Today's ANA - Election = Opportunity for change - Information Requested:
Artist
Posts: 2,038 ✭✭✭
Greetings All -
Reading threads on the ANA on these boards is a bit like trying to understand a war by tuning into the nightly news, in that you get the idea pretty quickly that something is awry but it's hard to tell what the big picture is.
I for one don't understand what has been happening there these past couple years - without starting a major flame war or lawsuit, could someone provide a brief synopsis?
Also, I got my ballot in the mail today, but without any understanding any of the issues that have been playing out its hard to know which names represent a perpetuation of the status quo and which names present an opportunity for change. I am not asking to be told who I should vote for, just some insight as to who the players are.
Any information is most appreciated -
~ Artist
Reading threads on the ANA on these boards is a bit like trying to understand a war by tuning into the nightly news, in that you get the idea pretty quickly that something is awry but it's hard to tell what the big picture is.
I for one don't understand what has been happening there these past couple years - without starting a major flame war or lawsuit, could someone provide a brief synopsis?
Also, I got my ballot in the mail today, but without any understanding any of the issues that have been playing out its hard to know which names represent a perpetuation of the status quo and which names present an opportunity for change. I am not asking to be told who I should vote for, just some insight as to who the players are.
Any information is most appreciated -
~ Artist
0
Comments
It's even harder than it seems when you realize that the incumbents are taking heat in large part (but not exclusively) because they sought change.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Questionable actions taken by the Board of Governors and the Executive Director.
A feeling that the current leadership is not addressing the needs and concerns of the members of the ANA
Disatisfaction with the leadership of the current Executive Director.
For the first time in history, the incumbent board removed a governor who was duly elected by the membership. The board was not forthcoming for their reason for removing Dr. Ostromecki; essentially it boiled down to a personality conflict. The board was upset that he reached out to an ANA member who had a concern and that he took a position that differed from that of the majority of the board. In my viewpoint, it is beneficial to have an occasional dissenting voice on the board - that way, all viewpoints are given consideration. Overturning the will of the entire ANA electorate because Dr. Ostomecki may have spoken out of turn seemed to be an extreme and unwarrented sanction.
As part of the fundraising drive for the ANA museum, Chester Krause, Clif Mischler and an anonymous donor donated $500,000 for the naming rights to the museum. They planned on naming the museum in honor of Ed Rochette. The current board maintained that a one million dollar donation was required for the naming rights, and that they would only name the upper gallery for Rochette. After some very public controversy, the board realized that they had, in fact, published a statement that a $500,000 donation was all that was necessary to name the museum and reversed their position. Besides the fact that Ed Rochette, for his years of service to the ANA and the hobby, deserved to have his name placed over the museum, the board demonstrated their inability to recognize and honor their past commitments.
The board also sponsored a committee to revise the bylaws. Unfortunately, the proposed new bylaws will effectively disenfranchise the members from nominating and selecting their leaders. The new bylaws replace the current method of nomination by petition, which allows any board candidate access to the ballot by submitting a petition with the signatures of five members and five ANA-affilitated coin clubs. Instead, nominations will be made by a nominating committee, which selects its own members, and is answerable to noone. The new bylaws will also institute staggered terms and make it easier for the board of governors to remove a member. The new bylaws also prohibit most advertising by candidates for board positions. Although this proposal is supposedly designed to open nominations to more members, it makes it very difficult for board members to educate the membership on their positions and qualifications. The proposed bylaws also strengthen the power of the Executive Director and proposes elevating the Executive Director's title to CEO.
Proponents of the bylaw revisions claim that the new bylaws more closely mirror corporate bylaws and maintain that we should recognize that the ANA is a corporation. Opponents of the bylaws currently on the table fear that the bylaws are designed to give entrenched incumbents an unfair advantage, stifle dissent and essentially disenfranchise the membership.
There has also been some concerns about the performance of the current Executive Director, Chris Cipoletti. Many members are concerned that by functioning as both the Executive Director and the ANA legal advisor, there is a potential conflict of interest. Cipoletti's insistence that board members sign a confidentiality agreements has also been controversial. Some members feel that the confidentiality agreement stifles free debate and encourages the board to operate in secrecy, rather than out in the open. There has also been a large amount of turnover in the ANA staff, which some members feel is a result of Cipoletti's leadership style. There is also some concern that the Executive Director position is grabbing too much power, and that the Executive Director should be guided by the Board of Governors, rather than the other way around.
The Board has also been dipping into the endowment fund in order to balance a budget that would otherwise be in the red. A number of non-incumbent candidates to the board are suggesting that more attention be given to the organnization's finances.
Another concern is the recent suggestion of opening two new ANA museums - one on the east coast and one on the west coast. Some members are concerned that the ANA may be overextending itself and should not undertake an investment of this size until it gets its current finances in order.
There are some other concerns regarding the changes in exhibit judging, the club representatives program and the decision to terminate the awarding of 25 and 50 year membership medals (recently reversed).
This is just a brief synopsis of some of the concerns I have heard voiced. I urge you to carefully read the candidate's statements, do a little research, and base your decision on the direction you feel the ANA should take and the individuals best suited to lead us there.
In other threads on this forum, I have made secret of my disatisfaction with the current regime. I do not intend to cast my ballot for any incumbents or anyone involved in the creation, or support, of the proposed new bylaws. (That is, if I ever get a ballot.)
