10-26-2015, 12:19 PM
Under Old Business the business opened up with the motion that was on the floor from the June 2015 membership meeting. The Pres wanted to move the business along but there were members present who weren't at the last mtg and therefore wouldn't know how to vote. So I asked that we familiarize these members first. Questions were asked about the agenda and the June minutes stating the topic was "tabled" at the June membership mtg. The fact is that the motion was shut down due to lack of quorum after a few members stood up and left the room just before the final vote was taken. The Pres adjourned immediately. The Treasurer confirmed my story.
The board walked away thinking the motion had died, end of subject. They took action during the 3 months since the June membership mtg that made evident this was their stance. If they actually thought it was "tabled", tabling means no action should've taken place since the last membership meeting. And they were informed a few times over the past few months that a motion was on the floor therefore no action should take place to no avail. (hence the labeling Group of 10 and accusations of sabotage by a couple board reps and the harassment and retaliation towards a couple members of the "Go10").
Since June, the board decided to do the work in house meaning that costs and other details for the project is different than the board previously reported at a board mtg 5-6 mos ago. With all discussion behind closed doors the membership no longer knew what was going on and suddenly saw clearing and grubbing work a couple months ago.
The motion was revised slightly before the vote was taken: "The membership would like a chip seal presentation be given at a membership meeting. To include the pluses and negatives, the total costs of labor and material (base coarse and chip seal) per road, and what kind of schedule they'll be using to decide which roads get chip sealed first. No work on chip seal is to be done until this presentation and membership vote of approval occurs."
The motion passed after much deliberation and discussion. Including discussion that the board had already moved forward w/chip seal work prepping the roads using our road crew who should be maintaining our easements instead. Discussion ensued about permits and a contractor license requirement. Which seemed to point that the board might be back to square one in outsourcing the work. A debate occurred over the necessity of the board getting 3 bids and the language in our Corporate Policy. The board stated our corporate policy only requires 3 bids when we are dealing w/county, state and fed grant projects. A comment was made that logically most people would get more than 1 bid for any contract work. (Especially a project of this magnitude).
One member made an aggressive outburst stating the GM isn't in conflict of interest if he is our contractor working at his usual pay. He then verbally attacked me stating I was deliberately blocking his view to the President whenever he raised his hand to speak. He happened to be sitting right in front of the mic so anyone standing at the mic would be blocking his view. He nodded off sev times during the discussion period...maybe he was dreaming he had raised his hand. This is the same member who confronted me at the last board mtg.
As anyone will attest, I stood off to the side numerous times intentionally during board and member discussions so all could have a clear view of each other during the discussions. I did not obstruct any member who raised their hand wanting to ask a question. The Pres didn't call an out of order and the member continued his rant to which I requested that the Pres call an out of order. When I defended myself, the Pres then called both of us out of order.
I learned yesterday that the proper way of handling oneself in this situation when being verbally assaulted is to stand there and take the abuse and patiently hope the Pres will call "out of order". Being a petite woman and verbally assaulted by a large man yelling false accusations in my face in close physical proximity while the board just sat there is incomprehensible and unprofessional.
After, an attempt was made to amend the motion by a nay sayer. According to a member, per RR's a member who had just voted a yes vote, could make such a motion. The amendment was to include allowing one test road be done since some work had been done already. Most agreed the test road should be on a busy road but didn't know which road. We only have 3 mos until the next membership mtg and the discussion was that it wasn't long enough to get accurate results either. A vote was taken and the motion to amend the previous motion failed.
The former Pres during owner input had accused the Bylaw Committee of working in secret, "that rumor is they are wanting to change all of our bylaws and take the board's power away". (She was gone by the time the BLC gave their report) The BLC report:
"The By-Laws committee consisting of 7 members of the association meets every second and fourth Thursday of the month, from 5pm to 7pm here in the conference room. We have recently created a form to allow for and to encourage member input. The form is available at the office. At the beginning of each meeting the agenda provides for member input, whether it be from a submitted form or in person. Our meetings are open to all members whereby an opportunity is provided for their comments and/or suggested revisions.
