ATTN Gary Lewis - August 26 6:45 EDT

[This followup was posted to rec.collecting.coins and a copy
was sent to the cited author.]

Gary,

I am, again, writing you to ask you to please read the recent
threads on rcc that discuss your decision on replacing Barry
Stuppler on Consumer Protection. In them, you are
respectfully and nicely asked to explain your decision,
publicly, in rcc.

To date, we have not heard from you.

Under the line at the end of this paragraph is my original
post on the subject, under the thread "Question for Gary Lewis
& Barry Stuppler". Additionally, I am including Barry's public
response for you, in case you missed it. I will, again, copy
your public email address with this post. Please respond
publicly in rcc and not via email to anyone in a private
manner. Thank you very much. Here is the line I mentioned
above, followed by the posts.

__________________________________________________ ____________

Gary,

The issue of Barry Stuppler's absence from Consumer Protection
has been raised in the NG.

I am trying, very hard, not to draw conclusions until more
facts are known. On the surface, this appears very disturbing
and gives the impression that the ANA Board is much more
caring for dealers than anyone else.

Please explain, in detail publicly, what has occurred.

--
I hope we can all be good neighbors online!

Bob,
I have recently received a few emails asking why I resigned
as chairman of the ANA's consumer protection committee.
This is not true. The in-coming president (Gary Lewis)
selects
the ANA's committee chairmanships. Gary, for his own reasons,
decided to select Remy Bourne to chair the Consumer protection
committee. I was ask to chair the Dealers relations
committee.

I continue to have a passion for consumer/collector protection
issues, and have recently written an informative article for
new comers to eBay called "eBay Rare Coin Bidder’s Survival
Guide, Beginner to Expert in 12 Easy Steps". If you would
like to read it and give me your opinion, please click of
the following link. http://coinconnoisseur.com/article-
ebay.html
I'll be changing the last paragraph to reflect that I no
longer
chair the ANA's consumer protection committee.
Sincerely,
--
Barry Stuppler






--
I hope we can all be good neighbors online!

Bob,

While I have my fair share of criticism for the executives of the
ANA, what makes you think that Gary Lewis owes you or anyone else a
public explanation for his actions? I like and respect Barry Stupler for
what he's done but like it or not, the president has the right to
appoint whomever he likes. If nothing else, any explanation should be
sent to ANA members since we're the only ones with any possible right to
request an explanation. Elected officials in this country are held
accountable to their constituency by the election process itself. Once
elected, they are under no obligation to explain themselves. If an
official's actions are sufficiently aberrent then they can be recalled.
I don't want to sound as though I support Gary's decision (I don't) or
that I'm trying to tell you what you should or should not do (also not
true); just consider that these repeated strident demands (or
"requests") for a public accounting may be counter-productive.

-Steve

In article 8556-3F4BED40-179@storefull-
2198.public.lawson.webtv.net, says...
Bob,

While I have my fair share of criticism for the executives of the
ANA, what makes you think that Gary Lewis owes you or anyone else a
public explanation for his actions? I like and respect Barry Stupler for
what he's done but like it or not, the president has the right to
appoint whomever he likes. If nothing else, any explanation should be
sent to ANA members since we're the only ones with any possible right to
request an explanation. Elected officials in this country are held
accountable to their constituency by the election process itself. Once
elected, they are under no obligation to explain themselves. If an
official's actions are sufficiently aberrent then they can be recalled.
I don't want to sound as though I support Gary's decision (I don't) or
that I'm trying to tell you what you should or should not do (also not
true); just consider that these repeated strident demands (or
"requests") for a public accounting may be counter-productive.

-Steve



Hi Steve,

First, as always, I respect and value your opinions.

On this issue, we largely disagree.

I do not believe that I am being strident. Originally, I
posted a topic and asked Gary to please give us his reasoning
behind his decision. Just like a US President may have a
press conference, what is improper in an ANA member (myself)
asking the question in this forum, when Gary has been a
participant in it? Before the election, when the vote was in
doubt, Gary was in here, virtually every day, on a topic for a
post. He's been here after the election. Now, the very first
time someone asks him a question regarding a significant
decision he made, Gary is nowhere to be found.

I believe I am one of the calmest personalities in rcc. You
don't see me in the various flamewars or spats that
occasionally occur here. I try to make some valuable
contributions here as well as some entertaining ones.

On the surface Steve, Gary's lack of response has grown larger
that the response itself. Had he replied at any point, even
to say that he was just exercising his prerogative as
President, that would at least have been a polite reply. I,
and everyone else, may not have liked it, but he would have
been what I call a "stand up guy" and answered the question,
even if I/we did not agree with him. Instead, now, it appears
that we, as members, who ask a question may be treated
cavalierly and not even be given any reply.