Mike, you have very nicely listed the issues which have caused the controversy regarding this year's election. I think all of us who have posted on this board regarding this subject hope that a large percentage of the membership actually VOTE and then send in their ballot.
As I've said before, I believe the biggest problem with the actions of the current Board of Governors was lack of COMMUNICATIONS with the membership about their PLANS and GOALS during the past two years. They did things believing they are moving the ANA "into the 21st century" but failed to communicate this with the membership and get their approval BEFORE acting. It seems to me that in the past few months they have started to do more communicating via their web site but unfortunately in my opinion it is too little and too late for the current incumbents.
Whatever the result of this election, I intend to continue to suppport the ANA. If, as I expect, the large majority of the people I am voting for win, then a strong message will have been sent by the membership that future Board of Governors need to communicate and get buy in by the membership before acting on major issues.
So, I am not too far from Andy's position that we should support incumbents because they wanted to make changes to grow the organization. They may have had good ideas and a plan, BUT, I believe they MUST get approval of the membership first. They do that by communicating with the membership and they do that by NOT removing an elected member of the board because of personality reasons.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
The Board has explained its actions and the problem went far beyond "personality conflicts", although there may have been some of that as well. The primary issue, I believe, was that Ostromecki revealed confidential information in a manner that was deemed by the Board to be detrimental to the ANA. Even if there was no confidentiality agreement in force, his poor judgment was cause for serious concern, if not action.
Ostromecki disagrees, of course. As for the rest of us, I'd recommend getting all of the facts before coming to a decision.
So, I am not too far from Andy's position that we should support incumbents because they wanted to make changes to grow the organization.
To be clear, I do not support all of the incumbents, and I'm seriously in favor of some of the challengers. Think hard about each candidate, individually, before you vote.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
If poor judgment was the only reason to remove someone than the entire leadership of the ANA should have resigned long ago for
all of the idiotic things that have taken place with the ANA in the past few years.
The action taken against him was too harsh, it was basically the executive director throwing his weight around and a weak and ineffective board of governors too afraid to stand up to him.
I think magicrat gave a good summary, probably biased ever so slightly negatively toward the current board (which reflects my bias). One of my major issues with the current Board is its inability to listen to the membership. In my opinion, an example of this failure occured with the feedback the Board solicited for the proposed bylaw changes. As I mentioned in another thread, last Fall the proposed by-laws were placed on the ANA web site and comments from members were solicited. The board members saw the comments made in their entirety and the ANA staff (I presume) then summarized (accurately in my opinion) the comments. The summary is here. The Board responded to these comments by making one trivial change--the Board would no longer elect a chair and vice chair. They also tried to clarify perhaps the most controversial proposal, the "Board Development Committee." You can see the Board's response here. Personally, I thought the Board's response was feeble at best. There were many more negative comments directed against the most controversial parts of the proposed changes than positive comemnts yet the Board choose to do very little. I cannot see where the Board listened very closely to the membership, an outcome that disturbs me.
One last, quick comment: The whole deal with naming the museum was a fiasco. As magicrat said, few people have done as much for the ANA as has Rochette. The ANA could well have named the museum for him out of sheer gratitude and for free. The fact that the ANA got $500,000 and still wanted another $500,000 for the naming rights AND did not communicate this desire to Krause and Mischler was really tacky.
<< <i>One of my major issues with the current Board is its inability to listen to the membership. In my opinion, an example of this failure occured with the feedback the Board solicited for the proposed bylaw changes. As I mentioned in another thread, last Fall the proposed by-laws were placed on the ANA web site and comments from members were solicited. The board members saw the comments made in their entirety and the ANA staff (I presume) then summarized (accurately in my opinion) the comments. The summary is here. The Board responded to these comments by making one trivial change--the Board would no longer elect a chair and vice chair. They also tried to clarify perhaps the most controversial proposal, the "Board Development Committee." You can see the Board's response here. Personally, I thought the Board's response was feeble at best. There were many more negative comments directed against the most controversial parts of the proposed changes than positive comemnts yet the Board choose to do very little. I cannot see where the Board listened very closely to the membership, an outcome that disturbs me. >>
The feedback on the proposed changes to the by-laws is another area of controversy. Feedback received by the ANA was "summarized". My feedback, which I posted onto this site earlier, was not included in the summary comments at all. In addition, there was never a report to the membership as to how many people were in favor of each of the changes and how many were opposed to them. Exactly what kind of "summary" is that when no one is told how the membership responded? The current president, Mr. Horton, complained in the coin newspapers that the ANA Board had received little feedback from its members on anything; then when feedback was provided it was either ignored or not reported to the membership.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
The proposed membership directory. The ANA announced, with great fanfare a couple years ago, that it would publish a membership directory. It seems a company who publishes such directories had contacted the ANA, and the ANA believed this was a great idea. A member could "opt out" of being in the directory if he/she did not want to be in it, but this would have required action on the part of the individual member. This proposal met with much negative reaction, measured by letters posted in the coin newspapers. It seemed that the ANA didn't realize that this directory would be a roadmap for any criminals who planned to rob people's houses! After a lot of explanations to the membership, the ANA finally realized that this was a bad idea, and they abandoned it. But this is another example IMO of poor judgment by the ANA leadership.
