Collateral Damage IV

"We Cannot Assume."

    We all make assumptions at our own risk. 

It is easier to be critical than to propose solutions, be they constructive, innovative, delusional or otherwise.

I hope to be innovative and otherwise.

The preceding chapters served an attempt to set the table for the endgame, by laying out the facts, the fears, the anger and the sentiments of that time. And that is important. 1979. Think about life then. I was one year out of university, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Bridge has its own ever-evolving culture. Nowadays, thanks to innovators like Fred and the growth in popularity of the Internet, our game transcends borders, generations, cultures and nations. Back then, the mind set was that of your parents.

This portion of the story is the culminates the author’s research, instincts and biases into opinions and suggestions. They embrace a spectrum of propositions from the logical to the controversial. Let’s remember for a moment what we are addressing. The ACBL knew of cheating at Norfolk, denied the same, and thwarted the legal efforts of the cheated to the benefit of the cheaters. How is that for a legacy?

This morsel of ACBL perspective (from Executive Secretary & General Manager Richard Goldberg), dated 11/7/79 speaks for itself:

"Messrs. Cokin and Sion were found by the properly constituted committee to have exchanged improper information during the Zonal Grand National competitions in June in Atlanta. As I understand the situation, the ruling was made by the committee after this pair had been monitored during the play of numerous boards. The decision, of course, applied only during the matches observed in Atlanta. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Hann, we cannot assume that improper information was exchanged in prior events. Therefore, it would be impractical to “adjust” results based on a situation that might – or might not – have occurred. I do hope you understand.”

Well, what does that really say? (more on this later) It is the standard denial, rife with cliché, omissions and ambiguity. It seems to suggest, that if the exchange of “improper information” was established in prior events, then it would be practical to “adjust” the scores based upon what did indeed occur. He tossed a coin into the air and the preceding memo won. Is this the one he flirted with sending?

“Messrs. Cokin and Sion were found by the properly constituted committee to have exchanged improper information during the Zonal Grand National competitions in June in Atlanta and the Men’s Board-A-Match event of the March NABC in Norfolk. As the code was broken in Norfolk, at the BAM event for which you seek redress, as I understand the situation, the ruling must embrace any prior or concomitant act that can be sustained by the evidence presented to the committee. The committee determined, after this pair had been monitored at Norfolk and Atlanta, that during the play of numerous boards that indeed, unlawful communication had occurred in Norfolk and was validated in Atlanta. Therefore pursuant to your request it is incumbent upon us to “adjust” results based on a situation that is proven to have occurred and adversely impacted the standings of the top two teams in said event. I thank you for bringing this to our attention on a timely basis. I hope that committee decision which was to strip the title from Sternberg, award it to Hann, with a full explanation in an upcoming Bulletin and proper Masterpoint accreditation to follow will be adequate compensation for any emotional and/or other suffering you and your team mates might have enduring awaiting the resolution of this matter. ”

(more on this later)

Recommendations for the ACBL

                     and more importantly the Membership.

1) That a “properly constituted committee" be convened as originally requested within the “applicable correction period” by David Sacks to Director Mike Linah; pursuant to the actions of Sion and Cokin on Board 13 in the BAM event of Norfolk 1979. The ACBL can best determine what type of committee this should be. The purpose of the committee will be to determine if there was an irregularity committed on said board, and if so, to determine what, if any adjudication should result. (Gary Hann wrote ACBL General Secretary and General Manager Richard Goldberg on 1/25/80) This is part of his letter. “We respectfully request that our case be reviewed by a properly constituted committee of the ACBL whether that be the Judiciary Committee, a National Tournament Committee and/or the entire Board of Directors.” This recommendation is consistent with his request. (see appendices for further details)

2) That Kit Woolsey, Chip Martel, Paul Lewis, Brenda Blumenthal, Marc Jacobus, Steve Robinson, Bobby Wolff, David Sacks, Zeke Jabbour, David Hoffner, Mike Cappelletti, Gary Hann, Ron Feldman; perhaps Steve Sion/Allan Cokin, (one or both of the last two may prove unwilling) and anyone else the “properly constituted committee” feels can add to the archive of evidence of this case should be requested as witnesses. The witnesses who were called pursuant to Atlanta might be a sound place to start.

