 |
| WATCHDOG © 2011 |
As 2011 draws to a close and the dawn of a new Board year begins to peak Watchdog feels a potpourri of issues might be topical before shifting gears to issues which may be determined by the election.
The Candidates Forum:
It was decided by consensus by the Election Committee [EC] to recommend a format and date for the Candidate's Forum. The Board did not consider the report for that consensus until it's December regular board meeting thus leaving little time to comply with the concordant opinion of the election committee. The first date certain the board could come up with was a week from the election when traditionally most folks have cast their votes. Watchdog agrees it was a massive undertaking to accommodate in the short span of time from EC agreement.
That being said it would have been very doable had the EC been formed in July as is traditionally done with an agenda to encourage nominations; general broadcast of the filing deadline; and organization of matters respective of the EC. In the past, the Community Relations committee has handled the Candidate Forum -- but, it seems logical the EC be responsible. Had the Board looked at the 'wisdom' in having the EC formed in July, the campaign to encourage interest in the community to serve and then the follow through on behalf of a community who has suggested and minimally supported the past annual Candidate Forum the schedule and event would have been practicable. So, now, an email between EC Members to determine the level of interest is the 'token' gesture given.
If one was to paint a canvas with the upcoming election as the subject -- but with the components of the election process as a backdrop to the election -- a very clear picture of the intent of the artist would be evident. A portion of the canvas would have to be holographic to show the fading in and out of the 5 missing candidates from the ballot. Rumors are beginning to percolate right now the Sequel to this year's election process will be another one for the books. But that is an article and topic for 2013 election.
The Newsletter:
Watchdog finds the Newsletter reflective of the overall 'character' or 'vibe' of the current leadership. It is informative; it is no frills; it is what has been called by others 'propaganda' or 'spin' ala this Board. Watchdog has no issue with the various boards having their own style of communications. Of course, the double standard never applies when it is 'your' team that is in the seat of power. [No one will cry foul and say it is all 'spin' to hide this or that.] While there is much that might be discussed about the 'content' Watchdog thinks where revisionist history is concerned the author and editor of this year's newsletter might have checked her sources to determine whether such statements as: one of the employees left her position to 'pursue other opportunities' just after the statement the position the employee held 'ceased to exist as of Oct. 31st...' might cut mustard. If she'd checked her sources she'd find that she is on record as stating --in essence --the position and 'employee' would be meeting the same end. It appears the disingenuous spin "...we will miss her expertise!" is more prophetic than simple lip service!!! [This may become self evident.] For the record, the Watchdog misses both of the office employees whose positions were terminated by edict of the Board of Directors. It is not a quantum leap to assert many Members will more than 'simply' miss them both! Time and reality; revolving door?
Members Survey: Will this be a topic of the upcoming Annual Member's Meeting? Will those surveys be available for review by Members? With nearly double the number of surveys from the first summation of results [70%] a couple of 'hot button' items: 1]Use of pool by non members; 2] Cell Tower; the percentages seem interesting. They were 58% [now 64%] and 66% [now 61%] respectively in the October 2010 report of 100 surveys. Will there be a full accounting of the Survey results showing 'all' the "expressed concerns" of the members who took the survey? Perhaps this should be requested. Considering costs associated with the Survey borne by the Membership -- together with the 'interest' in soliciting feed back by the Board from the Membership -- [regardless of the low respondency [15%]] an implied if not intimated demand for a full publishing of the results would be beneficial to Members in seeing and contemplating their neighbor's 'expressed concerns'.
The Papio Street Board has committed a few blunders in parliamentary procedures to be sure. Truthfulness will always be an issue among us, too. I found it interesting the Papio Faction continuously blamed the prior board for starting the litigation when we know for certain it was caused when the 2007 recalled board told the two banks they were victims of "a hostile takeover", an idea we know they conceived in emulation of the earlier dispute among the members of "Friends of the Library." When the banks filed the interpleader case, all parties became defendants. However, they continue to repeat the lie to this day that Watchdog (you) was responsible. This lie has worked for them among the uninformed. And yet, I was present when you warned them all in public not to try to freeze the accounts because it would lead to exactly what happened. It doesn't appear the Papio Street Board will be any better in policing itself that their predecessors. After all, when they are the judges in their own case what do you expect their decision will be? We aren't going to see any disinterested Jeffersonian Republicanism from this board.
ReplyDeleteWhat an awesome invocation of thought, ideologies and principles!!
ReplyDeleteI must admit: though I consider myself mostly honest I fall way short of the honorable founders of freedoms and rights. I read of them continuously in order to become more acquainted with their outstanding integrity. I know soulfully I shall not quite make the grade yet I do persevere in an attempt to self adjust from wayward to less guile.
As for this outgoing Board and the incoming new one which will likely be identical excepting of course for the young mind the president is currently touting...it is good to remind everyone that for each of the Boards from 2008 to 2011 there was no 'intentional' funny business as to the elections; nor, was there a carbon copy board from one year to the next. Yes, a majority of the Board was generally the same but there were always newly elected and with the elected seats from 5 then 6 now down to 3 [as they have changed over the same election periods] it is purposefully designed to have a majority always consistent to provide coherent policy development and project fruition. I just think it is wrong to have carved down the field to what is clearly favorable to one 'faction' disallowing the minority [3 new elected directors] which was to be elected from a pool of 10 candidates the opportunity to provide a diversity that could be the beginning of cohesion for a fractured community..or at least that portion of the community that is actively involved.
The naivete that was demonstrated by those who should have been far less trusting, including myself, in expecting the right thing to be done according to the 'rules' shall serve as a wound healing but leaving a reminder in the form of a scar! The bell has not tolled, all is not said and done but at the end of the day will things be done now going forward to reflect a learned lesson by those who have imposed self will? Currently, there is a testing of the waters and time will tell the results of that test.
On the thought of trying to correct the perceptions out there regarding the litigation I am reminded of words to a Jim Croce song 'You Don't Mess Around with Jim'.. There are just some things you don't do..like 'spit into the wind'. Trying to set the record straight for people who will not listen and will not hear after so many many attempts to do so is the same as 'spitting into the wind'.
ReplyDeleteI find the blathering about what some believe to be 'truth' -- which is quickly archiving into 'ancient' mythology -- about all the things DOOM and WATCHDOG have allegedly done to be amusing. The individuals who continue to froth at the mouth here and there on the internet reveal more truth about themselves than they reveal about the subjects of their fictional musings. One does not need to possess critical intellect to discover a pattern to their thought processes. What seems to escape their attention is the 'written' word and it's permanence once written and published and what those words say about another. Further, it may escape their notice the responsibility they may come to bear for having said them. Voluminous, copious even, are the assertions/allegations. Once published the likelihood of someone snatching them before they are removed is high.
So to conclude this as I began it: "You don't tug on Superman's Cape; You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull the mask off an ole Lone Ranger and you don't mess around with Jim!" -- Jim Croce.
This might be cryptic but relevant. :)