The Las Vegas show. A case of the ANA being paid for its endorsement of a show that charges $15 admission, and according to those who have attended the show, a show that doesn't meet the usual high standards for ANA shows.
The ACG lawsuit. Solicited funds in defense of ANA members sued by ACG (including at least one Forum member here), and never dispensing said funds to those members. In fact, those funds have never been separately accounted for and reported to donors.
Suing ex-employees and contractors for apparently posting critical comments on a website. Anyone who is familiar with the legal system knows this is a no-win situation. In addition, complaining about said comments actually publicizes those comments.
Excessive turnover, including those hand-selected by the current Executive Director. Such as one person hired as Chief PRogram and Financial Officer April 2005, promoted to Chief Operations Officer September 2005, and fired July 2006. After the firing, making critical comments rather than the much more customary and diplomatic "we wish her well in her future opportunities".
The confidentiality agreement, which apparently seems to cover anything that comes out of a Board member's mouth other than a sneeze.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
I can see how someone might think that if he had few facts and no personal knowledge of the people involved. However, for those of us that know the governors, the idea that they are all afraid of the executive director - or anybody at all - is laughable.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The dispute primarily concerned what the naming rights covered. The dollar amounts were secondary.
IMHO, the dispute and subsequent negotiations were handled poorly, not least due to the actions of Walter Ostromecki. And I completely do not understand why the donors, friends of the ANA, chose to try their case in the court of public opinion. This mess should have been hammered out privately in a couple of hours, over a bottle of scotch and some fine cigars.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Thanks you so much for the very informative discussion - what a terrific resource. I truly thank each of you, and especially Magicrat, for taking the time to respond.
Best,
Artist
>>>My Collection
Tom DeLorey
"It's Time For A Change!"
<< <i>it was basically the executive director throwing his weight around and a weak and ineffective board of governors too afraid to stand up to him.
I can see how someone might think that if he had few facts and no personal knowledge of the people involved. However, for those of us that know the governors, the idea that they are all afraid of the executive director - or anybody at all - is laughable. >>
Here, sign this confidentiality agreement or else........and who stood up to him? Sorry, I see nobody with any guts on the board.
And.... if they are afraid of nobody how come they are all cowards in not appearing in an online forum to discuss issues?
Your defense of them is laughable.
Michigan - What makes you think the incumbents are even paying attention to this forum? And why aren't the brave challengers here campaigning night and day? Could it be that this forum is not as big a part of numismatic world as you imagine?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>IMHO, the dispute and subsequent negotiations were handled poorly, not least due to the actions of Walter Ostromecki. And I completely do not understand why the donors, friends of the ana, chose to try their case in the court of public opinion. This mess should have been hammered out privately in a couple of hours, over a bottle of scotch and some fine cigars. >>
I fail to see what Dr. Ostomecki did to hinder the negotiations. From reading the paper trail of letters regarding the museum naming controversy, it appears that his "sins" were limited to:
Trying to understand the concerns of a member.
Having the courtesy to respond to a member's concerns.
Keeping an open mind while trying to understand the issues.
Bucking the party line and disagreeing with a Board decision.
And, not having a "secure" email account.
I hardly think that any of these actions justified the board, for the first time in its history, removing a duly elected governor. Indeed, I find many of these actions commendable. I would prefer to have governors respond to members concerns, learn all of the facts and positions (even if the knowledge of these facts make them change their minds) and, when warranted, disagree publicly with Board decisions. Free and open debate, and even dissention, is critical to an organization's credibility. This debate gives members confidence that all positions were given due consideration and that the Board made an informed decision. That is why so many governmental organizations have "sunshine" laws.It is a Board that marches in lockstep and makes backroom deals "privately in a couple of hours, over a bottle of scotch and some fine cigars" that concerns me.
The following is a link containing the letters that addressed the museum naming controversy and the actions that led to the ouster of Dr. Ostromecki:
http://www.reedededge.com/ostromecki1.htm
Thanks for the link to those letters. I do remember reading some of the correspondence in Numismatic News back in 2005, but some of this seems new to me. It really shows how different people view things.
In my mind, this is what makes our coin forum so valuable. The contributions by members with different viewpoints about all the things in our hobby. Of course, each of us are interested in only certain items, but those items are really educational when you get into them in detail. Thanks again.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>And.... if they are afraid of nobody how come they are all cowards in not appearing in an online forum to discuss issues?
Michigan - What makes you think the incumbents are even paying attention to this forum? And why aren't the brave challengers here campaigning night and day? Could it be that this forum is not as big a part of numismatic world as you imagine? >>
Most of them are too lazy to do any "real" campaigning. A predictable couple of paragraphs in Coin World or Numismatic News
and a few display ads that basically sound the same and that is it.
At least Michael Doran is not afraid to step up.
Walter is a former School Superintendent, he is honest and outspoken. He doesn't cheat, he doesn't lie and he doesn't even hold grudges against those that have done wrong to him. I am happy to count him as a friend.
<< <i>There is a deep-seated reason that Walter was forced out. It has nothing at all to do with the reasons he was forced out. I think it is a personal agenda on someone's part. It could be a personality conflict; it could be that someone didn't want some truth to get out. I don't know and no one will tell me. (But, I wouldn't tell if I knew either.) The reasons they chose to use to get him out was their best first option. I think they'll try something else again if he wins.