3) The lawyers will perforce wish to frame the terms of reference and the committee’s mandate as tightly as possible. For example, the “unlawful communications” of Cokin and Sion had been decoded at Norfolk, but neither were charged nor (perforce) convicted of any offence at Norfolk. Should evidence be permitted from Atlanta that validates that they cheated back in Norfolk? The answer to that is easy. Only if it pertains to Norfolk. So, any hand records from Atlanta are moot, unless they are used to substantiate the code detected and broken at Norfolk. Since they used the same code in Atlanta as they used in Norfolk, all Atlanta did was verify the fact that the code-breakers had indeed deciphered their pencil-pad signaling system established three months earlier. Woolsey forced the issue, taught the code to the monitors, observers and others, sat back and watched them confirm his proof. The ACBL asked for time to accrue more evidence. Therefore, Atlanta can serve as evidence for Norfolk. Let’s remember that the ACBL enabled this scenario, by requesting a deferral.

4) Is there a statute of limitations on cheating? No. Well, yes. Well, yes and no. The amended DOC (Disciplinary Rules of Conduct) had a specific time limitations pursuant to a specific event. What if one could establish a long-standing pattern of cheating? This was eventually corroborated by Cokin’s and Sion’s confessions, expert observers and proving the same by calling off the short suit every hand in two separate events. Would that be subject to the "applicable correction period?" What period might that be? The duration of their documented cheating and of their confessed sins? Since the Cokin/Sion admitted to cheating in virtually every event they ever played in, they were by their own admission "serial cheaters". So how many of their titles and accomplishments are tarnished? Answer: every last one of them. Or is that going to hurt some feelings, bruise some egos? One can only hope.

5) America is one of the minority of jurisdictions which acknowledge such a concept as statute of limitations. Here we are not talking about a criminal act, unless we wish to add fraud to the charges. At this point, fraud is not on the table. Dr. Sternberg may feel differently, but no correspondence has come from him thus far.  “Unlawful communication” is the act in question. That is not a criminal act, except within the game of bridge. There is no statute preventing anyone from revisiting a series of cold cases many years after the fact. The only thing lacking is resolve, or as Woolsey labeled it – “ a political issue". And of course there is a natural reluctance to revisit tender memories. If nothing can be learned from this episode, then we, the rank and file and our game are all victims. So will our League reconsider and put this on the table?

6) Kit Woolsey writes “There is no dispute that Sion and Cokin were cheating. And there is no question that they were doing so in the BAM event, since that was the event where we gathered the data from which we were able to break a piece of their code. It is simply a political issue…. You don’t need to build more evidence. The facts aren’t in question".[1]” Mr. Woolsey correctly defines the heart of the matter; as a “political issue”. If the facts aren’t in question, what needs to happen to motivate the “politicians” (presumably the ACBL Board of Directors) to recognize this? Well, Mr. Woolsey was partly right. The facts pursuant to Cokin/Sion cheating at Norfolk are not in dispute, at least in his mind. The ACBL has denied that "prior evidence" {to Atlanta} ever took place so they may beg to differ with his "the facts are not in question". More to the point: what might be done with that knowledge is very much in dispute. What possible options are there?

1) Do something.

2) Do nothing.

Please enlighten me with option number three.

The choices are, however unpalatable:

i) Do nothing. Or …..

ii) Do Something: like call upon a committee to look into it.

7) Certainly the ACBL having buried this case a long time ago, dismissing any and all entreaties to re-open it has demonstrated how interested it is in seeing it revisited. Does it care that it abrogated its duties when it dismissed all appeals and allowed cheaters to win? Does it want it known that there was no protocol in place to monitor, catch and prosecute cheaters so that even when alerted in March 1979 and that cheaters continued to compete months later without scrutiny? Does it matter that delaying the review of the board in question served a greater good? Does it justify slamming shut Pandora’s Box, and dismissing all subsequent appeals? Certainly, these decisions reflect poorly upon the League. Is it too late to address this case?  No. If we don’t learn from history, then we are destined to repeat the same mistakes.

8) Bob Hamman[2] and others opined that maybe, like Jimmy Carter’s amnesty, it’s time to look back and heal some wounds. How can we learn? Let’s use this episode to advance our game. Mr. Hamman also suggested to me that if a scoring adjustment was the ultimate objective, then the likelihood of said outcome was improbable. A scoring adjustment would be pleasant proof that the League recognizes the injustice and seeks to redress the same. I doubt Cappelletti, Feldman, Hann, Hoffner, Jabbour and Sacks would disagree. My objective is simple: to tell a story and do it well. Will change ensue? In a perfect world, of course. In this world, I guess we will have to wait and see.

