I don’t know who you are, Harold, but thank you for asking for a round of applause for UCO officers at today’s Delegates Assembly. You said that you realized from experience how hard it is to manage a complex organization like UCO, and you made your comments following a barrage of hostile questions from Ed Grossman about the M&M paving contract that challenged everything right down to the exact numbers of invoices, items on the punch list, drain repairs and inspections.
Ed was accusing UCO of mismanagement without recognition of basic facts: major contracts are typically problematic, UCO officers are fully capable of handling the issues without constant micromanagement and distortion, and M&M costs and process have been open and communicated from the beginning. Ed may believe he cares about this community, but he is the one who put the Village at risk by reporting us for code violations, not because residents or properties were unsafe, but as a way of publicly and dramatically showcasing his complaints about M&M rather than addressing them responsibly.
Ed said at the end of his diatribes that David should “fall on his sword.” Good Grief! Does he think that the paving contract is some kind of epic, historic battle we're fighting with a live-or-die mentality? Where is his sense of proportion and reality? And his shouted reference to suing UCO? For a contract still in the process of being resolved by the people in charge who have done nothing but serve this Village with integrity? Who does Ed think would pay for such a foolish, unwarranted step? He put us at risk with his striping gimmick to get attention and now the threat of a lawsuit against UCO that residents would pay for.
No wonder Harold felt compelled to speak out. We all still have to figure out how to let people have their say without letting their personal agenda disrupt the entire assembly. We’re not there yet. In the meantime, thank you, Harold. Your statement was a breath of fresh air.
Well put, Anita, and well put in your blog comment under the 3/31 post "Rumor Control—Call for Information." You are a voice of reason.
ReplyDeleteI walked out of today's delegates meeting after Ed G—despite the new rules about microphone time and the groans of the people—went back time and time again to the microphone. For all I know, Ed may have a valid point or two to make, but he is completely destroying his own credibility in my eyes by his behavior. Your statement "Ed was accusing UCO of mismanagement without recognition of basic facts: major contracts are typically problematic [etc.]" hits the nail on the head.
I only wish I had stayed at the meeting to hear Harold's call for a round of applause for the UCO officers, for that's what they deserved.
Thank you Harold, I was too angry to speak this morning. It is amazing that people who did not volunteer, who had no part in the planning and budgeting process of necessary repair, now produce confused bits and pieces of statistics and demand the end of UCO. Also hurling threats of law suits, how ridiculously unproductive!
ReplyDeleteSometimes I wish we could send in our votes electronically and not have to put up with the usual crazies at delegate meetings.
ReplyDeleteHow shameful of Mr. Grossman to tell the president of our organization to fall on his sword! How abominable!
ReplyDeleteMr. G's only agenda is to agitate and alarm at meeting after meeting. It was more embarrassing today because at least one politician was still in the audience. How that must have sounded to anyone listening to this outburst for the first time. No one can begin to understand the time a good president devotes to the organization, nor the research needed for each project that is undertaken.
Thanks to the gentleman (Harold) who got up to applaud our president for his efforts, as we all should.
Contained in the UCO Bylaws, Article V, "Delegate Assembly", Paragraph "D" reads as follows:
ReplyDelete"A Delegate or seated Alternate Delegate may be removed or suspended from further participation at any given meeting by a vote of two thirds (2/3) of the Delegates present."
After witnessing today's fiasco, I'm inclined to support exercising this provision in the future!
Randall: Right on! Please exercise this provision at the next Delegate meeting and suspend the Delegate's privileges of anyone willfully disrupting a meeting by escorting them out of the building. Bravo! Well said!
ReplyDeleteDelegates will be conflicted because no one wants to shut down communication, but in a case like yesterday's meeting, we don't have a choice but to stop the relentless nastiness. Good idea to apply Article V, Paragraph D.
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe that every delegate should be able to speak but I also think it is time to end the empty threats and innuendo. Ed should have to have specific detailed backup for his accusations or be denied the opportunity to just spew hate. There is no excuse for a delegate to show such disrespect as to tell the president to "fall on his sword". Delegates meetings should be professional and a pleasure to attend. David does so much for this village, over and above all we can ask for. We need more Harolds. Thank you Harold for a vote of confidence.
ReplyDeleteGood point to demand specific backup for an accusation. The next time anyone starts making inflammatory comments (we probably don't have long to wait), David would be justified to demand written subtantiation for thoughtful review and response following the meeting.
ReplyDelete