Bret Fausett wrote:
I might try a different approach. Rather than tearing down the Westlake report, why don't we list those principals we believe most important for the ALAC going forward? Remember, this is a review of the ALAC, not a review of the Westlake report, so we should talk about how we want the ALAC to evolve. What do we want for staff support, funding, representation on the Board and SOs?
One does not negate the other. Right now that -- the report they have paid for -- exists, is being discussed next week, and does damage to our goals. They need to know that everything from the selection process to the resulting conclusions were flawed; else how can they learn from their mistakes? Indicating to ALAC that we expect them to oppose the Westlake document will not preclude -- in fact it requires -- us to produce an alternative. If we're going to shoot the Westlake one down we certainly do want to propose an alternative, and I would like us to engage in that task. But that will take time. Right now we need a message for next week's meeting at which the Westlake review is being discussed on multiple occasions. - Evan