APS Arbitration/Litigation Re Donation

Don't know if it's taboo to reference another stamp forum, but there are at least three threads going on the Delphi forum concerning the above matter with no response from the APS. Maybe posting it here will be the catalyst for some type of response, even if it is a "no comment, we're in litigation". Some kind of response/explanation would be nice for the APS membership.

A sad story, but I for one would rather keep APS drama/politics over at that other site. They seem to thrive on it.

I think that more transparency would help, not hurt. At this point the lack of transparency is probably contributing to even greater negative feelings.
Don

I'd favor leaving discussion of it to the Delphi forum. The "players" are all over there. I think the "heads up" here is sufficient to make anyone who might be interested in where to go for more information.

I'm sure the APS is aware of the Delphi forum thread and has decided not to comment on pending litigation, probably upon advice of counsel. I doubt they would change their mind and comment here.

Probably not, but it doesn't hurt to try to see if some comment here would be forthcoming, since this tends to be a more civilized forum.

Reading the posts on the "Litigation" thread on Delphi reassured me that my bailing out of that place was an excellent decision.

SPQR,
While no doubt what you say is valid; then why not a simple, 'While legal case is active, we cannot offer public comment'. The silence is deafening.
Don

I just do not see how this lawsuit is in the best interest of APS. It cannot be good publicity. Maybe they are afraid of other donations being asked to be returned.

Scott and others at APS have significant political experience so I was expecting good handling of the poor optics of this situation. The visuals of a donor asking for his donation back is bad enough, but put whatever originally happened aside for a minute. After not getting a favorable arbitration, an APS decision was made to spend additional money on legal fees to fight this. I think that with the silence on this decision the original poor optics is turning into really horrendous optics. I am confused by this.
Don

A couple of things. First this happen more than you think. For me if I am going to make a donation with strings then I get it in writing. Second there is no way way I would expect any comment from ASP if this in litigation, that would be just plain stupid.

Of course there are two sides to a story like this. I never find the first one out in the open to be the most accurate but it is always the loudest. That doesn't mean the the unheard part of the story has any more truth either.

I say let them fight it out in court then move on. Personally I would just give the money back and say there was a misunderstanding somewhere and call it a day.

Really horrendous optics? I disagree. Nothing negative should be inferred. Why presume that the plaintiff and the arbitrator are right? There are plenty of unreasonable plaintiffs in the world and arbitration decisions are overturned all the time. The APS may well have allocated or spent the donation fully within the terms of the donation and the plaintiff could simply have remorse and found an equally difficult arbitrator.

It's not reasonable to expect any comment from APS here. People on internet forums are never satisfied with comments that are given; there is always someone with another question, comment or criticism and it becomes an endless spiral of trying to placate people who cannot be pleased. And, anything written here could be the subject of deposition examination later.

Members can always write to the executive director or APS counsel, but are unlikely to hear anything more than what is set forth in the attorney's comments to the Board of Directors, which are in the August 2017 draft minutes here:

https://stamps.org/userfiles/file/m...-02-2017.pdf

Chris

I would assume that arbitrators are overruled less than half the time, otherwise there would be no point in using them.

I'm still banned by the forum host at Delphi after the bruhaha 3 years ago, so I cannot actually post there, but I keep an eye on what's going on.

Distiliing the whole thing down to a simple layman's interpretation:

1. Donor makes donation to APS under the conditions the funds are used for a specific purpose.

2. Over the course of time, APS decides to not use those funds for the original stated purpose.

3. Donor asks for return of donation, since they won't be used for the originally intended purpose.

4. APS refuses.

5. Litigation commences.

6. Legal costs mount on both sides.

7. After arbitration rules against APS, APS prefers to appeal and continue rather than return the donation, thus increasing the likelihood that the cumulative legal costs will dwarf the original donation, making zero sense.

Does that sound about right?

It's as if someone stubborn has drawn a line in the sand and refuses to give in "on principle", regardless of actual costs, or more importantly the negative publicity.

Congratulations APS, on making future high-dollar donors wary of donating to the APS... just what we need with a declining collector base.

Just what APS Membership wants from its board... NOT!

As a part time arbitrator, and some one VERY experienced in litigating challenges to arbitration rulings, I can tell you that the percent of arbitration awards overturned are less than 2%. They can not be appealed. The ONLY grounds for vacating an arbitration award are lack of jurisdiction, fraud, corruption etc. NOTHING ELSE. Unreasonableness is virtually NEVER a reason to over turn an arbitration award. Otherwise, every arbitration award would just be a prelude to the next step in litigation. Frankly, I would rather have an arbitration award than a court ruling, as a court ruling is easier to appeal!

Hi Chris,
My post was not about the legal issue(s), it had to do with the optics. I said put aside the 'he said/she said' and instead address the questions of transparency which has been an obvious issue for the last X number of years. In fact, go back and review the public statements that those who were elected made about increasing transparency before the last election.

Not reasonable to expect comment? In my opinion this is a public relations nightmare. I am failing to see how remaining silent regarding the decision to continue to pursue this situation can be thought of as a good decision. (Funny how the 'best to remain silent' is a justification that gets used only when it best suits a certain position. Any time a lawyer thinks it benefits them they are the first ones to use pre-trial news conferences and interviews to influence the court of public opinion.) Hiding behind a fortuitous legal curtain is pretty obvious and ineffective.

The question I am raising has little to do with the legal aspect; everyone has an opinion about OJ no matter what the results of his trials were. So say this unfolds with APS 'winning' the legal situation. Talk about winning a battle but losing the war… what does it matter if a significant number of members and potential donors have concerns moving forward? Is the $20k-$50k worth it if it dries up future donations? Is the $20k-$50k worth it if APS hemorrhages a few more thousand members?

I learned a long time ago that winning an argument with my wife was a dubious 'win'. I did not matter what I said or did, what really mattered was how she felt. Managing the long term relationship by understanding how she felt was the best path for me to follow.

My opinion is to put the legal case aside, read the membership's temperature, and manage the relationship with the members. I think that this requires a deft public relations hand to manage the situation; one that extends beyond the current legal case and recognizes the long term impacts.

But I guess that time will ultimately deliver the final decision here. If the gamble the APS board is currently taking pays off then donations will stay strong and the membership will shrug off the transparency issue. Wonder how Vegas would set those odds?
Don