9) For the record, it is important to acknowledge that Mike Linah and John Hamilton did their employer (the ACBL) an apparent service. They handed off the ball at the one yard line, and expected a touchdown. What did they get for serving the ACBL’s directives? No one will ever know, but this much is certain; the window of opportunity they sought to create for the League was discarded like Ed Mansfield’s idle fifth. They deserved better. One has to acknowledge, that if the committee requested by Sacks was granted and the code-breakers shared their knowledge this would have been resolved 29 years ago, with a result analogous to Atlanta. I believe that Vincent Remey, Richard Goldberg and Leo Spivak were trying to protect the League and their decisions led them down a one way path, and there would be no going back.

10) Just for laughs – what do we say to Cappelletti, Hoffner, Hann, Jabbour, Feldman and Sacks? Sorry, you were cheated but hey – that was a long time ago and well, even though you asked for a committee on a timely basis – we just don’t want to go there? Let sleeping dogs lie. Let it go. Suck up the fact you were cheated and we can’t or won’t go back. Why reopen old wounds? The answer to that is easy too. Whose wounds are we re-opening? Those of the cheaters Sion and Cokin? Those of their team mates Weichsel and Sontag? Their sponsor – Sternberg? Those of the ACBL? All  wounds sustained by the aforementioned were self-inflicted. In our hearts, minds and laws, we recognize the rights of victims as superior to those of the perpetrators. The real “victims” here are the integrity of the game, Cappelletti, Feldman, Hann, Hoffner, Sacks, and Jabbour and others who were cheated over the years. For whatever reasons, they are happy to reopen their wounds, to see the injustice imposed upon them brought to light. So really, why not air it out? Dirty laundry, long interred skeletons, let’s hang them out and see what happens. Or will that be too “painful” for some who don’t like what they see in the rearview mirror? And of course, yes it is. To paraphrase, one man’s pain is another man’s pleasure.

11) The ACBL BOD should consider, with or without the findings of its “properly constituted committee”:

i) Stripping team Sternberg of its victory at Norfolk BAM 1979.

What the hell is so hard about that? We have their confessions. We have witnesses. We have a timely appeal. We have all the evidence a prosecutor could ever amass. But, to the BOD it is not enough. What is enough? Please enlighten us.

Stripping team Sternberg is as Woolsey puts it is :“political”. It is part of the historical archive that Sion and Cokin cheated throughout this event, including a specific hand against team Hann which was reported by the non-offending team and “noted” by the directors at the time. So although time and political agendas may well work against said resolution, such an action should be seen as inevitable and/or fair (what a concept!) by many. Bobby Wolff reported where the signed confessions are sitting – in Jeff Polisner’s office. We know what Woolsey and Martel, (see Appendices) have to say and they have corroboration from Blumenthal, Lewis and Jacobus.

So we have signed confessions, corroborative evidence, a smoking gun covered with the defendants’ fingerprints, yet the sentiment is from high on above is, (let me get this right) retain your title. Let’s enable cheaters. Even should the non-offending party register a protest, and ask for a committee, well, that’s just too bad. If the ACBL fails to strip the title from Sternberg, they validate cheaters. You tell me, why should you retain the fruits of your crimes? If you rob a bank and they catch you, for some reason they confiscate your purloined bounty. That may seem harsh to a few, but it is seen as pragmatic by the majority. So I ask again, why do Sion/Cokin/Sternberg/Sontag/Weichsel retain their ill-gotten gains?

Is that really the intent of the laws – to validate cheaters? Please say it ain’t so. Of course it is not the intent of the laws, but it was the collateral effect of those empowered to enforce the laws. In their efforts to spare the League the nightmares of potential litigation, the sad part is Spivak, Goldberg and Remey gave inadequate consideration to the laws of the League that they were elected to uphold and enforce. When is a cheater not a cheater, well….when we say so? They allow them to retain the fruits of their crimes. No one wants to say that, at least – not in those words. But let’s call this spade a spade. As of this writing the cheaters and their non-cheating team mates retain their ill-gotten gains. (At least according to the ACBL and The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge 6th edition.) Interestingly I emailed my ACBL representative Jonathon Steinberg asking him if I had a title I wanted to renounce, how might I go about it? He had no idea and referred me to the BOD. What does that tell you?

