March 1, 2019
Board of Directors, RASC

If the Board wishes to have a live discussion about issues created by the complaints directed against me, I am willing to make myself available the weekend of the upcoming in-person meeting of the Board in Calgary on the 23rd –24th of March.

In my view the Board has several possible paths to take.

– The Board could proceed with one or both complaints, seek out the necessary independent investigator(s), continue with this extended process, and perhaps eventually endeavor to apply some sort of sanctions against me. It should be clear by now, however, that I am prepared to defend my honour and my integrity from being impugned by these scurrilous attacks, with all the resources I have at my disposal, and with all the support that I can muster. This would not be a quick or simple direction to follow, and might well result in continued controversy potentially detrimental to the peace, order, and good governance of the Society.

– The Board could dismiss the complaints outright, based on their being demonstrably unreasonable and without foundation. This might disappoint the complainants, but would be the most expeditious course to follow.

– Section K of policy G24 appears to preclude any attempt at conciliation or mediation (such as found in policy G23). However the Board has the authority to override its own Policy Manual, and has certainly done so in the past. Some Board members might recall that section K is contrary to recommendations I made when policy G24 was being extensively modified in 2017. I would therefore be open to seeking to resolve these disagreements with the complainants through such a process.

An amicably mediated result, accepted by all parties involved, might be the least deleterious outcome, and would be only modestly time-consuming. Meetings for discussions, with the individuals involved along with the mediator(s), could well be arranged for the upcoming General Assembly, for example.

In such a case I could also commit to refrain from filing my own official complaints under the “bad faith” provision, section G of policy G24. Independent of that provision, (should the Board decide to expunge it from the Policy Manual), there remains the reality that these complaints constitute in themselves an actual harassment, apparently intended to silence my voice within the Society.

Sincerely,
Glenn Hawley