OK. Have to know.
Did one of the board members seriously suggest at a recent board meeting that SPAR should just 'get rid of the membership" and become an advocacy group instead?
Un be freaking leivable.
Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2008, 09:52:40 AM
OK. Have to know.
Did one of the board members seriously suggest at a recent board meeting that SPAR should just 'get rid of the membership" and become an advocacy group instead?
Un be freaking leivable.
Stephen, would this have any sort of negative impact on the historic designation?
I hadn't heard that, but in all honesty, nothing would surprise me....hopefully someone that attended will come along and let us know for sure. If it's true, then what about the membership monies they've collected?
Yes, one APPOINTED member did make this comment.....
QuoteUptowngirl: Yes, one APPOINTED member did make this comment.....
You're kidding me, and this was someone appointed....well, isn't that just lovely...clearly with an attitude like that, no wonder there wasn't an election and this board member who is supposed to be working on our neighborhood and it's residents behalf....was appointed.
On another note....does anyone else find it strange that, on the sparcouncil website...the weekly updates have not been posted since October 17th? Nor have they been posted on the forum...what's up with that? Why isn't the spar secretary posting them anymore?
Must be intentional, and have nothing to do with busy work or personal life (though those excuses for missing important community meetings is fine...)
Why is one persons bad idea taken as some sort of conspiracy or movement?
One person's bad idea of itself wouldn't be an issue, but when that one person happens to be a board member of an organization that purports to represent the residents who make up the membership, yes its a big deal.
There is no humor in this kind of statment either and frankly its kind of sad and pathetic that someone who volunteers their time for the supposed benefit of their neighborhood would make this kind of comment about their neighbors.
But, honestly, its very typical of these SPAR types don't you think?
No, I dont. I am fortunate enough to actually know all of the people involved, and have made my mind up as to what kind of people they are outside of the shrill tone generally being bandied about on this forum. I think SPAR screwed up with the elections, and with the way AlexS was handled, but I also know that was not the action of the board, but of a couple of people who have positioned themselves as power brokers. If I were the other board members, I would be tweaked at that alone. I guess we will see how strong the other board members are.
I was on the board for 2 and half years, and I heard a bunch of bad ideas. It happens. People want to find new and innovative ways of pushing the agenda of the neighborhood forward. Perhaps the thought of that individual was, if SPAR could stop spending so much time dealing with infighting, it could get more done. Perhaps the individuals thoughts were that since SPAR isn't a HOA, why try to be like one. I really dont know, and neither does anyone else, until the person who put the idea forward tells us what his/her thoughts were when they made that statement.
I am among several former board members who has expressed concern, and address everyone on the board. Even AlexS, who is one of the few people among us who has a legit reason to want to go in with torches and pitchforks has maintained a professional tone.
If they hold elections, and stop unnecessarily circling the wagons I will be much happier in regards to SPAR.
Think of it this way, if SPAR Council now decides that it should not have membership, they would have to change the articles. To do that requires a vote by the membership. That would mean to eliminate the membership, it would have to get the majority of the membership to vote to eliminate itself.
If they just do it and decide not to hold elections, they may very well be putting their 501 (3) (c) status in jeopardy
I also think its a bad idea. My point it, there are lots of bad ideas out there. This is just one more bad idea. Dont give it too much credit.
You go to jail for bad ideas?
I am so going to jail. My life is filled with bad ideas.
There was ONE idea at a meeting?...where someone said that if both sides took the time to take a deep breath and listen to each other and meet each other face to face?...a lot of "conspiracies" and "outrage!" would disappear.
It was two meetings actually: a SPAR Council meeting and a meeting at 3 Layers (or so I've been told).
Phil
Well, all I am saying is that it was ONE person who said that. And I totally disagree with the idea. As do most people on the Board I would imagine (I wasn't at any meeting where that came up, and I wasn't at the private meeting where that person suggested it).
