From Emmett Plant comes an interesting development that could jeopardize our tax exempt status. Read on and feel free to comment or stick your head back in the sand... It's up to you.

* * *

It's interesting to note that the last thing FADM Lizard wrote on the SFI-L was an announcement about the Region 9 RC on September 9th, 2009. He hasn't said anything there since. I thought this was kind of crazy, so I checked the SFI website and he posted a note last Monday. It didn't have anything to do with 'Star Trek,' or even STARFLEET. It was a 'cheap plug' (his words, not mine) for his acting work and website.

Check this out from Article 1, Section 3 of the STARFLEET Constitution:

STARFLEET is a not-for-profit organization incorporated under the laws of the State of North Carolina. No member of STARFLEET, of whatever classification, shall have any interest in, or right to, the property and assets of STARFLEET.

It looks to me as though Sal has taken quite an interest in the SFI website, which is undoubtedly STARFLEET's property. I would be okay with this if everyone had the exact same opportunity to promote whatever they wanted prominently on the site. I would probably be a lot more lenient if this came in the middle of a flurry of activity from Sal's desk that promoted STARFLEET and 'Star Trek' fandom.

Instead, he chooses not to communicate with the membership-at-large (and Star Trek fandom community) other than to promote his work website. It sure seems to me that at least one member matters.

* * *

** FOR WIDEST DISTRIBUTION **

Hello to all STARFLEET members.

STARFLEET Academy is quite the busy place. I was able to see such an
uplift in completed courses from our Institute monthly reports.  Just as
an example, in July the Institute of Military Studies had 473 graduates.
IOMS continues to expand the number of course available for STARFLEET
members and many of the members seem to be responding by taking new
courses as soon as they are available.

Currently, we have 1349 courses live and pending. The average monthly
completed exams from Aug 1, 08 through June 30th 09 (11 full months) was
809. (8,897
total) Approximate numbers, but pretty darn close.

Someone asked about the Boothby levels:   There is no one at the 900
level, yet, except Truman Temple who had over 1100 when he passed away.
Currently, we have:
3 over 850
2 over 800
2 over 750
2 over 700
2 over 650
2 over 600
2 over 550
2 over 500
1 over 450
4 over 400
3 over 350
6 over 300
9 over 250
14 over 200
19 over 150
41 over 100
88 over 50
5 at 50, although the list cuts off at a certain point, so there will be
more 50's than listed at this current time.

Barbara Paul, Director of the College of Archaeology and Anthropology
would like to just remind you that her college is alive and kicking even
though it is about lives and cultures of the past.

This college is meant to be for fun and in no way certifies you as a real
life archaeologist. We have tried to make it as real and as much fun as we
could while still challenging you every step of the way. Your feedback and
suggestions are always welcome as it is by this means that we’re able to
improve this and the other courses. This college is designed in such a way
that you will have to take and pass Level 1 before you can move on to
Level 2 and so on to Level 4.
       Archaeology & Anthropology are very exciting and rewarding fields if you
love a mystery; enjoy searching for facts and uncovering past and lost
civilizations throughout the Federation and beyond. This discipline will
allow you to learn how a dig or excavation is accomplished, what’s needed
to begin one, how to identify and handle artifacts and allow you to head
up a team and uncover artifacts from the planet.  You will be expected to
tell us what will be needed as you complete your field work for your
final Certification Level. While this course is designed for On-Line
access, we are working on being able to work with those of you without
computer access. This off-line course will cost you the amount of
shipping and handling of material. Please enclose a SASE for your
certificate with your order.  fuzzywolfpaws@bellsouth.net

As always, for more information as well as applying to courses, check out
our website: http://www.academy.sfi.org/



Peg Pellerin
SFA Commandant
academy@sfi.org

Greetings Fleeters,

FLEETWATCH is very much dedicated to being a positive resource for information that all members of STARFLEET can use.

The recent formation of the ByLaws Committee has a list that is open to the public. This is in keeping with the new transparency that the administration wishes to start doing so that the members can see the process and email the members of the committee with their input and ideas. FLEETWATCH applauds the administration for opening the list up so that members can keep up with the discussion on the formation of the documents that will shape our organization's future.

The list is read only for members that are not on the committee.

So one again, FLEETWATCH is pleased to bring you, the members, the information you need to be empowered to have input on the formation of our future documents.

The archives are located at lists.sfi.org/pipermail/bylaws-l-sfi.org/

Be sure to keep up with the discussions and feel free to send this link to your fellow members.

Serving the interests of the members...

-FW

Greetings Fleeters,

Today's topic is the trend we seem to be setting for kicking members out of STARFLEET. Although this is really only a rare occurance and has only happened a few times in the history of the organization, the current ECAB seems to actually want to kick members out of STARFLEET for various reasons. Some legal, some not so much more than personal vendetta.

We saw Scott Akers constantly harassed by the Admin beginning two months into Sal's term with a motion made by Region 1 to "Temporarily suspend" Scott pending the outcome of an IG investigation that was currently in process. This was seconded by Region 5 and even after being counseled by the JAG at the time, VAdm Greg Totter as to the fact that it was against the member's rights, Sal as chairman of the AB allowed the motion to proceed anyway. Cooler heads prevailed and the motion did not carry even though a number of AB members who were obviously not well versed in the STARFLEET Constitution voted for the temporary suspension anyway.

