[Mpls] Why some people are excluded

[Megan Thomas]

OK, breaking a cardinal rule of my own I will respond to Dyna's
continued assertations about her exclusion from the Stonewall DFL Board.
 (and in my opinion)

Of course there is a major problem here ... namely, how do I explain
this and stay within the bounds of the rules of this list? How is that a
problem ..... my guess is that many of the people who read this list
have already figured it out. It means that I in order to respond to this
I need to make some personal comments. So, with apologies to the list
manager .... 

Dyna was not reelected to the board because she is an unpleasant
person. She is almost exclusively negative in her tone and comments, at
times hostile and seems to take pleasure in that hostility. 

It has nothing to do with her politics, identity or so on. In the
simplest terms, people are, at the very least, uncomfortable around her
and often people feel threatened around her. 

As someone who has often been the leader of meetings with Dyna in them
she is extremely disruptive, makes deliberately hostile and
confrontative remarks and plays an excessive role in creating an
unproductive and hostile environment. It often becomes a struggle to
separate her behavior from the candidate or issue she may be advocating
for (or against).

Difference of opinion does not nessecitate hostility. I have often been
supporting different candidates than my other political friends. I am
not even suggesting that you have to agree to disagree, However, when
someone is consistenly hostile and disruptive the issue is no longer
opinion but rather the right of other members of the organization to
work in a safe and respectful environment.

There is a broader question here of how do you deal with disruptive
people? The challange is in trying to balance everyone's right to
participate. Sometimes there are people who simply do not "play well
with others" and cannot be a member of a group.