-
Decision of an Issue Ending with the Executive Board – and more
-
Let me first establish I have not supported Term Limits as
I feel a person doing a good job should be allowed to continue to serve. A
person not serving well can be voted out. I am a member of the Advisory Board
and the Executive Board. I was out of town when the Advisory Board met to
consider the Amendments to our Bylaws. Therefore I can only rely on what I have
heard about what was said there. I did attend the Officers Committee Meeting as
an observer. The Officers voted down all the proposed amendments. At the
Executive Board meeting I listened and considered the positions for and against
the motions. I concluded as above to not support Term Limits. I also did not
vote for the other proposed amendments as the points made for and against could
not allow me to conclude support for either position over the other. Perhaps I
could have abstained.
Then came the word that the proposed amendments would not
be brought before the Delegate Assembly. It was clearly explained that the
Bylaws state that only if a proposed amendment is approved by the Executive
Board does it go to the Delegate Assembly. Now I for one expected that the issue
would go to the Delegate Assembly, no matter the Executive Board vote. I believe
it has been so stated in the past. At today’s Delegate Assembly a number of
people walked out in protest. I heard it stated there were about 50 people who
left. Now with a quorum of 128 delegates, had a vote on the proposed amendments
been taken today it would have required 86 affirmative votes to pass. Perhaps
this can be seen as an enlightenment for those proposing the bylaw changes as to
how much support there is with the delegates.
and Now where does this leave us? Not very well off I am afraid. For those in opposition to today’s proceedings, they might now be described as being between a rock and a hard place. An obvious thing to do would be to get greater representation on what we may now see can be the all decisive Executive Board. They have been trying to do so with limited success. If anyone expects that planning an absence of delegates in order to block enactment of a motion it would likely fail as the Bylaws provide that in the absence of a quorum the vote of the Executive Board determines the issue with the exception of a conflict of Statutes or the Bylaws.
On another issue. At the Executive Board meeting it was
charged by some speakers that UCO elections are not conducted on “a level
playing field” They state the office holder has the advantage of being already
known to the residents while a challenger is not permitted to distribute
promotional flyers. When I came to live in C.V. and for a couple of years
candidates for UCO office were invited to present themselves to the residents at
the Kent pool. I am uncertain if this was done at other WPRF pools. This
practice was ended and no pool or other WPRF property can be used for election
candidates to meet and introduce themselves to our residents. I have heard it
said that this change was pressed for at the behest of office holders. I can’t
say anything about that. I can say that at what might have been our first
Operations Meeting with Eva Rachesky, that as I recall she stated she was ruling
out politics at the pools as this was how it was at C.V. Deerfield where she
felt it worked well.
For those who attend the Delegate Assemblies I believe they
know what to expect when Ed Grossman takes to the microphone. He will likely be
raising issues and questions of matters he finds troubling. These things are
sometimes delivered in a barrage of words and ends in being just that, without
any resolution. I believe it was at the August Assembly that he addressed
himself to Ed Black whose response was that if Mr. Grossman would ask one
question at a time he would try to answer them. Well Mr. Grossman then asked his
questions one at a time to which Mr. Black gave his answer. It seemed to me that
Mr. Grossman considered each answer and seemingly accepted it as at least
reasonable and may have even thanked Mr. Black.
Which brings us to the Delegate Assembly of 9/4/15. Here
again Mr. Grossman rose and addressing PBSO Captain Bruckner he delivered a
barrage of words. All that most of us know about a threatening email sent to
Esther Sutofsky is what we have read on a blog or heard from others. Surely I
denounce sending such emails and am concerned for her safety. It has been said
that the sheriff’s response to the email is that they do not consider it a
credible threat. While I don’t know all that PBSO knows I still find it
unfathomable. I suppose I would need to know what is their criteria for being
credible. Recently, I have received emails seemingly from people I know that
were determined not to have been sent by them. I have wondered who did send them
and if and how it is possible to find this out. We hear a great deal about
emails in today’s news reports and these suggest agencies like the FBI are able
to determine who sent an email. In his forceful presentation to Captain Bruckner
Mr. Grossman asked “did you press the button”? Seemingly it is his
understanding that doing so would somehow reveal who sent the email to Esther.
Along with his commentary on the threatening email Mr. Grossman spoke about the
report made to PBSO accusing Olga Wolkenstein of having a cache of guns in her
home which brought a visit of 2 deputies. I feel certain they determined that
the report was unfounded. In introducing this matter I feel Mr. Grossman
diverted focus from the email. Captain Bruckner having listened to all Mr.
Grossman had said simply responded he heard no question and moved on. Well there
was a question it was “did you press the button”? Which I feel was Mr. Grossmans
way of being cute as though that’s how simple it could have been to find out who
sent the email to Esther. Apparently Mr. Grossman lost sight of the exchange he
had with Mr. Black last month as to dealing directly with one thing at a time
without a lot of verbiage. Perhaps a better way of posing the question would
have been to first ask if identifying the sender of an email can be done and
then asking if so did PBSO do so?
Then again, who knows? Is it not possible that PBSO is
pursuing this matter and does not choose to reveal anything about it at this
time?
I will submit this to both David Israel and Gary Olman’s
blog as well as the UCO Reporter.
-
-
Thanks George for the well considered Post.
-
Dave Israel
-