This was but the first in a series of attempts to either kick Scott Akers out of STARFLEET, or harass him to the point where he quit which was the end result. Just a few months after that motion failed, the EC voted to demote Scott Akers one grade in rank (which until that time had only been done to Dan McGinnis and maybe one other member. Scott was not afforded his right to due process and never got the chance to appeal the demotion. As a comparison, when Mike Urvand and Kim Donohoe were found to be complicit in "VicGate", they were both demoted but allowed to appeal and their ranks were reinstated... therefore no real punishment to them ever really occured.

Then, the IG illegally investigated Scott Akers on a charge of Libel (which is a real life crime and as such the IG is prevented from involving himself in such matters as they are up to the real world authorities to investigate) and the decision was made by the AB to suspend Scott for a period of three years. Scott Akers resigned from STARFLEET before the final vote was tallied after realizing that he could not "fight city hall" and that the powers that be would stop at nothing in their continued harassment of this member.

I was recently libeled in a similar fashion on the Official STARFLEET list by a member who claimed that I was a part of the lawsuit recently filed against STARFLEET by Martin Lessem. While even Martin admiited that I had no part in the lawsuit or its' filing, that still did not stop this member from demanding that I pay to reimburse STARFLEET for the legal fees it incurred in dealing with said suit. I was contacted by members of my crew wanting to know if I had any part in the suit and have received more than my fair share of hatemail which I have promptly deleted.

Because of the precedent set by the IG in the libel case against Scott Akers, I have requested and received an IG investigation with which I merely asked that the exact same set of standards used with the Akers case be used with mine. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The investigation is in progress so I cannot speak as to the specifics beyond what I have stated here in fairness to the process.

I myself made opinions on the region 4 list about the policies of the administration and Sal Lizard asked the IG to investigate me based on the fact that I had applied for the Judge Advocate General position and he felt that my opinions were not in the best interests of the members who could call upon the JAG to represent them. The IG refused and Sal then turned to the AB asking them to investigate me and interrupted the JAG vote more than once after motions and seconds had been made in order to sling enough mud on me to influence the AB to vote for someone else instead.

Many on the AB were amused when I pointed out that Sal had time to "monitor" my posts on a regional list but yet had no time to address the numerous questions about the legal documents that members of the AB had been asking him for OVER 18 MONTHS.

This all came to a crescendo at the ECAB meeting at the recent IC where the subject of the JAG position came up for a vote once again. This led to a tie vote from which Sal recused himself and allowed VCS Dave Blaser to break the tie. The fact that Dave and I have had more disagreements over the years than Sal and I have never came into question because I was not allowed to be in the room during the vote hence had no chance to tell the AB of the many issues that Dave and I have had over the years privately. To me, this was a big slap in the face and truthfully I would have rather had Sal break the tie, or Dave Blaser to man up and admit that he could not be unbiased in the matter and let it fall to the next in the chain of command, Jerry Tien.

You can be against the policies of an administration without "hating" the person making said policies, although some do not seem to be able to separate the two. I have been turned down from positions in STARFLEET because I was told that I was a "Sal Hater" and that would not be good for someone to hire me for a job in fleet based on my personal opinion and my right to express those opinions at every level of STARFLEET. In fairness one person said that they were merely joking, but I was not selected for the position despite my overwhelming qualifications.

Recently, an amended motion was put forth by an AB member (who shall remain unnamed) that any RC found to be derelict in their duties be KICKED OUT OF STARFLEET. Not removed from the AB... but removed from the organization. Other AB members are speaking out against this amended motion.

Other sources have told me that another outspoken member against Sal's policies has had his renewal sent back to him via PayPal. At this time in the interest of fairness I cannot confirm that but I am working hard to and if I find differently I will post a retraction here.

So we have Scott Akers, Chrissy Killian, Mike Urvand, Ricky Bruckman, Dave Lowe and myself, among others, who are or were at one time outspoken against the policies of the administration that have been suspended, fired illegally from their elected positions, asked to be investigated by the IG and AB for exercising their right to their opinion and operating a website that was for those who didn't agree with the policies of the administration.

Is this what we have become? An organization who is so into creating the morality police and enforcing the moral code of the few on the many? Have we lost our way so much that we have forgotten why we all joined STARFLEET to begin with?

We have become our own worst enemy.

Are the members now the 800lb Gorilla, or the administration trying to silence the opposition?

Discuss.

Greetings Fleeters!

As requested by many, here is some information regarding the recent lawsuit against STARFLEET: The International Star Trek Fan Association, Inc.

This post contains information regarding the specifics of the suit as well as links to the documentation and a short video from Mr. Lessem explaining why he took the actions he did and the process he used to do so.

The links to the documents regarding the lawsuit are located here:
Complaint
Motion

You need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the documents. You can download the free version from www.adobe.com

FLEETWATCH brings you this information in the interest of keeping the members of STARFLEET informed. Something which your EC, AB and COs should already be doing.

