I know many of you have been waiting patiently for the “last” chapter in the story with the 11 “leaders” of the CKI Board. While I doubt this is the last we hear of it, let me give you the scoop.
The letter that I received from President Rupert was chock full of gross misinterpretations of policy. Nevertheless, the board seems to think that the following is appropriate and sound from a policy stand point, and this is what they’ve decided:
"...probationary status of your membership will not come
into effect if the following actions are taken by March 03, 2003.
- Write a public statement of:
- intent behind the creation and maintenance of the Web site at
www.unofficialcki.org;
- acceptance of your responsibility for the conduct unbecoming a
Circle K member;
- apology for the harm the contents of the Web site at
www.unofficialcki.org has [sic] caused
- Discontinue the Web site at www.unofficialcki.org
- Assure the CKI Board that you will abide by the Objects that govern
this organization
As this is a first offense, if at any time your actions and
behaviors are not congruent with the conduct policies of CKI,
your active membership status will automatically become
probationary."
Only the most ludicrous, asinine, and incorrect interpretations of CKI Policy allow them to do what they’ve done. Look it up yourself. See if you can find a definition of “Probationary Membership” or any document granting the board the power to make up its own membership statuses. You won’t find them. See if you can find anywhere that grants the board the power to make a determination of guilt prior to hearing a defense. Or a stipulation for “automatic guilt” as they’ve prescribed. And mandating apologies? Riiight… I completely forgot about the section of the CKI Bylaws that allows the CKI Board to select the opinions of its members. Shoot.
You see, their stance, whether they want to admit it or not, is completely and totally indefensible. Now, Casey will make excuses and come up with all sorts of aforementioned ludicrous, asinine, and incorrect interpretations of policy… after all, what else does she have to do with her 40 hours a week at the CKI Office?
As for the board, well, I’m not going to go there right now. What I will say, however, is that this is now officially out of the hands of Circle K members. The board has started a giant pissing contest, and will not stop until it’s outpissed every CKI member that it has to in order to prove that it’s the biggest, baddest thing in CKI. The only way to curb the reckless and wanton creation and abuse of power by the board and staff is to go through Administrators and Kiwanians.
We’re working on it… and you can too. If you’re wanting to try to convince a kiwanian or your administrator to speak up or take action, I’ll be more than happy to provide you with any of the information you might want.
In the mean time, I think the original letter and my defense might be of interest.
Letter from CKI: Page 1 | Page 2
Letter of Defense All 16 Pages

I\’d just like to say, after reading the I-Board\’s letter, that it is impossible for slander to have been an issue, as slander is SPOKEN, not printed. Further, defamation is a legal term that covers both libel and slander, so to say that there were issues of all 3 is just plain ignorant. In addition, in order for them to claim defamation, what was printed would have to be PROVEN true or false and also proven that an average reader would think it\’s harmful to one\’s reputation. Last time I thought about it, the average reader would not think a little rating system on a website was truly harmful to one\’s reputation, nor could you prove true or false that your rating was correct or incorrect. As a reminder, opinion is protected by law, it\’s a little something called fair comment that allows for the flexibility of an open and robust debate. Just thought I\’d share a little knowledge of the law as it\’s obvious some people needed a lesson.
…and amen to that. Far too many people at that office (and ont he board) think they\’re legal experts.
Hey Alison - my administrator spoke with a lawyer, and he got the exact same definition of slander, libel, and defamation of character you just stated. You\’d think they\’d at least put a LITTLE bit of thought into these things….
You know how the Staff and Board works, ego before mind. Just because people are planning to go to law school do not make them lawyers. Just because you are a Steve Werner doesn\’t mean you are a lawyer.
If there\’s anyone on that board who thinks they make a competent lawyer…they\’re just a fool. I wonder if they expect me to accept responsability for the SLANDER that was PRINTED on the site….
Now amy! Did you ask the International Board if you were permitted to have the opinion that they were fools? tsk, tsk… I would\’ve thought that you\’d learned your lesson.
I know Amy, there you go again attacking the International Borg.
I know Amy, there you go again attacking the International Borg.
Wait a second…are you telling me that I can\’t even have my own opinions? That\’s asinine! Who would ever demand something like that?