Perhaps I should know better, however, when candidates came in
rcc prior to the vote and became semi-regulars, I thought
maybe these individuals were different and not just smaller
versions of real politicians. I still hope this is the case.
I'm growing more disheartened by the other possibility though
at this moment.

President Lewis, hopefully, may well yet give me reason to
validate future faith in his performance. My request was
pretty simple at first, now, any type of a public reply would
be welcome.

Steve, thanks for your thoughts.



--
I hope we can all be good neighbors online!

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:29:04 -0400 (EDT), (Steven
Preston) is alleged to have written:

Bob,

While I have my fair share of criticism for the executives of the
ANA, what makes you think that Gary Lewis owes you or anyone else a
public explanation for his actions? I like and respect Barry Stupler for
what he's done but like it or not, the president has the right to
appoint whomever he likes. If nothing else, any explanation should be
sent to ANA members since we're the only ones with any possible right to
request an explanation. Elected officials in this country are held
accountable to their constituency by the election process itself. Once
elected, they are under no obligation to explain themselves. If an
official's actions are sufficiently aberrent then they can be recalled.
I don't want to sound as though I support Gary's decision (I don't) or
that I'm trying to tell you what you should or should not do (also not
true); just consider that these repeated strident demands (or
"requests") for a public accounting may be counter-productive.

-Steve



Like Bob, I think we have to agree to disagree here. I agree that Gary has the
power to appoint his own team. I agree that, as president, he should do so.

But he represents us, the ANA members. And I think that anything he does should
be for the betterment of the ANA. While I don't believe that replacing Barry was
in the best interests of the ANA, Remy Bourne is a good man by all accounts. I
want to hear Gary's reasons for taking this action. I want to hear why he
thought Remy could do a better job than Barry.

As for being counterproductive, maybe. Gary has shown absolutley no inclination
to answer questions of this nature and IMO he needs to start doing so. We've
asked nicely, we've begged, we've asked not so nicely, we've flamed. And we've
got nowhere. Pressure of this nature hasn't been tried before, so maybe it will
work. I suspect not. Gary has never gave a specific answer to a question
regarding his personal position of consumer protection, only rather bland
generalities.

Bruce (ANA member with a right to request an explanation)

ANA 162074 ( You can check)

(Steven Preston) wrote in message ...
Bob,

While I have my fair share of criticism for the executives of the
ANA, what makes you think that Gary Lewis owes you or anyone else a
public explanation for his actions? I like and respect Barry Stupler for
what he's done but like it or not, the president has the right to
appoint whomever he likes. If nothing else, any explanation should be
sent to ANA members since we're the only ones with any possible right to
request an explanation. Elected officials in this country are held
accountable to their constituency by the election process itself. Once
elected, they are under no obligation to explain themselves. If an
official's actions are sufficiently aberrent then they can be recalled.
I don't want to sound as though I support Gary's decision (I don't) or
that I'm trying to tell you what you should or should not do (also not
true); just consider that these repeated strident demands (or
"requests") for a public accounting may be counter-productive.

-Steve



If a politician or elected hobby leader feels that way I would love for them
to just come right out and say it. I doubt anyone at the ANA who feels that way
has the guts to do it. So, instead we get into these second guessing games
about what is really going on behind the scenes at the ANA.

Ian,
In general I would agree with you. However, Gary, and others, opened
up discussion by campaigning here. If RCC is an appropriate place to
make campaign promises and address issues pre-election, should it be
different post-election?
Barry

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:33:56 +0100, Ian
wrote:

This forum is not an appropriate forum for the conduct of ANA business.
While you may be an ANA member, i can think of at least one person who
isn't, and who could not give a hoot if ANA business is never ever
raised again in this forum.

You ANA members might even be in the minority as far as this forum is
concerned (and as far as i know).

To me, it's a bit like demanding that PCGS explains their staffing
policies on this forum. There's little difference in my eyes. Come to
think of it, there is no difference.

Ian

Bruce Hickmott wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:29:04 -0400 (EDT), (Steven
Preston) is alleged to have written:


Bob,

While I have my fair share of criticism for the executives of the
ANA, what makes you think that Gary Lewis owes you or anyone else a
public explanation for his actions? I like and respect Barry Stupler for
what he's done but like it or not, the president has the right to
appoint whomever he likes. If nothing else, any explanation should be
sent to ANA members since we're the only ones with any possible right to
request an explanation. Elected officials in this country are held
accountable to their constituency by the election process itself. Once
elected, they are under no obligation to explain themselves. If an
official's actions are sufficiently aberrent then they can be recalled.
I don't want to sound as though I support Gary's decision (I don't) or
that I'm trying to tell you what you should or should not do (also not
true); just consider that these repeated strident demands (or
"requests") for a public accounting may be counter-productive.