If you have further questions for Mr. Lessem, his email address is asimov_1@yahoo.com

You can feel free to discuss the issue here, but please remember to keep it civil.

-FW

Click on the video to hear the explanation in Mr. Lessem's own words.

Greetings Fleeters,

As many of you are aware, I have applied for the position of Judge Advocate General for STARFLEET. I have sent my application and my ideas on the department and what I would do with it if appointed by the Admiralty Board.

Were I to be appointed, I feel that it would be a conflict of interest for me to continue to maintain and oversee the FLEETWATCH blog due to its nature of being in opposition to the administration's policies and providing a forum where members can speak their minds about such.

As I have no fleet level position at the moment, I feel that I am justified in speaking out against the policies of the administration and helping others do the same as I have always been an advocate of member's rights. But were I to go back to serving on the fleet level, then I feel that I would have to distance myself in the interest of fairness in order to provide the best service to the membership as JAG that I could. No one takes any oaths of office or anything so binding, but I do believe that when you serve the fleet on the fleet level that you should do so with the intent of treating all members with the fairness that they deserve as members of STARFLEET.

Therefore I am seeking possible applicants to take over the FLEETWATCH site.

If you are interested, please send me an email at gumbysan@gmail.com with a statement of how you feel about FW and what you would do with it were I to turn it over to you.

Thank you for your time and attention,

--
-Gumby

Admiral Johnathan Simmons
XO: USS Stormbringer, NCC-74213
gumbysan@gmail.com

Members of STARFLEET,

I have been nominated for the position of STARFLEET Judge Advocate General along with John Christian from Region 5. The AB is currently debating the topic and will be voting soon.

Some have asked me to clarify what I would do with the JAG position were I selected to assume the duties of this post. Below are a few ideas that I have that I ask you to consider when making your decision.

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Not all instances need to bog down the already too busy AB with matters that can simply be resolved by apologies and documentation or some sort of compromise between the two parties that does not have to have the AB sign off or vote on it. Like if person A calls person B a name on a list and it goes to the IG... the IG and the JAG can work together with the parties to find a middle ground of compromise that will not entail the AB having to vote on member suspension or expulsion. There are many steps that can be taken before such extreme measures like suspension and expulsion are considered. These can range from a simple public apology that is documented under a "Three Strikes Rule" to a voluntary temporary demotion of one grade in rank for a certain period of time during which nothing bad happens and the offender is allowed to resume their original rank. I believe that this type of mediation could go a long way toward releiving the AB of having to deal with such matters when the body has much more critical items on its agenda.

DISCOVERY
In any adversarial system, there is a process known as "Discovery" wherein the prosecution turns over relevant proof to the defense so that a proper case can be made. In the case of the JAG Office, the IG and JAG could share information so that both sides of the issue can be brought to light with the intent of solving the issue at the ADR level mentioned above, or releasing a joint finding to the CS composed of both sides of the issue so that the CS will have the most information possible with which to render a decision.

REGIONAL JAG OFFICERS
I would like to see the JAG Officer be allowed to appoint one JAG Officer per region to help assist in investigations and dispute resolution. The reason behind this is simple... no one JAG officer can know everyone in fleet and to have someone local on the regional level would be a great asset towards helping interview witnesses and getting documentation prepared for a JAG report to the CS in conjunction with the corresponding IG report. Again, this involves the IG and JAG working together not as adversaries, but as a team designed to bring both sides of the story to light for the best possible resolution. The IG has the Deputy IG and Assistant IGs... therefore I believe that the JAG Office should be allowed to appoint similar officers to help in these areas.

COOPERATION
To many, the IG lives in a dark shell and conducts secret investigations that are only known to the IG and CS. This gives the membership the impression that these officers are the final say on what is presented to the EC or AB in any conflict. By utilizing the JAG Office as a cooperative unit in conjunction with the IG, then information can be exchanged and alternatives and compromised can be discussed before the final resolution or report is made to the CS and AB. Now I know that this will not always happen and I am a realist so I know that there will be times that the IG and JAG will have to work on opposite sides of an issue. But the idea here is to avoid that as much as possible and then only in extreme cases. Having these two offices working together to solve problems will take a lot of materia off the EC and AB's plate and allow them to concentrate on more important matters of administrating the Fleet and creating and implementing policy for the membership.

These are just some of the ideas that I have to make the JAG Office a more viable source of dispute resolution and to avoid any perception of "Court Marshal" Proceedings or any other derogatory opinions about the operational duties of the IG and JAG systems.

I hope this will show more of my intent and why I would hope that you find me the best qualified applicant for this position.

Below you will find my STARFLEET Resume.

Just a friendly reminder that anonymous postings are prohibited here on FLEETWATCH. If you are not an LJ member and would like to comment you can use the anonymous option, just please sign your comment with your name and chapter so that we know who you are.

We would appreciate no flaming, but we understand that sometimes topics can provoke passion in our readers, so please bear that in mind if you are new to this site.

Thanks!

-FW

FLEETWATCH has just been informed of the removal of Regional Coordinators from R4, R6 and R14 for "Failure to Report" by the sittinc CS, Sal Lizard.

