SPAR revolt?

[strider]

I also think that one of the discussions going on right now at the SPAR forum is on track with this discussion:

My latest post from that forum:

Section 3. NUMBER OF DIRECTORS. The Board shall have between 10 and 15 Directors.

Up to four positions will be available to allow the Board to appoint members who have specific
skills useful to the community or who may not have been available at the time of the election.

At least 2/3 of the Board members must be residents of Springfield Historic District.

Section 4. TERMS AND ELECTION OF DIRECTORS. The membership shall elect Directors
at the annual meeting. A Director shall serve a term of three years.

To ensure experienced leadership, approximately one-third of the Directorships shall be
elected or appointed in alternate years.

All Directors will be limited to 2 consecutive terms, or no more than 6 consecutive years.

An appointed member may serve a three-year term and be reappointed by the Board or stand
for election for an additional term.


The above is from the SPAR Council "about us" link to the by-laws dated as revised June 2008.
The way this is written now, they may never have to hold elections.
The only reason I can think of to have written the by-laws this way
is to insure the board's make-up is favorable to a special interest group - like SRG.

[strider]

That's nice, but.....

Also from the By-laws dated as revised June 2008:

ARTICLE 8 - NOMINATION PROCESS
Section 1. BOARD ASSESSMENT. To ensure the Board has a diversity of skills and
representation, the Governance Committee is responsible for recruiting, screening and interviewing candidates before nominating a slate of candidates at the annual membership meeting.
Prior to recommending candidates, the Governance Committee is responsible for assessing
the Corporation’s expertise and talents to determine gaps in skills and other important representation such as gender, residency, ethnicity, etc. In addition, the Committee will review the attendance of current Board members to consider renewing their terms once they have expired.
Based on the interview and supplemental information requested of the candidate, the
committee will decide whether the candidate will be nominated. Candidates can only be nominated at the annual membership meeting once they have been interviewed and voted by the Governance Committee and the Board. There will be no nominations accepted from the floor.


So, not only does this mesh very nicely with the idea of only appointing board members, it also puts a tremendous amount of influence in the hands of a few on the committee.  It specifically allows the committee to make sure the only persons nominated and on the ballot in any way are to their liking - whether it is race, gender or who they work for.  Of course, you have to have an election at all for this to matter much.

In addition,  nowhere in the above nor anywhere else in the by-laws (revised June 2008) is anything that  gives the Governance Committee the authority to not hold elections if they decide not too.  It states they are in charge of the nomination process and holding the elections, which is bad enough, but the by-laws also states that there should be an election of about 1/3 of the board members.

Of course, as they do not have to hold elections at all anymore, I don’t see why Meeks just didn’t come out and say that instead of using a reason that is against the by-laws.   Perhaps he needs to read the by-laws before making those kinds of statements? By and by, the Governance Committee does not have the authority to appoint board members as he implies in his statement either!

[uptowngirl]

Today's SPAR weekly update includes a clarification by Jack Meeks:

The revised bylaws create a  Governance Committee to determine if the board has a need for specialized skills and experience and to appoint or arrange for elections of individuals to fill vacant positions. The bylaws provide for 10-15 director positions. Because there are currently 12 board members, a determination was made by the Governance Committee that no additional directors would need to be elected at the annual meeting this year."

This is outrageous! I am sorry but SPAR pulled this same stuff last year. They appointed board members two months in advance of the election, taking away the ability of the members to vote, again this year appointing board member (s?) right before an election and then stating they won't hold elections at all. We have had several in the neighborhood wanting to throw their hat in the ring and now they will be silenced...why? There is a lot of concerns in the neighborhood and now we will not even be able to effect the change that many board members posted here in response to those concerns, we SHOULD make if we felt so strongly.

This is a joke.


BTW, June 2008? I never saw anything about this in meeting minutes, of course that is about the time they stopped sending them.

[jbm32206]

You're right, they did slip one in right before the last election and they've done it again...and they're slowing taking away any options for the members. And people wonder why we're upset...

[strider]

Someone might just check and insure that a vote by the membership ratified this latest revision of the by-laws as that is normally the only way it can be done.  Of course with this board.....

[jbm32206]

Well I can tell you that I've not heard anything to that effect....