It was not the whole group. There are good people working with idiots in all walks of life.
Phil
Oh. You were there to hear the context? Who was it that said it?
I cant ask questions?. Were you there? Did you hear the context? Who said it? I dont know any of the three answers, as I wasn't there.
Quote from: FinnegansWake on December 04, 2008, 02:10:46 PM
(I wasn't at any meeting where that came up, and I wasn't at the private meeting where that person suggested it).
It was not the whole group. There are good people working with idiots in all walks of life.
Phil
There's the problem. If the board is having "private meetings" and then one of them says this at an open meeting, you can only imagine whats going on behind closed doors. In response to membership concerns too, wow its really more than idiotic its scary.
I, as a board member, have never been to a private board meeting (except for a non-business, non-public board orientation) nor have I been privy to knowledge of any private board meetings.
I also don't recall ever hearing any of our board members suggest that we dump our membership (especially since board members are required to be SPAR Council members) and become simply an advocacy group. I don't see how that would be possible since (aside from part-time office staff and LISC-funded commercial revitalization staff) we are 100% volunteer. I do know that it has never been proposed as a motion to the board and am fairly certain that such a motion would die on the table without being seconded.
Now, if one of our board members did say that, we don't know what was meant without the full context. If it was said in sarcasm, then it means the opposite of what has been suggested by the original poster. I'd really like to know more.
Quote from: Karl_Pilkington on December 04, 2008, 02:30:26 PM
Quote from: FinnegansWake on December 04, 2008, 02:10:46 PM
(I wasn't at any meeting where that came up, and I wasn't at the private meeting where that person suggested it).
It was not the whole group. There are good people working with idiots in all walks of life.
Phil
There's the problem. If the board is having "private meetings" and then one of them says this at an open meeting, you can only imagine whats going on behind closed doors. In response to membership concerns too, wow its really more than idiotic its scary.
I was talking about the meeting between Alex and Jack. No one else was there. In fact I clued a couple of Board members in on what happened after the fact, after talking to Alex.
Quote from: FinnegansWake on December 04, 2008, 02:10:46 PM
(I wasn't at any meeting where that came up, and I wasn't at the private meeting where that person suggested it).
I was talking about the meeting between Alex and Jack. No one else was there. In fact I clued a couple of Board members in on what happened after the fact, after talking to Alex.
Ahh - I'm still pissed off about that one. I wish Alex and I had talked before he resigned; I would like to have tried and talk him out of it.
You can blame me Derek, I was tired of bandaging the wounds from the brick wall he kept running into. ::) The Jack landmine was the last straw for me, although Alex did make up his mind entirely on his own.
QuoteI was tired of bandaging the wounds from the brick wall he kept running into.
LOL. That is exactly what my significant other says!!!
Do any of y'all think these silly arguments actually help the neighborhood at all?
If you were part of this neighborhood and it actually concerned you, then you wouldn't like someone from the outside, not impacted by this to ask a silly question such as what you just did.
River, the answer is no. I keep coming back to correct misinformation hoping that reasonable folks won't be driven off by the nonsense (perhaps this thought belongs in the deleted Conspiracy thread).
Ok. So how do the arguments help the neighborhood?
Do they renovate another home? Do they eliminate Section 8 housing? Do they remove more of the criminal element? Do they being in retail?
It's a problem between membership and the spar council
When was the rumor confirmed? Has anyone posted that they were present when the statement was made? I also had heard the rumor, but as anyone who has lived in SPR for more than a month should know, not all rumors are true.
I agree with that....although I have too look back through the threads, but I do believe someone said they heard that said....I just don't recall who said they did...
Quote from: zoo on December 04, 2008, 05:40:46 PM
River, the answer is no. I keep coming back to correct misinformation hoping that reasonable folks won't be driven off by the nonsense (perhaps this thought belongs in the deleted Conspiracy thread).