Walter is a former School Superintendent, he is honest and outspoken. He doesn't cheat, he doesn't lie and he doesn't even hold grudges against those that have done wrong to him. I am happy to count him as a friend. >>
Rick, I must agree with you regarding Walt. And I can think of a couple of people in the regime who would surely have a personal vendetta with him.
Michael - That's interesting! Please tell us about who has a vendetta against Walter, and why.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>And I can think of a couple of people in the regime who would surely have a personal vendetta with him.
Michael - That's interesting! Please tell us about who has a vendetta against Walter, and why. >>
Andy - I am not going to answer your question. In fact, I will cease answering any of your questions from this point on.
Michael - That's probably wise.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Good point, Michigan.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Longacre's is waiting for him at home. I just spoke with Consuela!!
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i> Longacre's is waiting for him at home. I just spoke with Consuela!! >>
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
To: Coin World March 27th Issue
From: William H. Horton, Jr., American Numismatic Association President
The unanimous decision by the American Numismatic Association Board of Governors on October 14, 2005 to replace Governor Walter Ostromecki, Jr. was a last resort, preceded by weeks of his dishonesty with the Board. The Board lost trust in him because of his inability to be candid and truthful. Now that he has waived confidentiality, the ANA Board is releasing previously confidential information related to this unfortunate matter. This should dispel the false public perception that Mr. Ostromecki did nothing wrong and will prove, contrary to his claims otherwise, that he certainly did know well in advance why he faced removal from office.
The blunt reality is that Mr. Ostromecki repeatedly lied to the ANA Board, repeatedly lied to the ANA Executive Director, and by his recent Guest Editorial in Coin World lied to the hobby media and the public. While in office his false statements and unauthorized representations and actions violated his fiduciary responsibilities as a Governor and potentially put the Association at risk. For the two months he was an ANA Board member he was constantly dishonest with us and that dishonesty destroyed any level of trust the Board had.
Did Mr. Ostromecki know the charges against him prior to his removal on October 14, 2005? Of course, he did, despite that he now claims it was a surprise. On September 29, 2005, he was mailed a letter detailing the charges against him. He acknowledged receipt of that letter in a fax to me dated October 4, 2005 in which he stated: “I stand ready to face any charges of misconduct.” He also had conversations with several Board members about the issues facing him. All of this happened before the Board considered action against Mr. Ostromecki at its meeting in October 2005. He never asked that the matter be delayed.
At the October 2005 meeting he was given an opportunity to tell the Board anything he wanted to say. He claimed his lies and misrepresentations were merely “rookie mistakes.” Well, honesty and truthfulness are not “rookie” issues. He had lied to the Board for weeks, was deceptive in his statements to the Board and to others, and failed to follow through on commitments that he made. For example, as a Governor he supported the actions and decisions of the Board during a conference call, but then subsequently took action directly contrary to the position he had taken earlier with the Board. He corresponded with people, taking positions on behalf of the ANA, but without authorization and without notifying the Board or staff. He then repeatedly failed to provide copies of the ANA-related correspondence when asked to do so.
Shortly after he was elected to the ANA Board, issues regarding the naming opportunities for the ANA museum were discussed by the Board in executive session on August 18, 2005. As with many companies and non-profit organizations, closed-door meetings are essential for frank and candid discussions for such matters as personnel issues, litigation, and proprietary and sensitive matters where premature public disclosure of information could put the project or the Association at risk. Prior to that August 2005 meeting, all Board members signed a confidentiality agreement where they explicitly acknowledged that matters discussed in executive session are confidential and not to be disclosed outside that meeting. The entire Board, including Mr. Ostromecki, was reminded of the confidentiality of executive session twice during the conference call meeting. Despite the reminders he intentionally violated the confidentiality.
During that executive session, the Board determined that either Chris Cipoletti or I would communicate with Chet Krause and Cliff Mishler regarding the naming opportunities for the ANA museum. All Board members unanimously agreed that no one from the Board would individually discuss the issues that had been raised; rather the communication would come through me on behalf of the Board. During that executive session, Mr. Ostromecki did not disagree with the gallery naming and did not state any concern about the Board’s decision regarding that naming. In fact, he was asked for his input and even agreed that the approach of having me and Chris communicate with Chet Krause and Cliff Mishler was the right thing to do.
Despite that unanimous decision by the Board, he then wrote a letter to Mr. Mishler complaining about the Board’s action. So, he either lied to the Board when he originally said the Board was appropriately handling this issue or he lied to Cliff Mishler when he said he disagreed with the Board’s handling of the situation. When questioned about his letter to Cliff Mishler before the Board saw a copy of the letter, Mr. Ostromecki misrepresented its content. After the Board eventually saw the letter he promised not to write anything further regarding the naming rights issue until after the Board addressed it at the October meeting. In spite of this promise, he wrote a second letter to Mr. Mishler about the matters discussed in executive session and misrepresented the position of the ANA.
While the ANA Board encourages debate and dialogue on issues, once the Board makes a decision, Board members must be supportive of the direction that has been decided. Otherwise, the ANA could not move forward as it would be constantly rehashing issues. The Board is not made up of followers; yet it must be made up of people who can be supportive of each other and can honor the commitments they make to each other.