[uptowngirl]

me either... but hey they are working FOR us, the members and obviously know what is better for us no?

[jbm32206]

Oh yeah, I forgot...they know what's better for us and what we want without needing our input...they just need our money

[soxfan]

pretty compelling post there, sox.

You might have read the previous posts.  I dunno.  Its good to hear that you have the habit of looking up words that you dont understand though!

tell me, do they tend to be words over a certain number of syllables or just a particular branch of education?

Anyways, its refreshing that I don't have to dumb the writing down.

As long as there are dictionaries, I suppose we will all get along just fine.

and incidentally, Zoo and I are not arguing.  I expressed my opinion after she posted which kind of activities would be welcomed by the SPAR board on the part of its critics.

Apples and oranges.  not an argument.

Dude, my post was not meant to be a dig at you. I guess it was more of a compliment, if only in my apparently small mind..I found it humorous after the both of you having such long and pointful posts, for you to come back with that. Kinda like "It just does cause I said so!"  that's all..

[uptowngirl]

Typical gestapo tatics being used on neighbors trying to voice displeasure at SPAR picking their own board members again, and not having elections.. it is sad, very, very, very, sad.

[soxfan]

Typical gestapo tatics being used on neighbors trying to voice displeasure at SPAR picking their own board members again, and not having elections.. it is sad, very, very, very, sad.

It'll be even sadder when the majority of the members don't renew this time around. Who will they be representing when their membership consists of the board and their spouses???

[jbm32206]

They keep changing the rules to meet the wants of the select few and to hell with the membership. It has me so angry, that I'm one of those who will most likely NOT renew my membership, for they continue to demonstrate that they could care less about the members, other than our money.

[uptowngirl]

Typical gestapo tatics being used on neighbors trying to voice displeasure at SPAR picking their own board members again, and not having elections.. it is sad, very, very, very, sad.

It'll be even sadder when the majority of the members don't renew this time around. Who will they be representing when their membership consists of the board and their spouses???

That would be the same people they are representing now (themselves).

Who decided that yet again right before the election time to appoint another board member, and then decide we won’t have elections. We need a SPAR revolt, this proves it.

I challenge the board members who have been posting here; especially the one's who have been calling us all whiners and complainers to please justify this. To please explain why you tell us to get involved and volunteer, then take away any opportunity to do so? With a lot of neighbors complaining, and then a lot of talent stating they would like to run for the board, this is just stupid.

Who in the heck does SPAR think they are? This is not a kingdom, where you can just make decisions and everyone has to go along. SPAR can not exist if the neighborhood is divided. SPAR can not exist with only a couple of backers. SPAR can not function with out the neighborhood, and with out the neighborhood SPAR loses all credibility with the city.

Everyone here can see some neighbors posting they have concerns, but what you don't see are the majority in the neighborhood who are not members and are not involved with SPAR because they feel SPAR does not and does not want to, represent them. I talk to these people all day, they live in homes here all around us and are ignored. Some are new renters, some are old renters, some are new home owners, some have owned their homes since the 60's. These people are completely ignored, SPAR is not trying to represent them, doesn’t even reach out to them. Unless you make over 45K/year they don't want to even know about you, don't really want you to respond to their surveys (you bring the average down), would PREFER you move. God forbid one of YOU decide to run for a board position, and then they would have to acknowledge you are here.

Sorry for the passionate rant, but this is so frustrating. Even SPAR members are not listened to, much less Springfield residents.

[jbm32206]

I find it despicable and under-handed, at best...appointing people to the board, when an election would be just weeks away. This is exactly why people are saying the SPAR and SRG are one of the same, and that they don't give a damn about the membership...not as long as they have SRG to give donations...so I'm sure they won't miss my membership renewal fee

[strider]

In reviewing the by-laws, revised june 2008, the board has control of the revising the by-laws as well, so they have sucessfully created a closed loop system of government.  There is no longer any need for elections, there is no longer any need for input from the membership and soon, there may not be much need for most of the board members.  SPAR Council can be very quickly made into a virtual dictatorship. If it isn't already.

Yes, a "revolt" seems like a good idea.  Perhaps instead of continuing to discuss an organization that is no longer in the community's control, we should be discussing a new organization and take back the control through the new organization.