-Steve




Like Bob, I think we have to agree to disagree here. I agree that Gary has the
power to appoint his own team. I agree that, as president, he should do so.

But he represents us, the ANA members. And I think that anything he does should
be for the betterment of the ANA. While I don't believe that replacing Barry was
in the best interests of the ANA, Remy Bourne is a good man by all accounts. I
want to hear Gary's reasons for taking this action. I want to hear why he
thought Remy could do a better job than Barry.

As for being counterproductive, maybe. Gary has shown absolutley no inclination
to answer questions of this nature and IMO he needs to start doing so. We've
asked nicely, we've begged, we've asked not so nicely, we've flamed. And we've
got nowhere. Pressure of this nature hasn't been tried before, so maybe it will
work. I suspect not. Gary has never gave a specific answer to a question
regarding his personal position of consumer protection, only rather bland
generalities.

Bruce (ANA member with a right to request an explanation)

ANA 162074 ( You can check)



--
Note - Remove the X from my e-mail address for direct replies

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:33:56 +0100, Ian is alleged
to have written:

This forum is not an appropriate forum for the conduct of ANA business.
While you may be an ANA member, i can think of at least one person who
isn't, and who could not give a hoot if ANA business is never ever
raised again in this forum.



Many folks feel like that. However, the ANA is a force in American Numismatics
at least. Thus discussions of the ANA are on topic IMO. However, much like the
FS and WTB posts, perhaps it would be nice if we started using an ANA tag in the
header so those who don't care can easily killfile the threads.

To me, it's a bit like demanding that PCGS explains their staffing
policies on this forum. There's little difference in my eyes. Come to
think of it, there is no difference.


Well, there is. The ANA is a not for profit group of which I'm a member. I vote
in the elections. PCGS is for profit firm. I can vote with my business, but
unless I buy stock I have no right to demand answers. And this isn't a staffing
issue, like who/how many are employed by the ANA library. This is more like the
choice of a Cabinet member. Even the President of the US takes the time to
explain why his choice is good and what has choice will do. thanks all I'm
asking here.

Bruce



Ian

Bruce Hickmott wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:29:04 -0400 (EDT), (Steven
Preston) is alleged to have written:


Bob,

While I have my fair share of criticism for the executives of the
ANA, what makes you think that Gary Lewis owes you or anyone else a
public explanation for his actions? I like and respect Barry Stupler for
what he's done but like it or not, the president has the right to
appoint whomever he likes. If nothing else, any explanation should be
sent to ANA members since we're the only ones with any possible right to
request an explanation. Elected officials in this country are held
accountable to their constituency by the election process itself. Once
elected, they are under no obligation to explain themselves. If an
official's actions are sufficiently aberrent then they can be recalled.
I don't want to sound as though I support Gary's decision (I don't) or
that I'm trying to tell you what you should or should not do (also not
true); just consider that these repeated strident demands (or
"requests") for a public accounting may be counter-productive.

-Steve




Like Bob, I think we have to agree to disagree here. I agree that Gary has the
power to appoint his own team. I agree that, as president, he should do so.

But he represents us, the ANA members. And I think that anything he does should
be for the betterment of the ANA. While I don't believe that replacing Barry was
in the best interests of the ANA, Remy Bourne is a good man by all accounts. I
want to hear Gary's reasons for taking this action. I want to hear why he
thought Remy could do a better job than Barry.

As for being counterproductive, maybe. Gary has shown absolutley no inclination
to answer questions of this nature and IMO he needs to start doing so. We've
asked nicely, we've begged, we've asked not so nicely, we've flamed. And we've
got nowhere. Pressure of this nature hasn't been tried before, so maybe it will
work. I suspect not. Gary has never gave a specific answer to a question
regarding his personal position of consumer protection, only rather bland
generalities.

Bruce (ANA member with a right to request an explanation)

ANA 162074 ( You can check)

In article , Ian spoke
thusly...
This forum is not an appropriate forum for the conduct of ANA business.

I have a tendency to agree with you on that to a certain extent. The
ANA needs its own forum on its website but that is another issue.

However, I think it is unfortunate that you would have to say it and
not the person who is being asked the question (IF he has seen the
question or been informed of it, of course.)

It certainly wouldn't take Yap-sized stones to say:
"I'm sorry Bob but we am not going to discuss those kinds of issues
in this venue."

While you may be an ANA member, i can think of at least one person who
isn't, and who could not give a hoot if ANA business is never ever
raised again in this forum.

You ANA members might even be in the minority as far as this forum is
concerned (and as far as i know).

I think you are on thinner ice here...at least with me anyway. If I
received a Golden Dollar in change for every topic I don't give a
hoot about here that is related in some way shape of form to coins or
collecting...

To me, it's a bit like demanding that PCGS explains their staffing
policies on this forum. There's little difference in my eyes. Come to
think of it, there is no difference.