While an e-mail address may not seem to be a major issue, yet it is another example of the problems the Board and ANA staff faced with Mr. Ostromecki. E-mail is the easiest and most economical means for Board members to communicate between meetings because we only meet in person three times a year and Board members live in different areas across the country. Mr. Ostromecki told several other candidates, including me, that if he was elected, he would get an e-mail address. After the election results were announced, he was reminded about his promise, and he told several Board members he would have e-mail within two weeks. While he made these promises, he failed to fulfill them and was not in communication with the Board about ANA business. He finally said he was afraid of e-mail because of what had been discovered in e-mails during his divorce proceedings.
While we were discussing the e-mail issue with him at the October 2005 Board meeting he provided the ANA with an e-mail address. He told us he’d had the address for over two weeks, but until then never disclosed it to anyone associated with the ANA. I had talked to Mr. Ostromecki in early October 2005 and he told me that he would call Chris Cipoletti to get e-mail connectivity. He acknowledged that he had not called Mr. Cipoletti back after receiving a message from him. At the time of the Board meeting when this issue came up, Mr. Ostromecki claimed that Mr. Cipoletti had changed his cell phone number (which was not true) and that is why he had not tried to call Mr. Cipoletti back.
Mr. Ostromecki’s actions in repeatedly lying to the Board or twisting the truth created a situation where the Board could no longer trust anything that he said. His actions also exposed the ANA to potential legal liability because he was making statements and taking positions as a Governor that he was not authorized to take. For example, he was making statements to the Board supporting the ANA’s initiatives to provide educational programming at new shows such as the ANA’s venture with the Las Vegas collectibles show while at the same time encouraging members to voice opposition to this initiative and telling them that he did not support the Las Vegas show. This could have created liability for the ANA with a Governor interfering with the contractual obligations to which the Association had committed. And because Mr. Ostromecki would not share with the ANA the communications that he was formally having with others acting as an ANA Governor, the Board did not know what commitments Mr. Ostromecki might be making. He was dishonest with us and breached his fiduciary duty to the ANA by his untruthful actions. He was provided with all of the information about charges against him prior to the Board’s decision to remove him, and he did not respond directly to any of it.
He knew what the accusations were and that the Board was considering either disciplining or removing him from the Board several weeks before the October meeting. He knew that he would have to answer those accusations and knew what the consequences could be. On October 4, 2005 he told me by fax he would be prepared to respond to any charges of misconduct. He cannot now claim he was denied “due process” or that the action was a “secret” and he does not know why it happened. He participated at almost every step of the procedures that lead to his removal. The only times he did not participate were when the Board discussed when the complaint would be handled during the October 2005 meeting, and when the Board deliberated on the action to be taken. Adna Wilde, ANA’s Parliamentarian, was present for these discussions and confirmed that the actions taken by the Board were in compliance with the Bylaws and were appropriate for the Board to take.
Since his removal from office he has continued to be less than honest about what happened. For example, he confirmed to ANA Vice President Barry Stuppler he felt that Chris Cipoletti tried to assist him in communicating with the Board and in making his orientation as a Board member a smooth process. But after his removal, he lied to several people claiming that Mr. Cipoletti had a letter of resignation typed up and tried to force him to sign it before the Board considered action against him. Mr. Cipoletti did no such thing, and Mr. Ostromecki knows it.
Mr. Ostromecki has also lied to the ANA membership and the public in his guest editorial about his participation in the San Francisco Board meetings. As a candidate for the ANA Board, Mr. Ostromecki was told that if elected he was invited to participate in all Board meetings. In fact, he did participate in meetings (including executive session) before he was installed as a member of the Board. Mr. Ostromecki told us that he was driving to the show in San Francisco and never said that he had planned on flying. Had he chosen to fly and asked for any assistance with flight arrangements, the ANA would have gladly accommodated him.
All newly elected governors were provided with complete copies of the Board materials and were advised that if they needed assistance with accommodations or travel for San Francisco, they could contact the ANA. At least one governor-elect took us up on this offer but Mr. Ostromecki did not. When he arrived in San Francisco, Mr. Ostromecki had not arranged for a hotel room for his date of arrival. ANA staff were pulled from their other duties to arrange for a room for Mr. Ostromecki. Once a room was arranged, Mr. Ostromecki’s credit card was over its limit so he told Board members that he was simply going to leave since he could not pay for the room. The ANA again stepped in and prepaid for Mr. Ostromecki’s room so that he could stay in San Francisco.
At the San Francisco meeting, Mr. Ostromecki had ample opportunity to comment on any business being discussed. The other governors-elect all weighed in with their thoughts and opinions. Mr. Ostromecki made a few comments as well; but he never voiced any disagreement with the affiliation of the ANA with a commercial show. He did tell me and Mr. Cipoletti that he heard a few vocal complaints about the affiliation. But he never said he disagreed with it. And for Mr. Ostromecki to say that the ANA Board “badmouthed” or “ridiculed and called stupid” any member’s concern is an outright lie. This Board has worked and continues to work hard for the membership. We may make mistakes, but we are not hiding those mistakes and we are not disrespectful of the membership of the ANA.