Team Sternberg, (Sontag, Weichsel, Cokin, Sion) through the illegal actions of Cokin/Sion won the BAM at Norfolk 1979. Can we put an asterisk next to the title? Why don’t we just do the right thing? Let’s have a committee examine the historical archive and see what, if any adjustment should be made. You can’t strip them of the title  if you don’t look at the proof. And you don’t want to look at the proof because it and other actions makes the League look duplicitous. Catch 22. Somewhere, Joseph Heller is smiling. Make an informed decision. But do not run away, denying due process to these members. If a properly constituted committee appointed by the ACBL determined that in Cokin and Sion cheated on Board 13 of the BAM and that a reversal of the scoring was appropriate then the ACBL should do the right thing and:

ii) Award said title to the second place team.

Many within the League would suggest that such an idea is contentious. Why should we do that; especially when the rules (after amendment) advocate for “vacating” the title? Here is the answer in all its simplicity. Except for the cheating of Cokin/Sion at Norfolk, which was documented and confessed to, Cappelletti and his teammates won the event. How is that for a solution? We award the title to the winners. I guess that will raise eyebrows…..after all, who should have the title? Cheaters? Or is vacancy the answer? Yes it is. Vacancy validates the inability of the League to deal with this problem directly.

The “vacant title” argument is just that; bereft of logic, judgment and certainly accredited precedent. Name an event without a winner. Alas, Miss America does not count. Even where the winner is disqualified, somebody eventually is anointed champion.  Everyone who enters a competitive event does so in the hope to win. If the title is vacated, no one can win. Second place, third place, fourth place, all equally denied an opportunity. Here we have equality in losing, even if you might have won. The argument for said logic is that in most bridge events, you play the field, not one on one, like boxing or baseball. So who did you cheat against, and how did your (selective?) cheating affect the results?

The answer is patently obvious.

Cheaters seek every advantage, they cheat on every hand. Certainly Cokin and Sion were “unlawfully communicating” on every hand when Woolsey and friends can pick off their transmissions with "100% accuracy" in back to back events. The bottom line is they cheat on every hand. Period. They are not so inclined as to say – oh – here are my old friends Peter and Alan. We won’t cheat against them. That is in a word; laughable. Every hand, every opportunity must be maximized. Cheaters have no favourites except themselves.

12) The title is stripped from cheaters and awarded to team Hann because:

· David Sacks on behalf of his team and Paul Soloway’s instructions went to the director to report a suspicious hand.

· Sacks did this within the “applicable correction period”.

· The directors (Linah and Hamilton) were unable for legal and insurance reasons to address said complaint at that point in time. They sought advice from higher-ups and followed it.

· That the ACBL had no effective protocol in place to cope with this situation.

· That cheating was established at said event, by multiple witnesses.

· That the ACBL knew said cheating had occurred, and sought to conceal that fact.

· That Cokin/Sion cheated on a hand versus Sacks/Hoffner that “won” them the board, and thus the event. Note the margin of victory was less than a full board and the damage was direct, and reported on a timely basis. 

· That the ACBL dismissed Hann’s applications without cause, fearful of lawsuits and litigation, denying said team the opportunity for their case to be heard.

· That Vincent Remey, Richard Goldberg, Leo Spivak, and certainly other ACBL BOD members knew of the validity of Hann’s appeals, and sought to deny, obfuscate and discredit them in the hope that they would disappear with time.

· When all is said and done, as Spike Lee said "Just do the right thing." Is that so tough?

· The bottom line is, Cappelletti, Feldman, Hann, Hoffner, Jabbour, Sacks were the legitimate and legal winners of this event, unless you want to allow cheaters to retain the fruits of their crimes.  They won it, but somehow remain a footnote. If anyone can explain that, love to hear it.

13) In the San Francisco Chronicle, 1979, ACBL President Leo Spivak was quoted as saying that the "monitors identified (emphasis added) singletons, voids or good suits in the suspects’ hands before viewing their cards, solely by reading the pencil/pad code.” [3] {This refers to Atlanta.} In The Bulletin of August, 1979 ACBL President Leo Spivak writes “Prearranged Improper Communication. The gravest possible offence against propriety is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws….…..it gets an important message to the members of the American Contract Bridge League, namely, that we shall vigorously pursue any breaches of the proprieties or instances of cheating that are brought to our attention.” 

