-
Email from VP Barbara Cornish
-
Email from VP Barbara Cornish
-
Dear David, It is with deep regret that I hand in my resignation as Vice President of UCO effective April 1st. It has been a pleasure to work at UCO. But seeing how the delegates voted for term limits for ONLY the President and Vice Presidents, I take this personal as a slap in the face and NOT a vote of confidence.
I found this to be very disheartening considering the work I put in to this position and the love I have for the village. I will be glad to stay during any transition period if you want me to. It seems extremely unfair that half the officers are term limited and the other half not term limited. This is not the kind of democracy I want to be part of.
-
Regretfully, Barbara
-
Dave Israel
President
United Civic Organization
-
Why is it that the best people leave? We are losing a lady that I would have voted for President! The Delegates made a terrible mistake. I only hope that it can be voted on again. Barbara you will be missed and not easy to replace. Thank you for all your hard work. Being newly elected to the Executive Board I had looked forward to working with you.
ReplyDeleteJoyce
Very sorry to see you go Barbara. I supported removal of term limits but I did not know it was make or break for you.
ReplyDeleteBarbara it is either YOUR way, No way or the Highway. Good luck and Good Bye
ReplyDeleteI also voted for the removal of term limits. I think some of the delegates didn't understand that three other officers didn't have term limits. Also, didn't delegates realize you would have to campaign again for re-election? I appreciate all that you did this past year to make Century Village a better place to live.
ReplyDeleteDear j, I am sorry you feel that way. But when three officers can run unlimited and 4 cannot. That is not fair. I don't want my way, just want what is fair and just. Maybe I am to sensitive for this position so I am sure you are glad I am on my way out. Thanks for the support..Makes it easier
ReplyDeleteDear Barbara...What you think is fair isn't necessarily what the majority of the delegates think and to resign right after the election is disgusting. You would have done more good by staying on and help bring the village forward in a positive manner. I HAD a lot of respect for you and your ability but you have changed my mind greatly by resigning. I wish you would reconsider and do the right thing for us people in the village. The action you have taken is not a positive thing but a real negative thing. Think it over, there is still time.
ReplyDeleteBarbara...remember performance is the number one factor in doing a good job. By doing a good job you don't have to worry about term limits. Example Bob Marshall will continue to be asset to the community in his position on the executive board and I am sure he will run again for vice president and more than likely be elected By your previous performance I don't see why term limits or no terms limits should be a problem for you. You have always done a good job. I just hope that you reconsider your resignation. You are a asset to the community and will be greatly missed if you don't reconsider. But that decision is yours.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear j, You are right the majority of the delegates felt is was fair. As far as Bob Marshal, He served as President and Vice President and definitely is an asset to this community. There are certain positions were you can do more good than others. It is just to bad that he didn't have the right to run again as VP and let the people decide by their votes.
ReplyDeleteBarbara ..with term limits there's a chance for new "blood"; which is a good thing. Bob Marshall has the presence while on the executive board to be able to run again next year while still being involved in the operation of UCO. It gives him a chance to view of things from a different prospective and the ability improve on things when he is elected again, which I'm sure he would be.
ReplyDeletePlease reconsider. By resigning I think you are only thinking of yourself NOT the village community. Please think it over. What ever you do I personally wish you well and THANKS
The voting process was confusing on this by-law. Some delegates had left the auditorium. It was passed and then Randall said it could only be passed with a two thirds vote.
ReplyDeleteI still don't know how many delegates voted against it.
Bring it back for another vote. Delegates should be sitting in the middle section to make voting easier. Or yes voters line up in one aisle and no in the other aisle. Or have delegates verbally count off when in their line!
@J: I am not worried about new blood. I am worried about old blood stirring the pot, disrupting meetings and lurking in the theater looking for an opportunity to file lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteDon4060....I have the same feeling too. But you need new blood too.New ideas without all the disruption we have had recently. Change is good. It's not new blood that has been causing all the problems. It's been OLDER blood that has. There is pro and con on both sides ( term limits and none ) that both have merits. I see nothing wrong with a President or a Vice-President taken a year off and running again. Having the same people in there without any change is no good. Like I said before there is a time for new blood.