These types of continued lies make it clear that the Board took the correct action in removing Walter Ostromecki, Jr. His actions showed (and continue to show) there was no longer a level of trust that would make for a productive working relationship with other Board members, the ANA staff and the ANA membership.
Sincerely, William Horton
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
in the past.
Especially if the new board ends up giving him the boot again.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>While the ANA Board encourages debate and dialogue on issues, once the Board makes a decision, Board members must be supportive of the direction that has been decided. Otherwise, the ANA could not move forward as it would be constantly rehashing issues. The Board is not made up of followers; yet it must be made up of people who can be supportive of each other and can honor the commitments they make to each other. >>
I'm sorry, but this a crock. This belief is the root problem with the current ANA Board and is why so many members believe all incumbents should be voted out. I do not vote for governors to roll over and play dead simply because they are in the minority. It is the Executive Director and his staff that have to be supportive of the Board's decision, not the individual board members. When a governor is voted in by the members based upon the candidates platform, the members should expect that governor to promote those positions regardless of how often they are voted down.
The politics will influence how many people care about the coins in the future. In other words, if the future of the hobby matters to you, then the politics matter.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>
<< <i>While the ANA Board encourages debate and dialogue on issues, once the Board makes a decision, Board members must be supportive of the direction that has been decided. Otherwise, the ANA could not move forward as it would be constantly rehashing issues. The Board is not made up of followers; yet it must be made up of people who can be supportive of each other and can honor the commitments they make to each other. >>
I'm sorry, but this a crock. This belief is the root problem with the current ANA Board and is why so many members believe all incumbents should be voted out. I do not vote for governors to roll over and play dead simply because they are in the minority. It is the Executive Director and his staff that have to be supportive of the Board's decision, not the individual board members. When a governor is voted in by the members based upon the candidates platform, the members should expect that governor to promote those positions regardless of how often they are voted down. >>
Fatman (John)
You have hit upon a very key point. This current board expects the minority to support the decisions of the board in public. We elect board members to be independent and to voice their feelings honestly. This election will decide what the voting membership wants.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
To be fair, you're referring to a comment made by one person, not by the entire board.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>This current board expects the minority to support the decisions of the board in public.
To be fair, you're referring to a comment made by one person, not by the entire board. >>
Andy,
That ONE person happens to be the President!
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>This current board expects the minority to support the decisions of the board in public.
To be fair, you're referring to a comment made by one person, not by the entire board. >>
He makes no effort to suggest that he is speaking for himself and the not board as a whole. He uses his title in identifying himself. As the topic deals with the board's actions, if he was speaking for himself he should have stated so upfront.
<< <i>For those with concerns about the Ostromecki affair, I encourage you to read the following letter by President Bill Horton >>
Mr. Horton’s letter is disturbing on many fronts. I apologize for the length of this reply, but some of his points deserve further exploration.
Mr. Horton states, “While the ANA Board encourages debate and dialogue on issues, once the Board makes a decision, Board members must be supportive of the direction that has been decided. Otherwise, the ANA could not move forward as it would be constantly rehashing issues. The Board is not made up of followers; yet it must be made up of people who can be supportive of each other and can honor the commitments they make to each other.”
This statement has significant ramifications on the conduct of the ANA and is, arguably, the central issue dividing the incumbent slate for the Board of Governors and the challengers. Horton is arguing in favor of the “corporate” model of governance that is supported by the incumbents and further documented in the new proposed bylaws. In this model, the members of ANA Board are beholden to the other members of the Board, not to the general membership. Issues may be debated, often only in executive session, and when a decision is made, the Board members are expected to march in lockstep with one another and present a united front. In Mr. Horton’s vision, members in the minority on any issue are expected to cease debate when the board makes a decision and fully support the decision, even if the minority members believe it to be wrong. This undemocratic position is a central point in the “Deemed Assent” provision (Section 3.7) of the new proposed bylaws. Under “deemed assent”, governors will no longer be able to publicly disagree with any of the Board’s actions unless the dissenting governor clearly states his or her dissent at the time of the meeting. If a governor finds, after more careful consideration of the facts regarding an issue, that the Board’s decision was wrong, the “deemed assent” provision prohibits that governor from publicly airing his concerns or misgivings.
Most of the challengers believe that the ANA should follow a more democratic model in which governors are expected to represent their constituency - the members - rather than other Board members. In this model, governors will vote according to their own consciences as to how issues will affect the dues-paying members and the overall success of the ANA. Dissenting positions will be allowed, and even encouraged, because these members recognize that healthy public debate is the only way to ensure that all facts and positions on an issue are considered. Governors will even be allowed to change their minds and speak against positions they had previously advocated if they feel their original positions were mistaken. In this model, members will know where specific governors stand on specific issues so that the members may make an informed choice during the next election. The United States Supreme Court is a good example of this model; justices debate the issues and then issue concurring or dissenting opinions. To my knowledge, the existence of dissenting Supreme Court justices has not weakened the fabric of this nation.
The challengers also recognize the proper hierarchy and role of the Board of Governors. The Board of Governors sets the overall policies and priorities of the American Numismatic Association and the Executive Director and the paid staff are expected to execute these policies. While the paid staff is expected to execute the Board’s policies without dissent, there should be no such constraint on elected governors. The governors are responsible and responsive to the membership. Their actions should be undertaken with the best interests of the membership in mind. At times, it appears that the proponents of the “corporate model” believe that they are responsible to the Executive Director and the staff, rather than the dues-paying members.