I have news for President Spivak and today’s BOD members. "Monitors" verified, not identified the code. And they would never even had been present if Woolsey not brought the issue to Chief Tournament Director Jerry Machlin’s attention.

To honor the memory and integrity of ACBL President Spivak, our current and former Presidents, current ACBL BOD members I ask you to validate President’s Spivak’s assertion that “we shall vigorously pursue any breaches of the proprieties or instances of cheating that are brought to our attention.”

Here it is.

Let me reiterate.

Mike Cappelletti, Ron Feldman Gary Hann, David Hoffner, Zeke Jabbour, David Sacks, and myself would like to bring the incident of Norfolk, 1979 BAM to your attention.

Thus I ask you, are President’s Spivak’s words hollow or sincere? I have no doubt that they were uttered in the spirit of honor and an attempt to bolster the integrity of the game. How do those words sound to Cappelletti, Hoffner, Feldman, Hann, Jabbour and Sacks who were cheated, through “prearranged improper communication” and filed a timely appeal only to see their case entombed in amber? How much longer are they to be collateral damage?

What does it say to the membership, when “the gravest possible offence against propriety” goes unpunished, unrecognized and the perpetrators retain the fruits of their crimes? Sadder still, the League enabled the same. It should be an affront not just to the everyday rank and file, and the elected Board members and the executives we hire to manage our game. Is it? Or, because it was a long time ago, and we don’t want to go back there, let’s just let it slide. There are only two options, do something or do nothing. As Red said in Shawshank,  "Get busy living or get busy dying."

What shall we choose? If you have an opinion, I invite you to share it with the ACBL. You can contact them at:

bod@acbl.org

Happy trails,

C

Musings

Bridge is a game of ethics. Sadly cheaters fail to grasp that concept. Like golf, where a player is expected to call a penalty upon himself, bridge is one of a very few sports where principles are woven into the fabric of the game. In baseball you do the opposite; try to steal bases and signs, argue with the umpire whether you are right or wrong and feign catching a ball that nicked the turf. In bridge, you are expected to alert the opponents of any private agreements. In an effort to minimize the possibility of the transmission of unauthorized information bidding boxes and screens have been added to many events.

Cokin and Sion violated the spirit, letter, laws and sanctity of the game. They created their private artificial communication system to bypass accepted rules and thereby soiled the game. Yet they retain the fruits of their unlawful acts. Why is that? They are convicted, they have confessed, but hey – keep your purloined bounty. Wherein is the logic for that?

Their private and thus unlawful communication systems are recognized by the laws as: “The gravest possible offense is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws”.

This was not just this event. Bridge is at stake here, and how we deal with conflict and controversy are relevant.

The expert player knows that an apparent small advantage (typically skill) although in this case, communicating shortness is in fact – a huge advantage. It helps you on defense, opening leads, overcalls and more. For example, holding the ace of trumps (say hearts) and partner (illegally )shows a singleton club, one could lead a  club, get in with the ace of trumps and give part a ruff. Or one might not overcall with for example AJT9xx knowing (illegally of course) that partner had a singleton. See Martel’s note in the Appendices. This illegal communication provides insight not only to the short suit, but by extension the entire hand. And for what it is worth, even Woolsey suggested that they had only cracked part of the code. The opening leads become more clairvoyant with insider information. The overcalls, or failure to overcall (and be subject to a penalty when partner is short) become more precise. It is an edge, and that is enough in the right hands. So please don’t dismiss their communication system as moot. It was anything but. It was an illegal advantage, that led to insights in the bidding, play and defense of the hands. After all, their record of achievement was astounding. If only it were accrued through talent versus unlawful communications. The board in question is a testament to this argument.