Agreed. There appears to be a core group of anti-establishment SPAR haters who thrive on posting hate filled screeds against SPAR and its Board. It really is ridiculous. As an admitted outsider, it seems that SPAR has had a lot of success over the years. Springfield is tremendously improved over years past. It isnt Avondale but it isnt the ghetto anymore either. People need to just keep their noses to the grindstones, fix up there own little piece of property (and hopefully others), ignore gossips and the rest will usually take care of itself.
Nobody has said that spar or the neighborhood hasn't made great strides, and yes...spar's done wonderful things...again, nobody denies that. The problem is, they're working to exclude the membership via voting, etc...and that's wrong. They've changed bylaws and eliminated elections.
Besides which, we are not really talking about the organization "SPAR" which has been in existence for many years. We are not talking about the general "board" which is kept in the dark. We are talking about the current executive board's actions which are disturbing.
There is a big difference.
My "position" has nothing to do with a general distaste for irrational hatred.
Oh and BTW there was no riot in Riverside and I dont recall ever saying that there was no eye gouging. I seem to recall that my main point was that you were hyping the small amount of crime that happens in Riverside in order to stir up drama to the detriment of the neighborhood.
RSG: "My "position" has nothing to do with a general distaste for irrational hatred." Clearly, you haven't the insight as to what was going on and the problems we were discussing. If our complaints were so irrational, then why did the spar board have a special session to address our concerns and are now going to hold elections? There wasn't enough time in which to fully address all of the concerns raised, but as for me, the main issue has always been: no elections and excluding the membership.
They are having elections because in October it was determined (by me) that with Paul Hout leaving the number of Board members had fallen below the minimum.
The "special session" was actually mine (and Alex's) idea to turn a General Meeting into a Q&A meeting.
And there is a huge difference between criticism that also incorporates suggestions to improve, and a desire to hear facts from the horse's mouth before going off into the deep end....and immediate adversarial stances based on rumors.
Phil
Phil, as always, you are trying to be the peace maker. I admire that and we need someone like you around to help keep things in check. You did do exactly what you said you did and what you said you were going to do and I know about you and Alex and the Q&A session. However, I also must also give credit to all of us "discontents" that raised our voices and said, "this is wrong!" I was at the October board meeting and my opinion is that without "us", you and Alex would not have been successful. And none of that changes how wrong things were handled by the SPAR Council Executive Committee to begin with.
Joe
Quote from: FinnegansWake on December 05, 2008, 09:01:17 AM
They are having elections because in October it was determined (by me) that with Paul Hout leaving the number of Board members had fallen below the minimum.
The "special session" was actually mine (and Alex's) idea to turn a General Meeting into a Q&A meeting.Quote
True...but they would not have had the meeting without community pressure. Joan's point is valid.
Quote from: FinnegansWake on December 05, 2008, 09:01:17 AM
And there is a huge difference between criticism that also incorporates suggestions to improve, and a desire to hear facts from the horse's mouth before going off into the deep end....and immediate adversarial stances based on rumors.
Phil
Absolutely true. This should be a guiding light for all behavior.
Per strider:
QuotePhil, as always, you are trying to be the peace maker. I admire that and we need someone like you around to help keep things in check. You did do exactly what you said you did and what you said you were going to do and I know about you and Alex and the Q&A session. However, I also must also give credit to all of us "discontents" that raised our voices and said, "this is wrong!" I was at the October board meeting and my opinion is that without "us", you and Alex would not have been successful.
Phil/Alex, didn't you guys know that you are just the mindless, manipulated for the other side? Thank goodness strider has a brain to keep all of the other idiots in Springfield protected from a misguided board and our own inability to learn, assess situations, and take action ourselves...
Why is this always so personal?
Again, I heard from several people last night that if Strider were not involved SPAR would work with the neighbors who are not happy about the by-laws being shredded by SPAR.
What?
