Now that we have the Spar Council Executive Board’s answers to at least the majority of our questions, it is perhaps time to sit down and see just what the answers really mean and how factual they may be.
My feeling is that this thread should be for the questions and answers that deal with the specific issues many of us have with Spar Council’s lack of elections and the changes to the by-laws. The other questions and answers that deal with restoration, transportation and commercial development are just as important, and so I believe, deserve their own threads if we wish to analyze them as well.
Let’s begin with an easy one:
QuoteWhat Positions have expired and when?
Their answer and my comments:
QuoteSome positions expired in October.
Yes, a true statement. Per the by-laws, at least one third of the board positions should be up for re-election or appointment every single year. If the board was made up of 13 individuals as was stated in the meeting (we can assume 12 elected or appointed and the executive director?), then four positions were to be up for election or appointment.
To quote the actual by-laws: 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.Quote
Some could have been re-appointed, but chose to step down for a variety of reasons.
Also mostly a true statement. However, when we really look at what is being said, we need to become a little suspicious. First they say that some “could be reappointed†not reappointed or elected. The next part of this answer wants us to assume that all four of the possible directors that should have stood for re-election (or appointment) this past October all just happened to be the same ones that also happened to resign. I believe a little research through the minutes of the various meeting minutes will bear out that what we have been told by current and past board members that Claude Moulton and Barbara Sweet were among the directors that should have stood for reelection or appointment this past October is true. As we can readily see, neither has resigned and are still functioning as directors.
QuoteNo Executive positions have expired, as they are to continue to serve until they have been replaced, or reappointed.
If taken totally by itself, it is a true statement. When taken in the context with the question and the rest of the answer, it is not. First, notice that once again, no mention of elections. Then, let’s go back to the by-laws:
Section 8. BOARD REORGANIZATION MEETING. The annual election for the Board is held
at the annual membership meeting in October. The reorganization meeting shall be held as soon as possible after the election and prior to the next Board meeting in October. At this meeting new Board members will take their seats and the entire Board will participate in an orientation and training program.And:
Section 3. ELECTION PROCESS. Elections for the Board will be held at the Annual
Membership meeting. The election shall be conducted by the Governance Committee. Each verified member shall receive a ballot listing the nominees for the Board. Prior to the voting, the candidates will have an opportunity to make a one-minute self- introduction.
Depending on the number of nominees recommended, members have the right to vote for as many nominees as there are vacancies on the Board. The person receiving the largest number of votes cast for any individual candidate shall fill the first vacancy; the candidate receiving the second largest number of votes shall fill the second vacancy, and so on until candidates fill the total number of vacant Directorships. Cumulative voting for Directors is not permitted.
A run-off shall be held immediately in the case of a tie.
While the votes are being counted, the President may conduct other business on the agenda.
After the tally is completed, the Governance Committee Chairperson shall report results of the election to the membership. The President will swear in the new Directors. Immediately following adjournment, all Board members will convene to select a date, prior to the next regularly scheduled Board meeting, for a special organization meeting at which the new Board members will be seated. At that time the entire Board will have an orientation and elect its officers for the upcoming year. The current Executive Committee will continue its duties until new officers are selected.From these two sections of the current by-laws, we can see that everything has to do with the election process and how the positions of the executive committee are filled. While it is true that the executive committee members do indeed hold their offices until the new executive committee is chosen and in place, it can also be readily seen that this part of the by-laws also assumes that elections had been held and the new directors were in place ready to be sworn in and to elect the new executive committee.
There is even time period specified. Section 8 states that the directors shall hold a special meeting after the elections and prior to the October board meeting and “Section 3: Election Process†states that it will be prior to the next board meeting. We can also begin to see that the by-laws do not allow for the opportunity of directors staying on past their terms, only that the executive committee can continue to perform their duties until the implied short period of time passes until the new directors can be sworn in.
So, unless there was a special meeting that “appointed or elected†Claude Moulton and Barbara Sweet and then a second special meeting that the entire existing executive Committee was reelected by the current board to their same executive committee positions, and all of that had to have occurred prior to the October board meeting, then Claude and Barbara and not currently legally on the board. Of course, I guess they could have had those meetings and just not told us, but wouldn’t that have been the most logical answer to the question?
As someone new here......