All the events Sion/Cokin participated in between Norfolk (3/79) and Atlanta (6/79) are tainted. We know they cheated for a full year prior to Atlanta. How far back does it go? They admitted (as per Bobby Wolff) to cheating in basically every event they ever played in. How many Regionals and other tournaments did they win or do well in while the ACBL was dawdling? If there is no doubt (as Woolsey proves) that they were cheating at Norfolk why can we not re-visit that episode? The answer is doing so is hurtful, painful and embarrassing to league officials, convicted cheaters and their sponsor/team mates. If we cut to the chase the answer is Team Hann’s results were buried because recognizing their case would bring into question other events. And that is really what this was all about. Dodging responsibility, or much more along the same lines, avoiding a perceived legal liability.

BOD member Vincent Remey feared (and he was not alone) the possibility of impending litigations. He understood that granting a hearing that could convict Cokin/Sion at Norfolk exposed the inability of the ACBL to catch and deal with cheaters. So, in spite of all the rhetoric, the grandstanding, the alibis and excuses; in the end, the failure to address Norfolk was about minimizing the litigation and legal exposure of the League to future lawsuits. We all understand that now. Maybe it is time to heal, to look back.

When Vincent Remey died, who was his replacement on the BOD?

Answer: Gary Hann. How is that for Karma?

This note is so artistically crafted, it deserves a second peek.

“……Messrs. Cokin and Sion were found by the properly constituted committee to have exchanged improper information during the Zonal Grand National competition in June in Atlanta. As I understand the situation, the ruling was made by the committee after this pair had been monitored during the play of numerous boards. The decision, of course, applied only during matches observed in Atlanta. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Hann, we cannot assume that improper information was exchanged in prior events. (Emphasis added.) Therefore it would be impractical to attempt to “adjust” results based on a situation that might – or might not – have occurred. I do hope you understand.” [4]

Oh – I understand. This note is rife with garnish, (“properly constituted”  “As I understand it”,) inaccuracies (“we cannot assume that improper information was exchanged in prior events”) and blatant omissions (no mention of when the code-breaking took place, "numerous boards" are not specified as Atlanta or when they were tarnishing all events during April, May and June). It doesn’t pass the smell test. OK, it stinks.

Finally getting a couple of admissions from ACBL archivist Mr. Blaiss (yes, they changed to DOC, and no, team Sternberg was never stripped of their title) – were nice but small potatoes. Now, it is time to troll for bigger fish. Was the “properly constituted committee” mandated to look only at Atlanta? Was evidence of prior acts attested to by the witnesses?

Did no one ask "how did you break the code?"

“Who did so?”

“Where?”

“When did this happen?”

Of course one might think these were logical queries to discover the strength of the evidence against Sion and Cokin. These questions should have been asked and answered. If they were, that is one more reason to bury the phantom minutes of the “properly constituted committee.” If Woolsey had not forced the matter at Atlanta, would cheaters be representing be representing America? Would the ACBL have been ready to nab them in the Summer Nationals in Las Vegas one month later? Sure. Take that to the bank.

What if Mr. Goldberg had sent this letter? It was posted at the opening of this chapter. {Repeated for convenience.}

“Messrs. Cokin and Sion were found by the properly constituted committee to have exchanged improper information during the Zonal Grand National competitions in June in Atlanta and the Men’s Board-A-Match event of March in Norfolk. As the code was broken in Norfolk, at the BAM event for which you seek redress, as I understand the situation, the ruling must embrace any prior act that can be sustained by the evidence presented to the committee. The committee determined, after this pair had been monitored at Norfolk and Atlanta, that during the play of numerous boards that indeed, unlawful communication had occurred in Norfolk and was validated in Atlanta. Therefore pursuant to your request it is incumbent upon us to “adjust” results based on a situation that is proven to have occurred and adversely impacted the standings of the top two teams in said event. I thank you for bringing this to our attention on a timely basis. I hope that committee decision which was to strip the title from Sternberg, award it to Hann, with a full explanation in an upcoming Bulletin and proper Masterpoint accreditation to follow will be adequate compensation for any emotional and/or other suffering you and your team mates might have enduring awaiting the resolution of this matter. ”

Well, we would not be discussing it now as it would be long-since resolved. And therein lies the rub. This was never addressed. Dismissed? Surely. Put off? of course. So maybe, just maybe we can learn from our mistakes and heal from them. How can we as members move on? Can the BOD do something?

I guess that is up to you. The reader, the member to say what you think might be said. There is more to come. Stay tuned. The next chapter will deal with the expert community, Sternberg, Sontag and Weichsel and the "forbidden fruit".

Comments invited. Please feel free to post on this blog as you see fit.