-
Dear Sandy Grussgott,
-
-
In America, we do expect people to
make informed decisions based on all the facts.
You sat on a board of inquiry and
made a decision WITHOUT even looking at the evidence. This is unheard
of in the United States of America where we consider ourselves a
democracy. Is it possible that your version of democracy is sitting
in a JURY BOX AND making a decision without hearing the evidence?
This is exactly what you did.
How did you know Mr. Grossman's
accusations were false when you never took the time to view the
supporting evidence? You dismissed it as being irrelevant without
even knowing what it was.
Based on your actions as a member of
the board of inquiry, I too would have made the assumption that you
were a David Israel lackey who made up her mind beforehand. Why else
would you be so biased?
-
-
Olga Wolkenstein
-
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteIt is worth noting that the "evidence" submitted was a copy of a 120 page complaint which had been previously filed with DBPR. It was a complaint against our former LCAM Rodger Carver; having nothing to do with me whatsoever.
Dave Israel
Waiving for now the question of whether the "supporting evidence" really was supporting evidence, the problem, as I saw it, was that the five people on the Board of Inquiry were not given an opportunity to look at the supporting evidence before the meeting. In order for them to properly consider it, five copies would probably have had to have been made, and they would have had to take the time to look it all over, think about it, and come to their personal conclusions about it--preliminary to discussing it among themselves. In the meantime--though perhaps this is not the main consideration--the audience would be waiting and waiting and WAITING! Why couldn't the three complainants have simply given this evidence to the Board beforehand?
ReplyDeleteI don't know the legalities of this, Olga, but I can't imagine a judge in open court, adjudicating a case, not having been given this kind of evidence beforehand to look over. Even Judge Judy is often given some of the back-up particulars of a case beforehand.
But I am not an attorney.
Hi Lanny,
ReplyDeleteMarch 12, 2013 at 11:39 AM,
The problem with the "evidence" was that it was a complaint against Rodger Carver our former LCAM.
Pending adjudication by DBPR, this complaint is strictly confidential and not to be released to anyone.
So, what has this to do with my recall hearing; that is why the Chair, declared it immaterial.
Dave Israel
Dave Israel
I understand that, Dave. My point was that even if by some stretch, it could be considered germane, why wasn't it introduced earlier? The three complainants looked awfully ill-prepared to me. It was all vague stuff they brought up, such as what kids would bring up. I found it hard to believe an attorney had been advising them. Three against one, and the three end up looking awfully bungling--finally like whipped dogs, leaving the scene of their undoing. It was almost comical--after hearing only three of the "charges," the three realize: UH OH, GUYS, WE ARE TAKING A BEATING, AND IT'S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE! WE'D BETTER GET OUT OF HERE! Leaving poor Olga at her post, braver than the boys, it could be argued. One of the charges was critical of you (Dave) for frequently having a certain non-elected person at UCO. So what? UCO is full of non-elected volunteers! Thank goodness for them! If I ever write my humorous book on condo living, this will be an important chapter--I can see that now.
ReplyDeleteHi Lanny,
ReplyDeleteMarch 12, 2013 at 2:26 PM,
This action (Recall) and the follow on Law Suit are calculated to do one thing; damage at great expense of time and money!
To see that, you need merely view the video on this BLOG of the PUC meeting.
There are no ideas, only complaints, an endless aspiration to relevance, but without any germane substance.
We have seen this at virtually every Delegate Assembly meeting, where they simply disrupt the meetings with off-agenda drivel until enough Delegates leave in disgust and we lose our quorum; a typical ploy of the "self-disenfranchised"
Most folks see through this diatribe, as evidenced by the robust crowd of perhaps 15 acolytes and sycophants in attendance at the PUC meeting.
It is an unfortunate waste of time and energy.
Dave Israel
Sandy is the President of Anshei Sholom. If ever you wanted to meet a more honest unbiased person this is her. She was selected for her integrity and her ability to be fair.
ReplyDeleteTo Lanny Howe:
ReplyDeleteMaybe the following letter will remind you that the recall of David Israel was a sham.
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF DEMOCRACY?
The meaning of Democracy is to have FAIR PLAY BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE OPPOSING VIEWS.
It is one in which our country was founded. It is why we have laws and rules in areas where opposites gather to compete with one another.
Unfortunately, the meaning of democracy was lost when the board of inquiry was chosen in the recall of David Israel.
The rules of democracy were violated when the five people chosen to be on the board of inquiry were chosen in secret, and their names were not publicly known unit the day of the recall.
Previous to being chosen, the petitioners were invited to an advisory meeting in which it was presumed a discussion was to take place on the procedure to select a board of inquiry.
Soon after the meeting started the petitioners were asked to leave or be thrown out. The advisory committee decided the meeting was to be closed.
This act of deception against the complainants was either an act of hostility or stupidity and was not the ethical way to choose a board of inquiry.
Had the board of inquiry been chosen in a democratic way, and not in secret, the recall against David Israel would have been settled and done with.
The delegates would have spoken, and the issue ended. Instead, the saga continues. Due to the inept action of the advisory committee and the UCO Officers, we now have a quagmire that will drag us deeper and deeper into the mud and continue until the real meaning of democracy is clearly understood.
Olga Wolkenstein
And all she told me is that democracy is dissent...
ReplyDeleteBut just to clear the air, I did give her the definition from Webster's.
She is diving into the deep end of Rodney Dangerfields pool of "no respect".
I woke up early this morning and have been on the computer since 4:00 churning out association stuff, plus 2-3 Blog comments. I just reread yours above, Dave, about the "robust crowd of perhaps 15 acolytes and sycophants." You crack me up sometimes, and there's nothing like a good laugh first thing in the morning.
ReplyDelete