I think people need to get passed the procedure thing, realize this is a volunteer organization, and work together to benefit the neighborhood.
If you don't like the direction or goals of SPAR, then don't participate, take steps against what they are doing, try to internally change it, or form a new competing neighborhood organization.
It's ridiculous to keep rehashing who did or didn't do what when. Elections will happen relatively soon I guess, and for the sake of everyone I hope some the loudest critics get on the board so there will be spirited debates about what's right for the area.
Other than that....a few questions........
- i know who Louise Despain is, and Don Downing. And Mac. But that's about it. so....
1) Who was the woman in audience that spoke with the british accent?
2) who was the woman in the audience with the short blonde hair, sitting near the Brit, that also spoke at some length?
3) who was the thin gentleman sitting/standing near the doorway in the green hoodie, glasses, and short lite hair?
4) who was the woman who sat up front, facing the audince, with the blonde hair & glasses?
5) Who was the gentleman that was sitting in a chair by the doorway, who said he served on the board for some time and mentioned how he had disgreements, but was not disgruntled?
I don't need or want real names really, just what their names that are on this forum, if they post, and what role, if any, they play in the community (whether owning a business, advocating for something, generally against or for this or that, etc).
Thanks....
3.) Finnegan's Wake
4.) a city person (?)
5.) Downtown Parks
I think I would like to ask that if the Jacksonville City Council just decided to not follow it's own laws, should we all just get over it and move on? Are not city council members not much more than “volunteers†themselves? Would we be expected to consider not giving truthful answers to public questions just a procedural thing from them? It just seems that if we can not depend on local volunteers to follow the proper procedures, why should we expect any agency or government to?
With that in mind, here’s another question:
Why were there no elections?QuoteThere are elections each year because the board does elect officers, however, there may or may not need to be an election for other board members depending on the number currently serving.
This statement is sort of true on the surface. It is true that the board elects it’s officers every year. It is also true, as of the June 2008 bylaws, there may or not be a need to elect any other board members. But that is only because of how the current bylaws are written:
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.As you can see, the newest bylaws allow for either elections or appointments. It still requires that approximately one third of the directors stand for election or appointment every three years. It makes no difference how many are “currently servingâ€, the terms of about one third of the directors should be up every year. It makes no difference whether the director was elected ot appointed, the term is still a maximum of three years.
Another interesting note is that they did not, by their own admission, hold any election what so ever in 2008. Not even one for re-electing the non-elected and non-appointed executive committee members as they seem to trying to imply in their answer.
QuoteThe by-laws do state that current Board members will serve until such time as they are replaced.
Rather than re-post the pertinent sections of the bylaws again, as they are the same as in the first question that was posted here, just remember that the issue with the Executive Committee was based on the fact that there had been elections (or appointments) and that the current executive officers could serve until the special meeting at which the new officers would be elected. That meeting had to be by the October board meeting per the by-laws. The answer as they have it implies that all the board members are under this provision when the by-laws indicate only the Executive Committee is under this provision. In addition, the answer implies that those board members could be there until they were replaced….if the elections or appointments are never done, do they have the right to stay on the board indefinitely?
QuoteThere are no Board members who are not officially on the board.
You could call this true, but only because those who are not legally on the board may actually consider themselves “official†whether they are there legally or not. As we can see from the by-laws and the post for the first question here, at least two of the current Executive Committee are not legally on the board according to the bylaws.
4. Kerri Stewart, formerly of Housing and Neighborhoods, now Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for the City of Jacksonville.
Why did a non-profit that is supposed to represent this entire community force a particular board member, the only one that seems to 1) Want to follow the by-laws, 2) listen to the entire community and 3) bring accurate and public information to that community, off the board? What gives them, in particular, Jack Meeks, the right to do that?QuoteThere was no Board action taken related to any board member. The person chose to resign.
In all fairness, this answer is absolutely true. We all know that the board member in question did indeed resign. We also all know that there was no “official†board action. But just because this answer is a true statement does not mean that it is truly an answer to this question.
We know who the board member in question is. It is AlexS. At least one, maybe more, of the current board members as well as most of us out “here†wish he hadn’t resigned and have said so publicly. Well, he did and we can’t blame him. But back to this answer. We can accept it as 100% fact only if we decide not to believe what AlexS has told all of us publicly about this event.