As many of you are aware, this happened before in 1995 by then CS Dan McGinnis in an effort to stifle opposition to his regime.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

We are reliving those dark times now at this very moment. The Administration hides behind legal advice that it will not release to the membership even though the membership has been calling for this for over 15 months now.

The parallels between the Lizard and McGinnis regimes are many and some are available here on FLEETWATCH for you to peruse. I suggest that you read through the archives and learn of the dastardly deeds that this administration has committed in the attempt to usurp the rights of the membership and conduct its witch hunts and vendettas with impunity claming that the operating documents apply to everyone else but themselves.

Where will it all end? No one knows. This latest round of  "Shadow Government" tactics has not sat well with the membership, as evidenced on many lists throughout the fleet.

The time has come for change. Regime change. When the Administration blatantly acts in the worst interests of the organization and seeks to openly and illegally remove elected members from its Board of Directors then the time has come to show them the door.

The fact that this latest round of antics comes about a month before the annual business meeting at the International Conference is no coincidence. The Admin plans to introduce legislation that will radically change the way we operate and remove the safeguards that were put into place after the McGinnis regime tried to do exactly what the Lizard regime is doing currently.

Live by the lawyer... die by the lawyer. It will be Sal's legacy that he will leave behind as he surpasses Dan McGinnis and Mandi Livingston as the worst president in the history of this organization.

On another note, FLEETWATCH has received numerous emails regarding situations alleging that the administration has tampered with RC elections, fixed IG investigations to suit the desired outcome of the CS and that the IG is allowing confidential information to be leaked through family members who allow their passion to get the better of them. Something I myself have been guilty of - but I am not the IG and I am not entrusted to the confidential information that the IG is.

The appearance of a conflict of interest IS a conflict of interest. Based on the last 16 months, the policies of this regime are in and of themselves one conflict after another.

How many more chapters and members will we lose before Sal can have his 30 pieces of silver?

Time (and the ECAB meeting) will tell.

Comments welcomed.

-FW

Hidey ho, Fleeters,

If you have downloaded and read the most recent issue of the CQ, you may have noticed that FLEETWATCH was the subject of biased criticism on the part of the CS. This stems from documents that were reposted here from STARFLEET FAIL and given to me by an EX-EC member. These documents were from Sal's STARFLEET Attorney and concerned happenings that the membership were not made aware of. In the interest of public disclosure, I reposted those links here on FLEETWATCH so that the membership would be empowered with the knowledge that the EC wasn't telling them about things relating to policy and the harrassment of Scott Akers that have been an ongoing vendetta of this organization since 2 months into this administration's term.

Instead of reprinting here what was said, just read page 29 of CQ#152 and you will see that I am blamed for releasing this information when in reality it was already released and up for everyone to see. If I am guilty of anything, it is reposting what I was sent and what I found on another site after I made inquiries as to the validity of the information.

Knowledge is power and the membership deserves to know the truth behind the scenes of this administration and how they are trampling all over member's rights in their mad quest to change our governing documents to suit their political agenda of policing STARFLEET and ousting all those who do not subscribe to their political agenda.

I have respectfully asked that an apology and retraction be printed in the next CQ because of the damage to my reputation and my 18 years of working to make STARFLEET a better organization for us all.

Keep in mind that this is not the first time I have been blamed by the administration for things that I did not say or do. Sal's infamous "Threats to STARFLEET" letter was openly blamed on me by Sal on the official list when he said that I was collecting signatures to remove him. That was well over a year ago and to the best of my knowledge, not one signature has been officially collected on a formal VoC per the rules of the constitution.

More fear mongering.

When an administration that is elected and entrusted to look out for the rights of all members equally uses a different set of standards for those who support them versus those who do not, then a double standard is set. This administration has consistently used double standards to defend their agenda and will continue to do so until their term expires or they are voted out of office.

The thing they fear most is the truth. And that, my friends is what FLEETWATCH is all about.

The First Duty of every STARFLEET Officer.

Now I won't go into the multitude of questions asked about our governing documents being out of compliance with North Carolina or the many other questions that members have been repeatedly asking the administration for 15+ months. The fact remains that the administration has spent over 10K on legal fees with nary a thing to show for it. In fact, the AB had to recently approve another thousand dollars of your money so that the lawyer could write up a summary of our documents and where they are out of compliance. I ask you, shouldn't this have been done from the start? If you spent 10K on something, wouldn't you at least have documentation on what it was that your money went for? 

I believe in the "6P Rule" for leadership which dictates that "Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance".

Do you?

It is no secret that I have applied for the Judge Advocate General position in STARFLEET because I firmly believe that someone needs to be there to stand up for the rights of the membership. Some on the AB are using this blog as a means to tell others that I am against the organization and that I am not the best choice for the position simply because I have the guts to tell the truth to the members in a public forum. STARFLEET is not perfect. I doubt it will ever be. But until we have ethical leadership that puts the membership first before the agenda of the CS, we won't be headed in the right direction and our organiztion will suffer even more for it.

The paralells between this administration and the McGinnis administration have been well documented by many over the time since this administration took office. Look for yourself and see.

The biggest threat to this administration is not open blogs that do not allow anonymous attacks like we have seen in the past. The biggest threat to this administration is the truth.

