-------- Original Message --------
||G. Arthur Joy, Gregory Matthews, Linda Shelton
||Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:59:58 -0600
Thanks so much for talking to me today.
I did a little looking, and here is what I found in the email
we all received on December 1, 2006, the only email I received
that spelled out what the confidentiality agreement entailed:
"I have already secured an agreement from Linda, Bob and Greg
that any communication relating to the process proposal and collateral
issues with you or ASI will be held in the strictest confidence,
period, until we have reached an agreement or an agreement
is deemed impossible, at which time only a mutually agreed
statement will be issued. All communique's will be labeled
'Confidential-FYEO-Do Not Re-distribute.' These three will be
the only individuals included in the discussions on this side."
In light of the fact that no correction was ever made to the
above statement, it stands as it reads. It therefore appears
that the sending out of your statement this morning without warning
or input from us constitutes a violation of the confidentiality
agreement. Of course, whether a "mutually agreed statement" could
ever have been arrived at is uncertain, but since there was no
attempt whatsoever to arrive at one, I do not think this puts
the ASI executive committee in a good light.
(I have previously endeavored to confine my statements regarding
the entire proceedings to what was public knowledge prior to
the confidentiality agreement we received on December 1. If you
notice anywhere where I have done otherwise, I would appreciate
your bringing it to my attention.)
Secondly, it raises the question of whether the confidentially
agreement is now null and void, and whether everything that was
ever written between us can be freely published by whomever wishes.
Personally, I don't think that wise, yet if someone feels that
the accusations made in the ASI statement are unfair, untrue,
and/or distorted, I'm not sure what ethical case can be made
to dissuade their being published.
Thirdly, Walt Thompson recently indicated that they were trying
to get ASI to help them out. I found that statement puzzling
in light of the fact that ASI had already backed out. Your issuing
of the type of statement you did without the negotiation that
the confidentiality agreement plainly required could suggest
that this statement was somehow in response to their request,
which would appear strange if ASI was supposed to be impartial
in all these proceedings.
Lastly, since you indicated that your statement was sent to
certain church leaders and such, how would you suggest that clarification
be sent to them by anyone involved who feels that the statement
did not fairly and/or accurately portray the situation? Is it
possible to get the list of names and addresses from you, or
would you be willing to relay any statement to them that might
come from one of us? Or, do you have any other suggestions as
to how perceived unfairness or inaccuracies in the unilateral
statement can be dealt with?
As far as what concerns I had regarding the content of the
statement you sent this morning, I won't at this time repeat
or add to what I shared with you on the phone. Hopefully, no
one will use the statement you sent in such a way that a negative
light is placed upon anyone involved, which would go a long ways
toward keeping folks who disagree with the statement from trying
to defend themselves.