We continue to thoroughly review, discuss and revise Articles of the By-Laws to ensure its applicability to our Association. It is our intent that the final draft that will be presented to the membership for approval provides for a workable, concise and well thought out document that will govern the Association with the best interest of the members foremost in mind."
The BLC has minutes to provide for our website and will be posted in the very near future. April 2015-Oct 2015. (edited for typo in 1st para)
The board walked away thinking the motion had died, end of subject. They took action during the 3 months since the June membership mtg that made evident this was their stance. If they actually thought it was "tabled", tabling means no action should've taken place since the last membership meeting. And they were informed a few times over the past few months that a motion was on the floor therefore no action should take place to no avail. (hence the labeling Group of 10 and accusations of sabotage by a couple board reps and the harassment and retaliation towards a couple members of the "Go10").
Since June, the board decided to do the work in house meaning that costs and other details for the project is different than the board previously reported at a board mtg 5-6 mos ago. With all discussion behind closed doors the membership no longer knew what was going on and suddenly saw clearing and grubbing work a couple months ago.
The motion was revised slightly before the vote was taken: "The membership would like a chip seal presentation be given at a membership meeting. To include the pluses and negatives, the total costs of labor and material (base coarse and chip seal) per road, and what kind of schedule they'll be using to decide which roads get chip sealed first. No work on chip seal is to be done until this presentation and membership vote of approval occurs."
The motion passed after much deliberation and discussion. Including discussion that the board had already moved forward w/chip seal work prepping the roads using our road crew who should be maintaining our easements instead. Discussion ensued about permits and a contractor license requirement. Which seemed to point that the board might be back to square one in outsourcing the work. A debate occurred over the necessity of the board getting 3 bids and the language in our Corporate Policy. The board stated our corporate policy only requires 3 bids when we are dealing w/county, state and fed grant projects. A comment was made that logically most people would get more than 1 bid for any contract work. (Especially a project of this magnitude).
One member made an aggressive outburst stating the GM isn't in conflict of interest if he is our contractor working at his usual pay. He then verbally attacked me stating I was deliberately blocking his view to the President whenever he raised his hand to speak. He happened to be sitting right in front of the mic so anyone standing at the mic would be blocking his view. He nodded off sev times during the discussion period...maybe he was dreaming he had raised his hand. This is the same member who confronted me at the last board mtg.
As anyone will attest, I stood off to the side numerous times intentionally during board and member discussions so all could have a clear view of each other during the discussions. I did not obstruct any member who raised their hand wanting to ask a question. The Pres didn't call an out of order and the member continued his rant to which I requested that the Pres call an out of order. When I defended myself, the Pres then called both of us out of order.
I learned yesterday that the proper way of handling oneself in this situation when being verbally assaulted is to stand there and take the abuse and patiently hope the Pres will call "out of order". Being a petite woman and verbally assaulted by a large man yelling false accusations in my face in close physical proximity while the board just sat there is incomprehensible and unprofessional.
After, an attempt was made to amend the motion by a nay sayer. According to a member, per RR's a member who had just voted a yes vote, could make such a motion. The amendment was to include allowing one test road be done since some work had been done already. Most agreed the test road should be on a busy road but didn't know which road. We only have 3 mos until the next membership mtg and the discussion was that it wasn't long enough to get accurate results either. A vote was taken and the motion to amend the previous motion failed.
The former Pres during owner input had accused the Bylaw Committee of working in secret, "that rumor is they are wanting to change all of our bylaws and take the board's power away". (She was gone by the time the BLC gave their report) The BLC report:
"The By-Laws committee consisting of 7 members of the association meets every second and fourth Thursday of the month, from 5pm to 7pm here in the conference room. We have recently created a form to allow for and to encourage member input. The form is available at the office. At the beginning of each meeting the agenda provides for member input, whether it be from a submitted form or in person. Our meetings are open to all members whereby an opportunity is provided for their comments and/or suggested revisions.
We continue to thoroughly review, discuss and revise Articles of the By-Laws to ensure its applicability to our Association. It is our intent that the final draft that will be presented to the membership for approval provides for a workable, concise and well thought out document that will govern the Association with the best interest of the members foremost in mind."
The BLC has minutes to provide for our website and will be posted in the very near future. April 2015-Oct 2015. (edited for typo in 1st para)