12-23-2017, 09:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by KeaauRich
Well, at this point I don't take *anything* that either "Board" says as fully credible-- there has been too much stretching of the truth and shady dealings on both sides.
... [snipped for brevity, go read his post if you want to]
So I think I'd err towards believing the Special Master, though I agree that she (or her firm) should not be considered for the Receivership position if that's what the Court orders.
... [snipped for brevity, go read his post if you want to]
So, in a nutshell, she appears to basically agree with the Arthurs group's initial complaints. Having said that, I think the most positive step we could take to get the Association back on track would be a new election for the entire Board that would be overseen by a neutral third party (such as the League of Women Voters, who I believe provided this service in the past). And I'd stipulate that members of both the Wirick and Arthurs groups would be ineligible to run for office during that election.
Huzzah. Agree with everything Rich has said, and would like to nominate him for president of the new board! (Seriously.)