ReplyDeleteBarbara,
ReplyDeleteYou are one of the best to have been elected to the UCO board. When the presidential election takes place, (if next year or down the road),I would nominate you in a heartbeat.....If caring board members leave UCO, it gives the opportunity to those causing our problems to get on that board and destroy the good in Century Village that is in effect now. By voting against term limits those delegates are asking for an inefficient group of people to run Century. We need a nucleus of people like you. Think it over. It's disturbing to have a group of people (even if small) to have such a destructive attitude. We should stay strong and do our best to help keep the village on the right track.
What Barbara received was in fact
ReplyDeletea "Slap in the Face" from the DA..
The inequality applied to a portion of the Elected Officer's
Term limits for Pres. & VP's -
None for the other 3 - Treas. & 2
Sect'rys, althought they ALL cast
1 vote on ALL issues, is absolutely ludicrous..Her support to establish "One Set of Rules"
applicable to all, was REJECTED...
Why would ANY sane,individual continue giving their ALL, 24 - 7
to serve those, who cannot see
the fire for the flame? In abolishing Term limits, one is not guaranteed their position for the
remainder of their existance..
Any capable individual can always
challenge any office..example,2012
Election, the position of Corresponding Sect'ry held for several yrs. by Avis Blank,was
challenged by Marilyn Pomerantz our current Sect'ry. My Point, is
ANYONE can challenge the seated
Officer,at each annual election.
I applaud Barbara, for her decision however, I too wish she
would re consider..both she & Frank
are Great Assets to our Community.
Slight typo --Shld read None of
ReplyDeletethe others..not for
Having seen VP's come and go since the inception of UCO, I certainly number you among the very best. I feel that this was not the time for you to go. Rather, you should have finished your term and made decisions later.....especially if this was your true reason for resigning. You have plenty more to offer for which the community could benefit. Good luck!
ReplyDeleteHi Barbara,
ReplyDeleteI am very sorry to hear of your decision to resign as VP. The Village loses one of the best if it loses you.
I was on the fence about removing term limits even though I felt Dave Israel had done a magnificent job as UCO president, and it would be awfully tough to lose him a year from now when his two 2-year terms were up. I was thinking of the dangers it might pose for the future without this provision. But I changed my mind to being in favor of DOING AWAY with term limits after reading Anita’s blog a while back, in which she pointed out two things.
First (which I hadn’t thought about), only the president and VPs of UCO are term limited. The other officers are not term limited. This doesn’t seem right.
Second: Yes, the US president is term limited (to two full terms: eight years, and note not four). BUT MAYORS, GOVERNORS, SENATORS, AND CONGRESSMEN, ETC. ARE NOT SO LIMITED, and they compare more accurately with a UCO officer.
The motion to drop term limits did receive a majority vote. It just didn’t receive the required two-thirds vote for a bylaws change.
I think there are reasons for this: First, with the ill-advised motion to remove Dave Israel NOW as UCO president being so recent, a motion at the very next meeting to open the door to his being UCO president for A THIRD TERM takes people a little by surprise, I think. People are funny. They need time to adjust to changed situations. It wouldn’t surprise me if a number felt “Wait a minute, is this now going too far in the OTHER direction?” I suspect also that the vote was more about Dave than you or any of the other VPs.
It isn’t the easiest thing to get a two-thirds vote. One thing it takes is TIME to make one’s point with people about the desired change in the rules. (To get their unclear thinking straightened out, as mine was.) Perhaps this can be revisited in the late fall or early winter when the snowbirds have returned--and in the meantime an educational campaign about it go on.
I sure wish you would change your mind, Barbara. Dave and you and the other VPs have done a wonderful job. No matter what you finally decide, WE THANK YOU!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete