About a month ago, I noted on the blog that our Sheffield N Condo Association had been incorrectly shown for the second time in the last few months as having not attended the previous delegates meeting, when in fact I attended. Now I note in the current UCO Reporter that Sheffield N didn’t attend the January 2010 meeting. Well, I did!
What goes on? Apparently (from the published lists of non-attendees, which I now distrust) many of the Sheffields do not attend delegates meetings. Do those making up the list of non-attendees just blithely list us all? Our association has been given an undeserved black eye to all who read the Reporter.
To make matters worse, Mr. Amato published the list of non-attendees in one of his ads in the January Reporter. So multiplied thousands now think ill of us.
I am at the stage of pinching myself and saying, “Lanny, are you sure you really went to that meeting?” Then I look and see the handouts from the meeting, the colored voting slip, and my scribbled notes, and realize, “Yes, old man, you did go. You may not have it all together, but you did go.”
But seriously, I am resentful at this continued poor record-keeping or whatever it is. It reflects badly on our poor condo association that tries do at least some things right. I suggest the UCO Reporter no longer publish this list, at least until it is done accurately.
Hi Lanny,
ReplyDeleteI checked with our UCO Admin.
The sign-in records show that the Sheffield N Delegate did indeed attend in November, 2009. There is no check-in noted for December 04, 2009; and January data has not yet been published.
Yes, mistakes are possible; all Delegates be certain to sign-in on the correct line when you check in on meeting day.
Thanks,
Dave Israel
Hey Lanny,
ReplyDeleteI feel your pain and aggravation. This brings me to another important issue... when an important vote is taken at the Delegate Assembly, it must be based on a % of the members present(majority, 2/3, depending on the motion). If the report of the members present at the time of the vote is indeed inaccurate, it could possibly effect the accurate determination of the outcome of a vote in instances where there is a lack an overwhelming consensus (the vote is close).
Your association should be very appreciative to have someone of your caliber as their representative!
Thank you for checking, Dave. I wasn't aware that you had to SIGN in (i.e., sign something). For some time the women at the registration desk have just looked up my name, found it, and (supposedly) checked me off as having registered. Should I have been signing something? I see I was mixed up about January, and it was actually December non-attendance being reported in the UCO paper, but the fact remains that within the past several months Sheffield N was reported in the paper as having no delegate present three times when there was someone (me) there—and one time that there WAS a delegate present when there wasn't!
ReplyDeleteAgain, my thanks for checking, and I might have known you would be the one in UCO to follow through. That is why (one reason among many) we need you as the next UCO president!!
Hi Lanny
ReplyDeleteJanuary 27, 2010 3:45 PM,
The receptionist will check your ID and "Sign you in"; I am suggesting that you make certain that the right line has been checked.
Dave Israel
Perhaps the time has come for the
ReplyDeleteActual Delegate to "Sign In",
as opposed to the current practice.
They then could cross check, and
provide an accurate attendance record...