So is this all some personal game to people? people who live in Springfield, and have invested in Springfield just want the by-laws and articles t be followed, their representatives to be true representatives. I have always said SPAR should be HAPPY that they have members who care enough to bring items like this up. Why is one "who" more important than the total "what"? The issue is the issue regardless of "who" is talking. The issues that SPAR and/or neighbors in Springfield may have with Strider are seperate form this particular issue. Are we children or adults here? I mean I have to work with people I did not choose, nor have faith in everyday, I do not just ignore my responsibilities because I did not get to choose who I must work with? Is this professional?
Thank you, UTG....that's exactly what a major part of this overall resistance to working all of this out seems to stem from. People are allowing the issues to become twisted around a personal grudge, instead of facing the true concerns. I think it's shameful, at best. Right from the start, this all stems from the news that there wouldn't be an election, even though terms were (and have since) to expire and there were openings. Of course, from that, other issues that have bothered many of the members and/or residents of this neighborhood have been discussed.
I don't why people just can't stick to the real issues, which at this point, still haven't been resolved.
UpTownGirl - [snotty comment deleted by author]
Zoo - Strider knows I am not mindless. And for the record I think that all ideas deserve consideration regardless of the source. Strider has some points that are valid.
Eeyore - if someone said the sun was hot you would disagree. If someone said "the square root of 64 is 6" you would say, "Clearly this is correct and I totally agree". Get an original thought.
Phil
Quote from: FinnegansWake on December 06, 2008, 08:12:06 PM
UpTownGirl - you need to make it to a meeting.
Zoo - Strider knows I am not mindless. And for the record I think that all ideas deserve consideration regardless of the source. Strider has some points that are valid.
Eeyore - if someone said the sun was hot you would disagree. If someone said "the square root of 64 is 6" you would say, "Clearly this is correct and I totally agree". Get an original thought.
Phil
OK Finn, response deleted by author ;)
You are correct and I am sorry.
:-[
Phil
Well, truth is, if SPAR ever does eliminate community membership / support, it will ultimately be their death knell. The money isn't the point, since we all know they only get peanuts from that source anyway. But what will happen is, the community members will then have no choice but to start another organization outside of SPAR in order to get anything done, and frankly this one neighborhood really isn't big enough for duplicates.
Honestly, that might even be the best solution. Even almost a decade ago, back when I had my rentals in Springfield, SPAR was still controlled by 5 or 10 arrogant and insular folks (probably mostly the same ones today), who were concerned with their own agenda, which usually never included anything that would be remotely important to the other 99% of the neighborhood.
So I dunno, honestly, rather than grousing about how hard it is to fix this organization that's clearly broken by design, it may be better to start over fresh.
QuoteEven almost a decade ago, back when I had my rentals in Springfield, SPAR was still controlled by 5 or 10 arrogant and insular folks (probably mostly the same ones today), who were concerned with their own agenda, which usually never included anything that would be remotely important to the other 99% of the neighborhood.
Ok, I wasn't in Springfield then, so I'm not sure, but...
Weren't the folks running SPAR a decade or so ago the same ones that are now complaining that it's ineffective? Can anyone out there name who was in charge of SPAR then?
QuoteZoo: Weren't the folks running SPAR a decade or so ago the same ones that are now complaining that it's ineffective? Can anyone out there name who was in charge of SPAR then?
Ahhh...this falls into that category that one should really at least have a clue what the answer is to the question one asks in cases like this.
It depends on what you consider "almost a decade". If you go back ten years....to 1998, SPAR and HSCC were separate organizations. HSCC had the city's ears and was getting full funding through it's grant. It also was working closely with the Women's Club on various projects. HSCC was very respected by the city, while Phil Neary was both hated and respected by the community, depending on who you were and what you wanted to do. SPAR was barely surviving. SPAR really didn’t seem to be doing much. And SPAR was not respected by the city at all. They did seem to try to get membership from amoung the new comers, but the only real “power†as far as organizations go was HSCC. SPAR's reputation was pretty much as ChrisUFGator has stated. Rita Regan and Michael Trautman were very prominent in the SPAR inner circle.