This is merely my opinion. I leave it for you to decide.
 

-FW

As many have realized and pointed out to me recently, FLEETWATCH has not been updated in many months. The reasons for this are simple enough to understand. First, we have have changes in the EC with people who are communicative and are doing the job they were appointed to. Second, the CQ has been greatly improved visually and is getting out to the members on a timely basis. Third, membership numbers are starting to come back up due largely to the success of the new film and last but not least, we have not seen the frivolous spending on legal fees or needless letters to the membership that contain no time critical information but merely a propaganda tool designed to instill fear in the minds of the membership.

For these reasons and others, I have been less vocal and less critical of the administration because they are actually doing some things right. Many who know me know that I am fair and when I see a problem I speak out, but that on the flip side when I see progress I also speak out in praise of those who work hard to better our organization.

A few individuals have erroneously compared FLEETWATCH to Attack Sites such as Vic's Place, STARFLEET FAIL , TWEENDECKS and STARFLEET FAIL FAIL. Whereas each of those sites are speculatory and divisive in nature, FLEETWATCH is based in fact and does not allow anonymous posting or flaming. FLEETWATCH is merely a resource tool for the members to get information that would otherwise be denied them or spun into the agenda of the administration by one of its supporters.

Knowledge is power and the membership of STARFLEET deserves to be empowered to know what our elected and appointed leaders are doing and how their decisions impact the membership and the future of our organization.

Recently, Scott Akers was handed a punishment of a one rank demotion by the EC for Conduct Unbecoming an Officer based on the Officer's Code of Conduct that even the author of which stated that was never intended to be an enforcable code... rather guidelines to strive for. Even more recently, Mr. Akers was handed a 3 year suspension in a tie vote of the AB which the Commander STARFLEET used his tie breaking power to vote in favor of suspending this member. Now what people do not know is that the supposed infraction of slander that Scott Akers was tried and convicted for was a real life criminal matter that the IG should not have investigated (Read the IG manual regarding real life crimes and the IG's jurisdiction in such matters). What is also not known is that the previous IG had been requested to investigate this matter which occured over 3 years ago and told the Commander STARFLEET that the IG is not tasked to investigate real world crimes and if such were actually committed that it would be a matter for the real world authorities to handle... not a not for profit corporation that imitates a fan club.

Which brings me to the point... the AB has just set a very dangerous precedent in voting for the suspension of Scott Akers. Suspension is not defined in the Membership Handbook, nor the Constitution. Suspension has been used previously (even in the case of the person who brought the complaint against Scott Akers to the CS) and was overturned by the ECAB at IC07 because it was found that the suspensions were undefined and the matters were not handelled correctly by the AB in their rush to judgement.

So now we are at a turning point. Whenever someone calls someone a name on an email list, said member risks his or her "career" in STARFLEET and all the work that they may have done for the organization for as long as they have been a member. In Scott Aker's case, none of his contributions were taken into account during the administration's constant 15 month harassment and persecution of Mr. Akers. The night of the long knives were rendered sharply and without thought of the repercussions of the actions of the AB.

The AB is supposed to be the check and balance to the EC, but it appears that the AB is becoming a rubber stamp to the political agenda of the administration. These are the same folks that tried illegally to kick Mr. Akers out of STARFLEET 3 months into this administration's term. These are the same folks that approved an official list with rules that violate the rights of every member of STARFLEET. These are the same folks that in my opinion think that they are doing right by the membership, but lack the experience of being an AB member and fully understanding what that responsibility entails.

Now I have been an AB member and an EC member and have more qualifications for STARFLEET leadership than I have space to display them. I have made countless contributions over my 18 years as a member and I have helped to bring many new chapters and members to this fine organization (ever read the START or MOM Manuals?).

So now I have applied for the position of Judge Advocate General, STARFLEET. This is a position that is poorly defined and has little power when contrasted to the power of the IG, which sits on the other side of the fiction courtroom. The IG works for the CS... therefore the JAG should work for the member and have access to the same information and be given the same power to advocate for the member that the IG has to conduct those infamous secret investigations that we have all come to know and loathe.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that the IG is not doing the job that the CS has tasked him with. Rather that the IG should know the boundaries of his position and what he is and is not allowed by the MHB to do.

Many are telling me that I am meeting resistance on the AB because of my stance against some of the administration's decisions, my participation in STARFLEET FAIL (which was always under my own name and never anonymous like some of the administraition's former EC members and most staunch supporters) and the fact that FLEETWATCH shares information that makes some of the leadership look bad by exposing their mistakes in judgement.

I would think that the AB would want a JAG that has the AB and EC experience that our membership deserves to advocate on their behalf. I would not think that the AB would want a JAG who has never served in an position of responsibility on a fleet level. I also would not think that the AB would want a JAG who would be a rubber stamp for the administration.

So, talk to your RCs and get involved. Ask them questions about the candidates and their STARFLEET experience and qualifications and ask them who they think would serve the interests of the members who are suppose to matter and not the special interests of the administration and leadership's agenda.

After all, isn't this YOUR STARFLEET TOO?

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Admiral Johnathan Simmons
Director, FLEETWATCH

In a recent post by one "T'Plon" of Region 6, the following was revealed...

