From: Lynette Foss
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 2:47 PM

To: Don Russ
Cc: Kathleen Blahunka; Mollie Mercado
Subject: Re: Your Email to Julie Gottshall

Don,

Please see my responses below in red. After this I believe it would be best if we let it lie. It's clear that you have an extremely negative opinion of me and have no intention of seeing my side of the question issue, so we'll have to leave it at that. If you choose to serve on the caucus, you will have to find some way of being civil toward me. I'm certain that I'm capable of reciprocal civility.

Lynette
________________________________________
From: Don Russ
To: Lynette Foss

Lynette, you are quite incorrect on several points.

I was a proper observer: Invited, silent and respectful. My communication reached the candidate only after the Caucus had made its decision. I never claimed you were disrespectful at the meeting, only that it was inappropriate for you to contact the candidate in that fashion.

My reaction was an honest one. It was my clear perception and my reaction was responsive. My only interest was in giving legitimate feedback. Your “intent in asking it” really doesn’t matter; I know what I heard you say....but you don't have all of the information and formed a judgement based on your perception, which is shrouded in negativity towards me.

Now you claim that your question might have (you did not say that it does) come from “written candidate applications as well as previous caucus discussions” but that is not what you said at the time. You claimed to be reacting to the candidate’s comments about what she called “the gifted 5 or 10 percent and those at the other end of the spectrum.” You dissemble with your allusion to some previous data to which I was not privy. The question was incomprehensible but the context wasn’t. You didn't bother to follow up with me before writing you email, but it may interest you to know that I've done volunteer work with Julie before so we know each other--the notion that I was trying to make her uncomfortable is preposterous. There had been previous discussions and written information to which you were not privy about the "middle"; perhaps the question was worded awkwardly as I attempted to seek what Julie may have heard about newer trends in education to address the middle acheivers. Nevertheless, your presumption that it was disdainful and haughty was absolutely incorrect.

Your snippy reference that my email “seems to follow your past modus operandus (sic) of looking for trouble where there is none” seems to be a reference to the evening that the Cub Scout leaders gathered at a residence for a Cub Scout dinner meeting on the eve of Election Day four years ago. You were childishly and incessantly mocking a candidate for high office, among other examples, saying in a shrill voice, “I can see Russia from my front porch”. When I suggested that we shouldn’t be hostile about political matters irrelevant to our meeting purpose you dismissed me saying, “Oh, we have all been friends for a long time. It’s all right.” Your memory of the evening is selective, but it clearly reveals that you don't like me and that you have been harboring resentment for years. That you would relate this story in detail to Kathleen and Mollie (whom you have copied above) indicates that you wish to further undermine my reputation and caucus membership beyond having copied the entire caucus on your original email.

So you were claiming that anyone who would vote for Republicans wouldn’t fit into your elite group. That's a gross assumption on your part! I have many Republican friends and have voted for many Republican candidates over the years, not that it's any of your business. Said elite group being the Lake Bluff Cub Scouts! Which is exactly what you are doing again saying, “I would guess that the group would not welcome your participation after this blatant show of hostility”. You are the only one hostile, then and now, without reason. Without reason? Being publicly called names isn't reason to defend myself? Unless the Caucus approves of its members lashing out with arbitrary viciousness as you demonstrated then and now, then perhaps it is you who should leave. Those are pretty dramatic words Don--I have certainly not been vicious, and the lashing out was not arbitrary. My experience with the group, however, indicates that they prefer rational discussions even when there are disagreements.

My only reaction that night four years ago was to quietly leave and walk home. Witnesses will say otherwise...That is hardly an example of “of looking for trouble where there is none.” But that is exactly what you were doing with your comment to the Candidate, “I guess you didn’t understand my question.” Seriously Don? How can that be construed as looking for trouble? When did clarifying a question become "looking for trouble"? It was a damning assertion that both suggested her inadequacy and your superiority. Once again, a gross assumption on your part--a total misinterpretation based on your negative opinion of me. Slapping her with such a statement in the middle of her interview was cruel and could only have been intended to knock her off balance. It was uncivil, unhelpful and unkind. Yet again, a gross assumption on your part--a total misinterpretation based on your negative opinion of me.

“Haughty” is exactly what you were and exactly what the Caucus should not be. I wish you well and hope you can find constructive purpose.

-Don







From: Don Russ
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:33 PM

To: 'Lynette Foss'; Kathleen Blahunka
Cc: Mollie Mercado
Subject: RE: Your Email to Julie Gottshall

Lynette, I related the story only because you brought it up. That’s not “harboring resentment”, that is simply being responsive to your reckless accusation. Your vague reference to “witnesses” is meaningless. That Cub Scout meeting is the only previous conflict you and I have had because I have avoided you for four years. And it was hardly a conflict – you were unapologetically rude and I simply walked out. I would have preferred to continue to avoid you, but the Caucus is not your personal clique.

In the case of the Cub Scouts, that tired old excuse “it isn’t worth it” comes to mind. Do people often say that around you? But the Caucus is different. $16 million of annual spending of the taxpayers’ money should not be governed by people who are selected through a flawed process. A caucus dominated by individuals only because they are overbearing is flawed.

You did not communicate to me privately. You copied a third party and that changes the character of the communication from private (which entails some legal and significant moral responsibilities) to public. I copied Mollie because she gave me a ride to that meeting four years ago. She is the only one I told I was leaving. Additionally, she is my Area Leader.

“Being publicly called names” is playing loose with the facts. I did not name you in the email to Julie. You are the one to self-identify and claim “insult” by writing an insulting response, to wit: “but it seems to follow your past modus operandus (sic) of looking for trouble where there is none.” and “I…hope you can find constructive purpose.”

And I never said you were looking for trouble. You said that about me. And “I guess you didn’t understand my question.” is not a “clarifying question”.

If you choose to continue serve on the caucus, you will have to find some way of being civil toward me. I'm certain that I'm capable of reciprocal civility.

Kathy, what is the status of my membership in the Caucus?

-Don