To begin with, we have been told that AlexS was asked to have a meeting with both Claude Moulton, President, and Jack Meeks, Chairman of the Governance committee, about his conduct as a board member. Sort of seems like a pretty official, “unofficial†meeting, doesn’t it? As it turns out, Claude could not make the meeting so it was only jack Meeks who met with AlexS. I’ll let AlexS’s own posts state what the meeting was about.
Quote from: soxfan on November 22, 2008, 08:24:26 AM
I've got one. Why was AlexS asked to resign from the board?? He was the only member of said board that made attempts to quell the revolt.. Is he wrong for standing up for the people he represents???QuoteAlexS: Because the chair of the governance committee and president felt that my actions hurt the public image of SPAR, frustrated other board members and wasted the time of the board. I did not contribute either enough money myself or raise funds which is currently the #1 priority. I was also told that other valuable board members have resigned because of me or were planning to do so.
Partial Quote from: stephendare on November 22, 2008, 01:39:48 PM
AlexS,
What is the point of having a voting board if the job of board members is to simply agree with the party line?
Alex, Im sorry these little petty despots have apparently mistaken what a voting board is supposed to be about.
This is the actual proof in the pudding that the SPAR organization has become worse than the perception of it.
So let me get this straight, You didnt toe the party line in public, represented the actual residents of the neighborhood, engaged in public and open debate and discussion as you are required to do by the spirit of the non profit charter and were told that you were out of line?
Who on earth is the 'governance chair'?QuoteAlexS: Jack Meeks is the chair of the Governance Committtee who was appointed by the president.
I was also accused of conspiring with a small group of people with ulterior motives to take down SPAR. I never thought that trying to get the corporation to follow it's own Articles and Bylaws would be a conspiracy. Neither should be providing (already public but not readily accessible) information to the membership and general public.
It should also be noted that AlexS was the one current board member who was posting real information about these issues on the various forums and was also questioning how legal Jack Meeks appointment was as well as the lack of elections, the executive Committee’s failure to follow it’s own by-laws and more. It is up to each of us to decide how official this meeting was and who all was involved in the decision to even have it.
I am quoting a section here from my email to the full board explaining why I resigned.
QuoteI have not resigned due to the pressure from Jack and Claude. I assumed that if the majority of the board shared the opinion which I quoted above, that it may be best for SPAR (and myself) if I resigned. Hope I did not error in my judgement.
From what I have learned so far not everyone on the board shared the opinion expressed by Jack. A few have expressed that they don't share Jack's opinion. The majority has remained silent.
The majority remains silent....that says a lot more to me.
Quote from: jbm32206 on December 05, 2008, 05:32:15 PM
The majority remains silent....that says a lot more to me.
Ouch, that's gotta hurt.
What board members were there last night?
Not sure, it was pretty crowded so I couldn't see everyone...and at this point, I'm not even sure who's on it anymore. People seem to come and go so quickly
Seems to me much of the controversy seems to revolve around Mr. Meeks. Have we heard from him?
No, and I seriously doubt that we would
Which begs the obvious question... Why?
A simple Google search has satisfied my curiosity... Hmmm...
http://www.mrpcpa.com/aboutus_jackmeeks.htm
Well from everyone I have talked to it appears I did not miss much...
People who were not even involved in any of these discussions on this board have told me nothing was really discussed nor resolved, and some even felt more upset after the meeting than before. I was also told the majority of the questions submitted were not addressed? I was also told a lot of time was spent discussing some of the people who have been questioning the SPAR practices?
BTW, I saw a post that said people who are upset should get on the board and force the debates? I think that is exactly what got ALEXs in the doghouse with some of these board members...they do not want debate, they do not want to follow the procedures laid out for their own board. Trying to enforce that makes you disruptive, a "non-team player" type....
In answer to the question as to how many board members were present at Thursday night's meeting:
For sure: Claude Moulton
Jack Meeks
Derek Hudson
Lisa Simon
Louise DeSpain
I did not see any of the others, but I could have missed them. I am pretty sure Gerry Troy was not there.
I have spoken to Gerry and Thomas Love. Gerry had already planned an extended thanksgiving trip to see his family before the meeting was announced. Thomas was at work.