Capt. T'Plon Makh-zhuksu to Official SFI List

Dec 13

Greetings,

[snip]
[snip]

Neal, you wanted a list?  Here you go:

"Gumby"
Emmet Plant
Tony Lopes
Tony Rowley
Rahadyan Sastrowardoyo
Neal F. Fischer
Dave Lowe
Chrissy Killian
Martin Lessem
Michael Dugas
Mark H. Anbinder
Matthew Baillie

Are there others?  Probably, but this was just a quick list.

Hmm, do you see a theme here?  I know I do.

Capt. T'Plon Makh-zhuksu, SCC# 61084
tplon2001@gmail.com
Commanding Officer, USS Vre'kasht NCC-33187

* * * 

The theme I see here is that anyone with the guts to speak out against the injustices and willful disregard for our rules by this farce of an administration are the ones who are constantly harassed by those who have partaken of the kool aid.

I found it highly amusing that I myself top the list of this "Dirty Dozen" and I consider myself in good company in spite of the fact that there are a great many more who should have made this list such as Scott Akers, Liz Woolf, Ricky Bruckman, Todd Brugmans and Kirylyn Dreamer, among others.

I am also impressed that she spelled Tim's name right... thank the stars for copy/paste!

The Cult of Personality will stop at nothing.

Comments welcomed...

-Illuminatus Primus

FLEETWATCH was very disturbed to receive the following email from CS Sal Lizard. It was directed to Dave Blaser and other members of the Admiralty Board just a few weeks ago. We believe this lends great insight into the thought processes of Mr. Lizard and the lies that he is spreading in his attempt to further divide our organization.

For example, I am also a member of the 501st and have many, many friends in the Legion and they have their share of troublemakers there that have remained part of the legion for years. Altho I am not a member of STARFLEET COMMAND, I have many friends who are. SFC also has its share of troublemakers just as every organization on the face of the planet does.  What Sal says below about the leaders of the 501st and STARFLEET COMMAND telling him “We get rid of troublemakers in our organization” is a bald faced lie.

Another example of Sal's lies is the part where he tells Dave that his email is the only one he received asking him to resign. I know for a fact this is another of Sal's famous lies because I myself have sent him emails asking him to resign for the good of the organization. I also know of a few others who have done the same. Again, more lies from our paranoid quasi leader.

Read his rant to the AB for yourself in his own words, then make up your own mind about the content of his message as CS and this disturbed individual.

Oh, and contrary to what Sal's paranoia states in his last sentence, FLEETWATCH is not an "Anti-STARFLEET Blog", in fact FLEETWATCH is quite the contrary and very PRO-STARFLEET..

Comments welcomed...

Admiral Johnathan Simmons
Director, FLEETWATCH

* * * * *

From: FADM Sal Lizard
To: Ab-l@sfi.org
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Ab-L] SFI-L

Dave,

Now let *me* vent!

What have I said that was incorrect? Does the truth hurt? I am criticised for the SFI-L and members there are asking me to do something to keep the peace there. There is lots of misinformation and assumptions that need to be clarified.

On a daily basis, I get more letters of support from members of STARFLEET than I get letters of complaint (unless you count the too numerous to count emails from a few who seem determined to keep things stirred up.

You have accused me of extremism and yet, I’ve only done what previous CS’s have done, ran the EC, paid the bills, and promote members. Neither I nor my EC have kicked anyone out of STARFLEET, demoted anyone, or even pushed for needed changes in the Constitution — yet. But you paint me as this terrible person who has the sole responsibility to heal STARFLEET. You know, I have offered an olive brance to the “opposition” on several occassions but there come a time when the tree starts to die from loosing its branches. I have turned the other cheeck so many time my jaws hurt.

As I’ve said before, when I was elected, I was told that if I Cooperated with the “political machine” of STARFLEET, I could have an easy tenure as CS. Now you tell me that STARFLEET needs a moderate in charge. You are also a candidate for the VCS position so i should assume that if you take that spot you’ll constantly be trying to get me to step down so you can be the CS?

I’m a big fan of Robert Heinlein and his fictional character Lazarus Long reminds me of one of my greatest hearoes and mentors in my formative years when they both said, more or less, “Moderation is for monks, take big bites in life.” I am not a moderate, and I never ran as one.

Moderate attitudes have gotten this organization where it is. STARFLEET has been bad-mouthed by its members and other groups long before I took over as CS. Moderation is what allowed members to hurt each other and get away with it. moderation is what allows members to post internal, confidential STARFLEET information on public websites, moderation is what allows a former corporate officer to break the confidence of his position. Moderation is what’s hurting this organization!

Damn it! Somebody needs to make a stand! How did STARFLEET ever survive without the Interenet?!? I’ll tell you how, the members focused more on their chapters and regions. Most of our contact in STARFLEET was with other members in our own immediate (or drivable) area and when we heard from HQ it was in the Communique or from our regional coordinator. The Constitution hasn’t changed and yet you and “the online social club” expect me to meet you on your terms or get out of office?!