For those in favor of Mr. Horton’s corporate model, I have to ask two questions:
1. If decisions made by the Board are so fragile that they cannot withstand public debate and dissention by governors with opposing viewpoints, were they truly the best decisions for the Association?
2. Who does the Board of Governors represent – the membership or the paid staff of the ANA?
Much discussion on this topic has centered on whether governors would be “comfortable” working with one another. While it is always desirable for governors to work together professionally, I don’t care if they hate each other or can’t play well with others. The governors should represent the members of the Association, not other governors on the Board. If a choice must be made between congeniality and healthy debate (and even dissention), I would always favor healthy debate! The Board of Governors is essentially the legislative branch of the Association. An organization that stifles debate and dissention among its policy makers easily falls prey to bad decisions and even outright fraud by unscrupulous members. Open, public debate helps ensure that nothing untoward goes on in backroom dealings.
Mr. Horton also appears to believe that collegiality among the governors is more important than the will of the membership. When that collegiality is threatened, he believes that it is acceptable to toss duly-elected governors off of the Board. This appears to have been the case with Dr. Ostromecki.
Knowing human nature, I don’t take all of Mr. Horton’s assertions at face value. I’m sure that the truth lies somewhere between Mr. Horton’s and Dr. Ostomecki’s letters. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that Mr. Horton’s assertions were all 100% factual.
Mr. Horton’s reasons for ousting Dr. Ostomecki seem to boil down to the following points:
1. Dr. Ostromecki responded to a member’s concerns after the Board decided that only Mr. Horton or Mr. Cipoletti may address the issue of the museum naming rights.
2. Dr. Ostromecki did not, or was not able to, secure an e-mail address that met the Board’s requirements.
3. Dr. Ostromecki changed his mind on a vote he previously took and “lied” to the other governors about it.
4. Dr. Ostromecki was an administrative pain in the neck to the ANA staff.
If we were to accept all of these points at face value and accept Horton’s assertions, we might find evidence that Dr. Ostromecki was not as an effective governor as he should be. However, I do not think that any of these issues rise up to the level of impeachable offenses. Dr. Ostromecki may have been guilty of speaking out of turn in the board’s eyes; he may have been guilty of flip-flopping on an issue; he may have been an administrative irritant; he may have even lied to other governors. However, these are issues that should have been aired to the membership, so that the membership could consider these factors in the next election. If the membership felt that Dr. Ostromecki’s actions were unacceptable, they could deny him reelection. The decision to keep or remove Dr. Ostromecki should have been made by the membership, not by the Board of Governors!
I have to wonder what was so threatening about Dr. Ostromecki that the Board of Governors felt the need to remove a sitting governor for the first time in the Association’s history. Dr. Ostromecki committed no crime. Dr. Ostromecki did not put the Association at harm. Dr. Ostromecki merely tried to represent his constituency the way he felt appropriate. The fact that this may have been an irritant to other governors is not a reason to overturn the will of the ANA electorate.
It is truly disturbing that the Board of Governors would stifle the right of any governor to speak out on any issue by designating spokesmen who would be the only one’s permitted to make a statement about a given issue, as the governors clearly did regarding the museum naming controversy. Governors should not be prohibited from voicing their own concerns or communicating with their constituency.
Mr. Horton’s letter stated that Dr. Ostromecki “corresponded with people, taking positions on behalf of the ANA.” In reviewing the letters between Dr. Ostromecki and Mr. Mischler and Mr. Krause, it is obvious that Dr. Ostromecki was speaking on behalf of himself, as an elected representative to the Board of Governors, and not on behalf of the ANA. As an example, we may look at Dr. Ostromecki’s October 1 letter to Mr. Mischler. Dr. Ostromecki clearly states, “While I cannot speak for any other ANA Governor…” (http://www.reedededge.com/ostromecki6.htm). I could not envision how anyone, even Mr. Horton, could construe this letter as being one in which Dr. Ostromecki speaks for the entire Board of Governors. Should we remove Mr. Horton from his position because he “lied” about this issue?
Dr. Ostromecki may have been an honest, plain speaking, open and diligent representative of the membership of the ANA. Or he may have been, as Mr. Horton asserts, a deceptive liar who lost the trust of the other governors. In either case, it should not have been the Board of Governor’s decision as to whether or not Dr. Ostromecki should continue to serve as a governor. It should have been the membership’s right to make that decision at the next election.
It is further troubling that the discussion of the museum name was considered so sensitive that it had to be held in executive session. This further advances the challengers’ assertions that the incumbent board chooses to operate behind closed doors in secrecy, rather than out in the open. The existing bylaws clearly state that all Board of Governors meetings should be public “except for deliberations and/or votes involving legal opinions, collective bargaining or contractual matters that merit confidentiality; selection of Farran Zerbe Memorial Award, Medal of Merit and other such award recipients; some personnel matters, such as the appointment, employment or dismissal of an ANA officer or employee; hearing testimony on a complaint against an employee, officer or ANA member; considering an appointment to fill a vacancy on an ANA committee or department; or other such deliberations which the Board members, after due consideration, decide merit confidentiality.” The debate over the name of the ANA museum was clearly not a deliberation over a legal matter; no lawsuit was filed. They clearly weren’t dealing with collective bargaining or personnel issues. The name of the museum was not tied to an award; it was sold to wealthy contributors. There was no formal complaint against any ANA member, officer or employee to my knowledge. No Association vacancies were being filled. Instead, the board chose to rely upon (and in my opinion, abuse) the “other such deliberations” catchall loophole in the bylaws.
