 |
| WATCHDOG © 2011 |
Wisdom and reason prevailed recently as members from the community shared their concerns via letter and personal plea to the Board of Directors regarding the 'Agreement' that was on the Agenda for consideration. As the Watchdog has stated often, the agreement was overkill, unnecessary and if passed would be a dangerous precedent. It appears the persuasive wisdom and reason from those who offered their concerns up for consideration was given due consideration by the Board and the matter seems to have been put to rest in the best interest of all. WELL DONE one and all. It was a collaborative effort by individuals seen and unseen and the Board who all apparently share the same goal, to come together in agreement for what is best for the whole rather than the one.
The Petitions are another story. The fact that the 'Petitions' have thus far eluded the members who have voiced an interest in reviewing them and seem to be out of the realm of 'consideration' going forward is a serious set back. There may be some legal ramifications connected to the whole procedural handling of these petitions from the get go. The two individuals alleged to be named in the petitions have worked vigilantly to provide the members an opportunity to review them to no avail. This obfuscation has done little to bring together a community. Signing a petition is not brain surgery. It is understood that if you put your name to a document that is intended to cause an 'action' then it is expected anyone effected by such action would be able to review the documents. Clearly, the removal of a director affects the Membership and as such those who would be affected are entitled to review the document for accuracy and validity.
The argument offered for the tight fisted refusal to allow members to review the petitions? The two individuals who were named resigned their position. True. Factually, one of those named resigned her position from the Board prior to any petitions surfacing. Thus, when the petitions were handed in, it should have been been only those germane to the continuing director! Further, the idea that the Petitions could be withdrawn willy nilly without the unanimous consent of each of the signers to those petitions has been called into question. Now, it appears the petitions, a part of the corporate record from the Annual Business Meeting of the Board, are perhaps being returned to the originators? Sight unseen by the members who were entitled to review them. Again, questions abound as to the 'veracity' of this behavior. The end of this matter may well not have been written at the last meeting. Time will tell.
As a matter of historical consideration, there have been three petitions submitted to the Board in the past 4 years. The two submitted to the Board and shared with the whole Board were acted on as required by law, even if by the petitioners themselves in the case of the July 2007 petition. Also, they were always made available to the members to review. The fact that a single member took a copy of the petition in 2008 and created his own flier out of that petition without the knowledge and permission of the Board or the Office is on that member. Frankly, he released no information that was not readily available to anyone who wanted to review it. There was NO retaliation EVER to the individuals who signed either of those petitions. Such an excuse is merely a straw man argument to allow the control of the individual who has created impediment upon impediment to their being reviewed freely reviewed. It has been offered as an opinion by some the possible reason for not releasing the documents for review is because of inaccurate information, or stated another way, statements made which may be slanderous and could initiate damages for said slander [which could include signers]. Many of the signers were no doubt persuaded by the 'stories' told to secure the signature.
The petition handed in by those opposing a Cell Tower in the Subdivision was never delivered to the Board by the 'officer' who received them and so the only record of those petitions has been lost. While everyone is in the 'petition' signing business, however, they may be interested in a plausible Cell Tower II. [Truth be told, it would likely not be in the best interest of any provider to deal with HSCA for a Cell Tower site before demanding a survey of the Members and their position on the presence of one. The Cell service in the area could use a boost and to date there has not been a complete boost. However, Verizon's 4G LTE may put that issue to rest, at least for those subscribers, once and for all. Their 4G system is supposed to be accessing the old UHF/VHF television frequencies that are already established nationwide.]
The bottom line: the Petitions were entered into the record of the activities of the Annual Business Meeting of the Board and now absent from the record. It appears the action of returning them to the owners of the petitions as entered into the record of the Special Meeting of the Board is the board's 'fix' to the situation. At this time, it would thus be safe to say -- any discussion or allusion to these petitions that are no longer part of the record would be officially a non sequitur. Sadly, those who were clamoring so loudly for 'freedom of speech' seem to be incidental protesters! Apparently, those who want to see the Petitions are not free to review and speak to them and especially to those who signed them.