I was elected as the CS amidst complaints from the online community that I wouldn’t “hang out” with them. But I still won more than twice as many votes as my closest “moderate” competitor! What about my rights as the CS? I don’t recall ever giving them up. And what would happen if the regions started acting like the online community and demanding that I attend *their* functions? You can argue that it costs me money to travel on the national highways but not the cyber highway but if i have to take time away from my livelihood to answer all of the questions that some online members like to barrage me with, then I still pay.

And if I’m hurting STARFLEET so much, why isn’t a member who sits in the chat areas bad-mouthing STARFLEET while building up his own organization?

Yeah, I’m gonna step down — NOT!! I promised my supporters that I would work for the good of the whole STARFLEET, not cover and crawl away because some small, but very loud, individuals call for it.

By the way, Dave, to date, yours is the only email I’ve received asking me to step down. All the rest were directed at inciting members.

For you that don’t like the tone of my message, I’m sorry. But I’m pissed off and it’s about time I quit being the gentle Santa and start acting like I promised during the election. Which i won, by the way. A leader also has to stand up for himself aginst the opposition. Until my term ends or I get impeached, I’m not quitting STARFLEET and I’m not going to let the malcontents who lost the election make everyone else suffer. People may resist change but change is inevitable. If this organization doesn’t change, or won’t change, it will suffer and die.

We are the leaders and it’s up to all of us to help those changes occur not retard them. If I’m going to communicate, I’m going to communicate honestly. I’m not going to “pussy-foot around” just because the truth might hurt somebody’s feelings. This STARFLEET is not in sync with the needs of the membership because it is so slow to change. During my campaign, I spoke about how slowly change comes to STARFLEET and that I would bring about those changes more quickly. Some members ask when I’m going to quit dragging my feet.

I also hear members talk about how other groups are growing. They say that we need to talk to other organizations to see what they are doing right. well, I’ve talked to leaders of the 501st and Starfleet Command and the very first thing they told me was that they felt STARFLEET was doomed because of all of the crap we put up with — “We get rid of troublemakers in our organization” was more or less the answer from both of these leaders.

Now, can I still count on my ability to be honest, and sometimes blunt with this body or should I wonder which of you will now post this one, or leak it to a public anti-STARFLEET blog?

Sal Lizard,
CS@SFI.Org

Recently, the AB passed motion AB08-06 "Revised Academy Policy and Procedures". This, in effect, gives the power to the Academy to restrict the level of participation of STARFLEET members who are "found" guilty of cheating on open book academy exams.

You can read the motion and see how your region voted by going to:
http://historian.sfi.org/AB

This motion was railroaded through the AB by Admiral Peg Pellerin after *2* cases of supposed cheating occured although no timeframe was mentioned. We watched this transpire on the ECAB list and everytime the rights of the member or the fact that in order to enact this resolution, a vote of the general membership would be required was not good enough for Admiral Pellerin, who sought to browbeat those who objected and to constantly rewrite the verbiage of the motion until it passed the kool-aid litmus test. In fact, she said that she didn't want to wait the time it would take for the membership to vote.

2 cases of alleged cheating on open book exams derail and defocus the entire AB from issues that are far more important and critical to our organization so that Admiral Pellerin can enact punishment of members in direct violation of the constitution... and the AB let her get away with this?

Sadly, yes.

The AB voted 13-3-0 to enact this policy which is in direct violation of the constitution because it restricts the rights of the member to participate to the extent desired in all STARFLEET services. And no matter what one tells you, the Academy is just a *service* to the membership designed for entertainment.

FLEETWATCH is appalled that this makes the second time that the Admiralty Board has voted against the rights of the member (the Scott Akers fiasco being the first).

Which begs the question... If the majority of the AB is not looking out for the rights of the membership and is basically the EC's welcome mat... who is looking out for us and our rights?

The AB is not Sal's personal rubber stamp. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is a check and balance system. So far they are writing the checks and we are paying the balance with our membership dues, donations, and now our membership rights

FLEETWATCH commends the RCs of Regions 4, 11 and 12 for remembering the constitution and for upholding the rights of the members. The other regional coordinators need to seriously rethink thier positions and read the constitution before giving the power to punish members to service departments such as the Academy in clear violation of our constitution.

No Academy is an Island.

Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...
But wouldn't you think that we have plenty of more pressing issues to deal with and questions that have gone unanswered for months, rampant irresponsible spending on legal advice that according to the CS "Was not acted on in the best fashion", and of course the continued lack of services being performed by EC members such as CompOps, OPS to include website information that is months our of date and DB updates regarding chapters who have decommissioned yet still have not been removed as of this entry.

Add to the above that the much promised "Monthly VR" is out of date and that ShOC is relying on its' "backup" site which in also sorely lacking in timeliness. The SFI.ORG site is behind in updates and even the Academy website is having a series of its' own issues, yet the cheating policy must take precedent. Why?

We have witnessed repeated poor decision after poor decision from our leadership over the last 11 months and the time has come for change. Do we allow our leadership to consistently trample upon our rights as paying members or do we organize and start fighting back against these injustices?

Perhaps it is time to use the power of the constitution to petition for removal of these EC officers that are not doing thier jobs and start a formal Vote of Confidence on CS Sal Lizard who will be even less communicative now that we are about to enter the Christmas season.

