-
Following is yet another debit on the escalating costs of the attack of the "Dreimalcontentsbund" upon our body politic. A Candidate for Vice President in the upcoming UCO election has withdrawn his name; following is David Saxon's Email, those of you who think about issues, please think about this!!!
-
To the Elections Committee:
-
-
After having witnessed the ‘trial’ of Dave Israel this past week, and the indignity of his having to defend himself against baseless charges, I have decided to withdraw my name as a candidate for election to be a vice-president of UCO.
-
Dave puts in too many hours, unpaid, doing more than any other president ever did, producing more communication with anyone in the village who requests it, and now has to defend himself against unspecified items. No thank you, not for me.
-
I’ll work on committees but not as an elected officer.
Thank you Dave for all you have done. Please don’t let these malcontents stop you.
-
David Saxon
-
David Saxon
People ask me why I volunteer but don't run. Whoo boy! I don't expect gratitude but I could not tolerate unwarranted attacks. Do you like my new icon? Elaine Brown.
ReplyDeleteThis wIthdrawal is a symptom of a system that needs a tuneup. Who would want this job? The pay sucks, the hours are long, and, at any time, a small cabal of professional stink-raisers straight out of a Seinfeld episode can fling a monkey wrench into the works, and interrupt Village business for a month. Even the thickest skinned volunteer will likely walk away just out of sheer frustration. People volunteer because they want to get things done, and this is not it.
ReplyDeleteElimination of term limits seems like a good start towards fixing the system, and I support this proposal as a way of retaining a diminishing resource: talented people who want to serve. The next step is to remove the "Sword of Damocles" hanging over every Officer and Candidate. Thirty five signatures on a petition, bogus or not, is a too easy a bar to cross, considering the cost in volunteer hours, interruption of Village business, and the lost time of the Delegates who must endure these endless dog and pony shows.
The Meeting must be fixed. As much as I hate to suggest this, I think that the time has come for restriction of speakers to Delegates only. One of the worst of the meeting- crashers is not a UCO Officer, not a member of the Executive Board, not an Officer of his own association, and not even a Delegate. Other people use the Meeting to address personal concerns that have no place at the Meeting. Imagine if the annual stockholders meeting of American Express was constantly interrupted by Cardholders complaining about not getting their bill on time. Homeowners should be encouraged to direct their concerns to their Delegates, both to increase the Delegates' accountability and to streamline the Meeting. Why should a homeowner engage their Delegate when they can bypass the Delegate , show up at the Delegate Assembly, and harangue the Officers directly?
Exactly Donald - IMHO The Delegate Assembly is a Board of 300+ Directors, it is their job to judge motions, projects, and plans for serving the village. These items have been researched and thoroughly vetted by UCO committees, the Officers, and the Executive Board. The Delegate Assembly deals with ideas that have been polished and refined.
ReplyDeleteThere may be people with good ideas, but they need to go thru the process. Do not fling ideas at the Delegate Assembly without backup and full of unverifiable claims. That only causes confusion and wastes time.
If you have a brand new idea for the village, please DO NOT bring it untested to the Delegate Assembly. Go to UCO where there is a great experience base and the historical searchable database, most ideas are not new. When the idea is properly organised the UCO system will move the idea/plan to the Assembly. Then maybe we can finish on time.
..... and Roberts rules are necessary.
Listen Elaine, I watch most of the meetings on TV. It's like watching the backs of a lot of heads from the last row.
ReplyDeleteWhen these lunatics hijack the meeting and blast the Assembly with crazy nonsense mixed with halfass legal and accounting jargon, I can see the heads tilt toward one another, husband and wife or two neighbors trying to figure out what the hell is going on. I can see the confusion.
These stink-raisers are aware of the confusion that they are causing. The object is to interrupt the process; to delay, obstruct, to slow things down until they can figure out a way to reinsert themselves into the workings of Village business outside of the democratic process. Some of these "people" are former insiders that were bounced out of office, by voting Delegates that were sick of how things were being done. I even see that snake that was once in charge of insurance and "mold remediation" still slinking around. Unbelievable.
I love your icon, Elaine. I also believe that speakers should be confined to delegates, as they once were many years ago, except in Good & Welfare when all other business has been conducted and anyone not wishing to listen to ranting and raving can feel free to leave.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. The UCO bylaws seem to be a mess and powerless to keep the meetings on track. All we seem to show the world is that CV is incapable of self-governance. We do NOT need to let everyone speak all the time at every meeting.
ReplyDeleteGood for you, David. I am only sorry you are withdrawing your name from VP candidacy. I enjoyed working with you at the UCO Reporter and thought you would do well as a VP.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry you are withdrawing but respect your principled decision. If it's any consolation, the idea that a good person is deterred from serving the Village because of a small band of small-minded, relentlessly destructive people will motivate the rest of us to defeat these obstructionists at every turn.
ReplyDeleteJust a note for those wanting to limit those speaking to just the delegates. There are three things to look at in relationship to that idea. 1) Some of those that are creating most of the drama and upset are actually delegates. It doesn't stop them to say that only delegates can speak. 2) There are people that work on committees and have information for the delegates about what the committees are doing. Those people may not be delegates. 3) Other owners may have insight into an issue being discussed due to their experience; however, they are not delegates.
ReplyDeleteLimiting those who speak does not help the delegate assembly. What would be more important is that the ones who are showing inappropriate behavior be removed. It entails having a PBSO officer there and that would cost money. Are you willing to add the cost to your fees?
Sorry to see you withdraw also. You have always had my respect and admiration as an intelligent and inspirational person and writer. I can only hope that you will consider a return to the Reporter.
ReplyDeleteAs for the delegates being the only ones allowed to speak, I would agree with it with the stipulation that during "good and welfare" anyone would be allowed to speak. I also suggest that everyone read Roberts Rules of Order. I went into the apps store on my phone and iPad and download a free copy of the book that is a modern version and is understandable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVery valid points Anitra, here is another approach. Speakers should be directed by topic.
ReplyDelete1. The recall/impeach topic has been handled and will never be mentioned again.
2. Questions and comments related to specific committees should go to those committees, (eg Transportation for bus Q&A).
3. No outbursts and haranguing (maybe a little in Good & Welfare).
4. Whole village issues, OK.
5. Bylaw issues, OK.
6. Points of Order and Roberts Rules, OK.
7. New off-the-wall ideas, go to UCO and/or committees.
8. Personal problems, get professional help or go to UCO.