There are some. However, if they were posting here in a PCGS capacity
or here to enlisting PCGS shareholders, I would not feel bad for them
if they were asked about their staffing problems or any other issue.


--
Stu Miller
Coins in the News - Coin Newspaper (Updated Daily):
http://www.TheStujoeCollection.com/news.htm

Bruce Hickmott wrote:

Grant them enough power to get on with the
job and without having to refer back to the general membership
(providing them with `reasons') everytime they do something or want to
do something.



Everytime? We've been questioning ONE issue.

what if someone else was behaving the same way on another issue.....and
another....and another?

I dunno how many decisions have
been taken since Gary took office, but I'll bet it's more than 100 by now.

I would hope so, but why the focus on just this one (as opposed to the
other 99 or 199 or whatever)? I suspect there are porbably others with a
bit more wide swee[ping effect than swapping roles. Who's keeping tabs
on the other decisions and why are they not being queried too?.....

That's not riding their backs.

Maybe not to you, but it sure does come across as looking like it to
me....and I don't have any axe to grind on the matter.

The only reason it seems like we're doing that is
because they won't discuss the ONE issue we requested they discuss. And it's
really only two questions that they SHOULD already have answered:

1) Why is Remy a better choice than Barry?

I would put it that no right minded individual would answer that
question in an open forum.

....but i will.....:-). I'll answer it in a politically correct manner,
the way I would if I were Gary. I'll leave you to fill in the gaps.

"After ( ) years of excellent work in his capacity as ( ) I thought
that it would be a good idea to have a fresh viewpoint and new thinking
in that area, besides with ( ) obvious talents I really do feel
obliged to ensure that his skiils, expertise and networking abilities
are best placed to serve the ANA and its membership. From my viewpoint
the ( ) role he has been assigned to is vital to the ongoing success
of the ANA and I am absolutely convinced that ( ) is the most
appropriate individual available to ensure the maximum potential is
achieved for the ANA and its membership. I'm sure you will agree that it
is good management practice to ensure that those best suited to the
tasks at hand are properly matched, and I am sure ( ) will rise to
these new challenges as well as being supportive of ( ) in her new
role. As President I have a responsibility to ensure the ongoing
development of the individuals in the team, the roles needing to be
performed, as well as the ongoing development of the `team' as a whole.
I trust that we will all see the benefits of a job well done in due
course. Give it time"

2) What plan does Gary/Remy have to advance the cause of Numismatic Consumer
protection?


I would give a little time to the formulation of an active operational
plan that ties in cogently with the strategic objectives of the ANA
(whatever they are).

Both are very reasonable questions.

The second is definitely a very reasonable question to ask *and* expect
to receive an answer to. The first I do not agree with as being
reasonable to answer in this forum. I wouldn't (answer) if I were Gary
other than by a blandness such as I have suggested.

Obviously, Gary has the answer to #1 or he
wouldn't have replaced Barry. Obviously, Gary has the answer to #2 or he
wouldn't have placed Remy in the position. Obviously, Gary does not feel that
his reasons can withstand public viewing without negatively impacting him or his
plans.

I don't know Gary from Adam, but i would suggest that there are numerous
reasons why Gary may have wanted to change people /roles. Staleness
might be one. Fear of it going stale might be another. Skills best
employed elsewhere, yet another......heck I can think of hundreds of
reasons. Some of which I wouldn't want to mention.


Perhaps an appropriate test of Gary (as far as RCC's ANA membership is
concerned) would be if he remains true to his position in relation to
campaign issues. As an impartial bystander, I would say that it is
unreasonable to demand that he provide his reasoning behind decisions he
has recently made in this particular forum.


Then which forum would be appropriate? Must we travel to an ANA convention to
ask questions?


I refer back to my orignal premise that he has been elected to do a job.
let the results of how he does it speak for itself. Criticise the
results if they are inappropriate.


If he is to be judged at
all, judge him by how effective (or ineffective) he is in the
performance of his duties, and over the course - not just the first five
minutes.



here, we agree.



For those of us RCC'ers who are not ANA members, the matter really is
none of our business and we certainly have even less right to any
response from him on matters ANA.

Ian



I would very much like to think that the ANA benefits the entire hobby, not just
ANA members. I would like to think that a non-ANA member could ask a hobby
related question and not be asked for his membership number to get an answer.


If I have a coin related question in this forum. it matters not to me
whether my questions are answered by a `non' member, an ANA member, or
an Office bearer within the ANA. If however I were to ask questions of
the ANA directly and they asked for my membership number before
responding, I would still understand.

Ian

Bruce

Then which forum would be appropriate? Must we travel to an ANA convention
to
ask questions?



I'm pretty convinced that there is some
kind of gag order at the ANA not to discuss anything that could be considered
controversial in any kind
of open forum such as this.