How much longer must we stand and accept such incompetence and ignorance from our elected leadership? How long must we be walked on by our RCs who are inexperienced and choose to ride on the SalBoat?

Comments welcomed... Please remember to sign your post even if you are an LJ member.

-FW

Members of STARFLEET,

Many remember "Vic's Place" from the last election. It was an anonymous blog where cyberbullies posting as "Vic Fontaine" lambasted anyone and everyone who stood against them, to include using information that was only given to very small circles of people. Many members were engaged in this free for all blogsite and some members experienced very real damage to their lives, most notably Dave Lowe of Region Two.

When Mike Urvand was fired from the Lizard Administration as Chief of Operations and replaced by VAdm. Kim Donohoe, many had already speculated that he knew something as to the identity of "Vic" and that he may have even been complicit in the anonymous cyberbullying of STARFLEET members while hiding behind a pseudonym.

Recently, FLEETWATCH learned the following information, posted publicly on an open blog at http://starfleetfail.com/sal-lizard-on-vic/#comments...

Mike Urvand Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

I was sitting here at work and realized that Trillian, the IM I use here, logs all IMs. You’ll never guess the little exchange that I got for posterity. I am redacting one of the names to protect one person who really isn’t doing much in fleet anymore..

Session Start (commmu@hotmail.com:Kimi): Wed Feb 20 09:11:28 2008

[10:39]Kimi: I heard from XXXXX.
[10:40] Kimi: She didn’t change the password she said, so we have no idea who’s controlling Vic.
[10:40] Mike Urvand: lovely
[10:40] Kimi: She didn’t tell me who all she gave it to. I’m trying not to let it bother me. I wish I could be more like you.

I’m not sure that Sal will ever see this, but I can now say to Mr. Nowlin…you asked for proof. Here it is.

* * * 

I personally commend Admiral Urvand for having the character to come forward at last with this information. Now that we know that Vice Admiral Kim Donohoe and Mike Urvand were two of the three "Vic"s, our investigation turns to who the mysterious woman is that masqueraded as the third "Vic".

We also call upon Fleet Admiral Sal Lizard to remove VAdm. Donohoe from the Executive Committee as STARFLEET Chief of Operations pending a full investigation conducted by the STARFLEET IG. After all, Fleet Admiral Lizard ran on a campaign whose cornerstone was removing the cyberbullies from STARFLEET.

Fleet Admiral Lizard, now that you know that VAdm. Donohoe was complicit in this scandal, when can the membership expect an IG investigation into "Vic's Place" and the cyberharrassment of STARFLEET members allegedly conducted by former and current members of your administration? After the scandal with the attempted removal of Scott Akers, I would encourage that VAdm. Donohoe's membership rights be respected and the process be carried out openly and fairly.

Furthermore, who is this mysterious third person who was also "Vic"? Fleet Admiral Lizard claimed in January on his LiveJournal blog that he had no idea who "Vic" was. Is it possible that he didn't know that his third in command was in fact one of the very cyberbullies that he campaigned against?

Admiral Urvand says that he redacted the name of this third person. Perhaps now is the time for us to put to rest once and for all the very disturbing scandal that we now call VICGATE. If this woman is not doing very much in STARFLEET anymore as Admiral Urvand claims, then what is the harm in telling us the real story?

More on this very important development as it happens. Please feel free to discuss your thoughts here. Just remember to SIGN YOUR NAME to your comments, even if you are an LJ User.

In service to the first duty,

Admiral Johnathan Simmons
Director, FLEETWATCH
A division of Section 31
gumbysan at gmail dot com

Poll #1278340
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 30

Do you believe that Sal Lizard should resign as Commander, STARFLEET?

I received this warning from the Senior Moderator of the "Official" STARFLEET List today...

For your consideration, I have also included my response and my request for AB action on this matter.

* * * 

I also asked this on both STARFLEET lists...

With all the rampant spending that this administration has allotted to questionable things like the divisive "THREATS TO STARFLEET" Letter, Attorney's Fees for legal advice that was not "acted upon in the best manner", a theoretical rubber stamp and the like... I would like to inquire as to the status of the constitutionally-mandated annual review of our books by an outside CPA.

I remember Sal stating during his campaign that this was one of the things that would be a top priority.

So I have two questions: One, have we had an outside CPA review our books?

Two, when was the last time our books were reviewed by an outside CPA?

Thanks in advance for the answers, oh and anyone who replies "Molly Baxter, 1995" will get no Jell-O :-)

If and when I get an answer, I will post it here.

-FW

After many requests from non subscribers to LJ, I have changed the settings to allow for anyone to comment.

One Caveat: You must sign your name to your post or I will delete it within 24 hours.

Even if you have an LJ account and or have FLEETWATCH on your Friends List, you must sign your name to your posts. If you say it, own it.

Thank you for your continued support

FLEETWATCH

Because many of you have asked to see more membership numbers and Sal's claim that the DataBase numbers are incorrect... I think this speaks for itself...

2008 Membership Trend Chart (Thanks to FW member Matt Baillie)

Or you can see back to 2004 by going to: http://starfleetfail.com/hard-numbers/

Anyone care to comment?