What was so sensitive about the naming of the museum that it required backroom deliberations? The issue seemed pretty clear cut – Mischler and Krause thought that the naming rights for the museum were being offered for $500,000 while the Board maintained that the naming rights were selling for $1,000,000. The sale of the naming rights wasn’t secret – it was quite public. What portion of the deliberations really required secrecy? If the Board of Governors were truly confident in their assertion, what harm could come from a public discussion of this matter. By choosing to hold the deliberations in secret, the governors further undermined the trust in which the membership held the leadership.
Were the governors merely trying to avoid embarrassment? I’m sorry, but that is not a good enough excuse to hold meetings in secret. The membership deserves to know what happens at Board meetings, warts and all, so that they can make informed decisions at election time.
Or was the Board operating in secrecy for more malevolent reasons? While I certainly hope that this wasn’t the case, their decision to meet in secret does nothing to dispel these fears.
Quite frankly, the most severe “infractions” of Dr. Ostromecki involved dissenting from decisions and procedures that shouldn’t have been made in the first place. Governors should not be prohibited from communicating with their constituents regarding ANA issues and the museum naming discussion should have taken place during a public meeting. So why was Dr. Ostromecki’s communications with a constituent and his decisions to talk about a “confidential” issue that should not have been confidential grounds for dismissal? Was it really because he didn’t have a good e-mail address and the other governors didn’t like working with him?
It was Dr. Ostromecki’s ouster that first opened my eyes to the problems befalling the leadership of the Association. Like many others, I paid scant attention to the politics of the ANA. But I truly believe that this election will determine the future of the ANA. Dr. Ostromecki’s ouster, the museum naming controversy, the secret meetings, the revised bylaws, etc. are just examples of the missteps of the current leadership. The true issue dividing the candidates is more basic and more global. Should the ANA adopt a “corporate” model of leadership in which elected officials are more beholden to each other and the paid staff than the membership? Or should the association be a truly democratic organization in which the leadership is permitted and encouraged to involve the membership in decisions, communications and activities? That is essentially the central issue in this election.
<< <i>How can there be so much politics over a hobby? It certainly doesn't add to original surfaces, affect mintages, or coin commerce...does it? >>
At times it seems that the ANA is more like the CIA with secrets and behind the scenes intrigue than a hobby organization.
The whole museum naming controversy was just a horrible mess, it had to be very embarassing for Rochette, Mishler and Krause to
show up for the ceremony and then find out that they were not getting what they expected. I don't blame them for being madder
than hell about it, there was a huge breakdown in communications.
Again an excellent writing of the issues as they apply to the proposed new bylaws. I only wish that all the membership could see this discussion and then decide for themselves what kind of ANA they want to see in the future.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Walter Ostromecki: Mr. Numismatics
I don't think that I'd mind having a governor who speaks his mind, takes initiative and is dedicated to education.
Fun article! Does anyone here know the author?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
That was an interesting piece about Dr. Ostromecki. It seemed a tad on the "puffy" side, but he really does seem enthusiastic about YN education, a subject that I also believe is vastly important.
One real problem with the notion that only one person speaks for the entire board is that we do not have other perspectives on Dr. Ostromecki's removal other than what he says and what Mr. Horton says. I'd like to have heard from other Board members what they thought of the situation. Based on everything I have read, it seems to me that the Board was too hasty in removing Dr. Ostromecki. I suspect that he would not necessarily have been the easiest board member to get along with and I also guess that he would have been relatively impotent as a board member, but I am not at all sure that his voice should have been silenced as it was.
<< <i>Fun article! Does anyone here know the author? >>
According to the masthead, it is By Leon Worden from COINage magazine. I don't know him (I just found the article interesting) but he appears to have written a fair number of articles for COINage. Here's an index to his stories.
Ray
<< <i>One real problem with the notion that only one person speaks for the entire board is that we do not have other perspectives on Dr. Ostromecki's removal other than what he says and what Mr. Horton says. I'd like to have heard from other Board members what they thought of the situation. Based on everything I have read, it seems to me that the Board was too hasty in removing Dr. Ostromecki. I suspect that he would not necessarily have been the easiest board member to get along with and I also guess that he would have been relatively impotent as a board member, but I am not at all sure that his voice should have been silenced as it was. >>
I had some correspondence with Herbert on the matter. His response was "What you didn't read in the half-truth coverage of this event was the underlying lack of trust. We, as a board simply could not trust him in a position where he had access to confidential information." Basically mirroring Horton's line.
Reading between the lines, it does appear that the other governors found him less than easy to work with. He probably also wouldn't have been all that effective in getting his vision implemented. But it never hurts to have a minority viewpoint on the Board - if for no other reason than to keep the majority honest.
Interestingly, in the same note, Herbert said, "we are running a corporation, not a 'good old boy's' backroom club." Considering the secrecy and flimsy pretenses used to oust Dr. Ostromecki, it sure looked like they were running a backroom club.