are overly aggressive and many board members are overly defensive. A lot of what passes as discourse today is nothing more than people shouting past each other as though anger adds weight to argument and the loudest voice should prevail. I don't know whom to blame for taking us to this point; and, frankly, I don't really care all that much. Assessing blame isn't nearly as important as solving problems and resolving grievances in a reasonable way.
So, while some see Mr. Fitts's comment as either a denial of or disregard for legitimate concerns, I see it as an opening for progress. He issued an invitation: "To be effective, the critics should ask questions about what concerns them, explain their reasoning, offer suggestions of how the matter might be improved or corrected - and listen to the responses. Engage in dialogue, discuss the problem." Why not accept the invitation and send him a letter or an e-mail laced with reason instead of with anger? >>
My answer to IGWT's question about why doesn't someone send Mr. Fitts an e-mail with the questions, reason, etc. is that answering a member's e-mail is exactly what got Mr. Ostromecki kicked off the ANA Board. If Mr. Fitts answered any such e-mail, he would [probably] be violating the confidentiality agreement, and subject himself to being kicked of the Board himself. Because of the confidentiality agreement, no one on the ANA Board [apparently] can answer any such questions as suggested by Mr. Fitts. So basically Mr. Fitts is saying that most of the criticism of the Board is "pure rhetoric; unfounded allegations laced with unconstructive criticism and invective", that those raising the questions should ask questions and offer suggestions on how to improve things, and listen to the responses - - - but [because of the confidentiality agreement] those responses will never come.
Or, maybe I am mistaken. If so, is there evidence to the contrary?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
One can tell that he is aligned with "the regime" but I will give him credit - at least his comment was nowhere as nasty as the one from Alan Herbert in the May 1st issue of NN. Personally, I cannot say much about his comment other that what I just stated. >>
It will be interesting to see what happens if he survives the election and gets Cliff Mishler and Chet Krause on the board with him.
Sounds like it won't be a friendly "Krause family reunion" that is for sure.
<< <i>Perhaps a big part of the ANA's "communication problem" is that ANA members don't listen very well. >>
No problem there, those people will just cease being members.
Self Indulgence | Holey Coins | Flickr Photostream