There were, by the way, reasons for the reputation SPAR had and to be honest, it was not really Rita's or Michael's fault. In fact, both of them should be credited with saving SPAR at the time.
Move forward a couple of years or so and Louise DeSpain begins to be seen. She was the President of SPAR at least a year, I believe, before the merger. Meanwhile, I saw what was what and who was who and I ended up on the HSCC board. The first year of "new" SPAR Council, I was indeed VP. It was only because I was one of the “chosen†HSCC people to be carried forward to the new organization. It is important to note that many in the community were afraid that the new organization would end up too much SPAR and not enough HSCC. They appear to have been right.
At the very first board meeting, Louise DeSpain began to ignore the bylaws. I called her on it and she just found a way around them and did what she wanted anyway. I also was "nominated" to be among the 1/3rd of the board that had to stand for re-election the first year rather than serve a three year term. I declined to run again, probably to Louise's relief. Louise, by the way, was "nominated" for the three year hitch.
So it seems that some of the people who caused so much mischief "back when" are still causing it today.
Not the answer you were hoping for, was it Zoo?
edit to clarify.
Quote from: strider on December 11, 2008, 06:57:55 PM
Ahhh...this falls into that category that one should really at least have a clue what the answer is to the question one asks in cases like this.
It depends on what you consider "almost a decade". If you go back ten years....to 1998, SPAR and HSCC were separate organizations. HSCC had the city's ears and was getting full funding through it's grant. It also was working closely with the Women's Club on various projects. HSCC was very respected by the city, while Phil Neary was both hated and respected by the community, depending on who you were and what you wanted to do. SPAR was barely surviving. SPAR really didn’t seem to be doing much. And SPAR was not respected by the city at all. They did seem to try to get membership from amoung the new comers, but the only real “power†as far as organizations go was HSCC. SPAR's reputation was pretty much as ChrisUFGator has stated. Rita Regan and Michael Trautman were very prominent in the SPAR inner circle.
There were, by the way, reasons for the reputation SPAR had and to be honest, it was not really Rita's or Michael's fault. In fact, both of them should be credited with saving SPAR at the time.
Move forward a couple of years or so and Louise DeSpain begins to be seen. She was the President of SPAR at least a year, I believe, before the merger. Meanwhile, I saw what was what and who was who and I ended up on the HSCC board. The first year of "new" SPAR Council, I was indeed VP. It was only because I was one of the “chosen†HSCC people to be carried forward to the new organization. It is important to note that many in the community were afraid that the new organization would end up too much SPAR and not enough HSCC. They appear to have been right.
At the very first board meeting, Louise DeSpain began to ignore the bylaws. I called her on it and she just found a way around them and did what she wanted anyway. I also was "nominated" to be among the 1/3rd of the board that had to stand for re-election the first year rather than serve a three year term. I declined to run again, probably to Louise's relief. Louise, by the way, was "nominated" for the three year hitch.
So it seems that some of the people who caused so much mischief "back when" are still causing it today.
Not the answer you were hoping for, was it Zoo?
To answer your question, I began buying in Springfield in 2000, and was out of it by 2006. I went back to school, and now attend FCSL.
As to the rest of your comments, I agree 100%. That is exactly why I never had any use for SPAR. They alienate virtually everyone they come into contact with for one reason or another, including the very people who are trying to help the organization, and a small group of weirdos controls things so tightly that the only choice you have is to vote with your feet.
The only member-based support SPAR has ever had was, in my view, individual homeowners. The other investors I knew, people who owned 15 or 20 different properties, and including myself, all despised SPAR.
I personally think that the community would be far better served by the formation of a new and separate membership-based organization that would operate on a consensus basis. Something might actually get done then, besides for pissing people off.