Tom P.S. I’m on strike from further dialogue so can complete deadline assignments.
David Pardo [mailto:email@example.com]
Monday, June 04, 2012 7:35 PM
Re: Sign on letter Tom,I respect your position but the technical/non-technical distinction is not one we make in the letter. We justwant the things we mentioned, how they're defined relative to the legislative process is immaterial to thecontent. That said, technically speaking retroactivity is not a "new development," just our catching it is relativeto attempts in past 13 years. I believe the bench/jury distinction is also new to this round, but I could bemistaken. The point is, the fact that it may be too late to do anything but technical changes does not changethe fact that WPEA should have jury trials and no s.j. How that comes about is a function of the decisionmaking process. It's come to this at the last minute because we haven't been at the table, or the "lowestcommon denominator," despite trying. Jury trials should not be bargained away, at the very least not withoutpublicly naming the obstructionists. Unanimous consent for a raw deal is still a raw deal.On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Tom Devine <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
We have had this conversation repeatedly, and I just don’t have time to do it again. Will be up until 3this morning on writing deadlines, and have a 9 AM meeting, as well as two more on WPEA T2. I did askyou folks to do a writing project, and am grateful you’re so committed to follow through. If you don’tagree with my strategy views, so be it. I hope you’re right. I haven’t given up on summary judgment atall, but that’s different from advocacy tactics for it that overshadow and endanger the rest of bill. Ibelieve the letter also is just inaccurate about being solely technical requests in response to newdevelopments. You guys are free to take or leave my comments for whatever you think they’re worth. I asked for you to speak at the last SC meeting, and you did. I’ll ask for you to speak at next one. I’m notdoing anything to obstruct or oppose your procedural agenda for wber membership on SC or other fineideas. Re/respect, my comments were solely b/c you seemed offended; none taken on my part. I agreeto disagree with folks all the time, without hard feelings. That’s case here.