Why did the board not notify the community of positions that need to be filled?QuoteThere were no position that specifically had to be filled. However there has been a recognized need for positions such as marketing, communications and education for quite a long time.
This part of the answer has two statements that more or less contradict themselves.
So, this answer begs the question: then why were the bylaws changed for allow for even more appointments? Why were the original four appointed positions not enough? At 12 board members in October, there were still three positions open that could have been filled if they really needed those certain talents on the board. Why were they not either elected or appointed as the bylaws allow? In fact, I was told by Louise that this need is why they needed to appoint more poeple rather than elect them. They had people on the last ballet that had the skills they wanted on the board and they did not get elected.
QuoteThe bylaws state that the board may have between 10 and 15 members. There were currently 12 in October. The executive positions are filled by the Board, which elects it’s own officers. This has been in effect for a number of years, and was based on the way the Jacksonville City Council holds elections.
So here we see that the executive board is elected by the board itself. Certainly true.
To quote the bylaws:
Section 8. BOARD REORGANIZATION MEETING. The annual election for the Board is held
at the annual membership meeting in October. The reorganization meeting shall be held as soon as possible after the election and prior to the next Board meeting in October. At this meeting new Board members will take their seats and the entire Board will participate in an orientation and training program.And:
Section 3. ELECTION PROCESS. Elections for the Board will be held at the Annual
Membership meeting. The election shall be conducted by the Governance Committee. Each verified member shall receive a ballot listing the nominees for the Board. Prior to the voting, the candidates will have an opportunity to make a one-minute self- introduction.
Depending on the number of nominees recommended, members have the right to vote for as many nominees as there are vacancies on the Board. The person receiving the largest number of votes cast for any individual candidate shall fill the first vacancy; the candidate receiving the second largest number of votes shall fill the second vacancy, and so on until candidates fill the total number of vacant Directorships. Cumulative voting for Directors is not permitted.
A run-off shall be held immediately in the case of a tie.
While the votes are being counted, the President may conduct other business on the agenda.
After the tally is completed, the Governance Committee Chairperson shall report results of the election to the membership. The President will swear in the new Directors. Immediately following adjournment, all Board members will convene to select a date, prior to the next regularly scheduled Board meeting, for a special organization meeting at which the new Board members will be seated. At that time the entire Board will have an orientation and elect its officers for the upcoming year. The current Executive Committee will continue its duties until new officers are selected.We can also see that the current bylaws assume that an election has taken place and that there is a vote at the reorganization meeting. It is also stated that the term is for one year. This is based on the city council way of doing this as well as many, many other organizations. I also believe this to be a carry over from HSCC.
QuoteThe citizens elect the councilpersons to represent them, but the council elects its executive officers. It is done in this manor because the members know those that should be the most qualified to serve.
I do disagree with the last part of this answer. It infers that the membership is not qualified to know who is best to serve in what capacity. I believe that the membership has already determined that the elected candidates are qualified to serve in whatever capacity they may so chose. The real reason the executive committee is chosen by the board is one of simplicity. Rather than having a complex election for each office every year, just elect the group of qualified people and let them chose among themselves for the specific positions. In theory, there should be a “change of the guard†every year so that all of the board gets a chance to experience a few different executive positions. In fact, some organizations are set up that you can only spend one year in each position. In other words, if you are the secretary one year, you are the vice president the next and then you are moved to president, moving “up†in a logical order.
the city council changes their positions in the same manner...so if the spar council is trying to follow their lead, then what happened?
- the Board members present were Lisa Simon, Jack Meeks, Claude M., and Derek. I was severely disappointed that more Board members were not there.
Phil
Quote from: uptowngirl on December 06, 2008, 08:38:54 AM
People who were not even involved in any of these discussions on this board have told me nothing was really discussed nor resolved, and some even felt more upset after the meeting than before. I was also told the majority of the questions submitted were not addressed? I was also told a lot of time was spent discussing some of the people who have been questioning the SPAR practices?
Things were discussed. Things were resolved. Questions were answered and those that weren't due to time, were provided in a handout. Not EVERYTHING was resolved. But I think it was a good first step. I am looking forward to the Monday Board meeting where we will learn which Board positions are up for election.
And the peeps I talked to at Shanty Town (which included both "sides") were hardly "upset". Some were dissatisfied, and need more information (and that includes me).
If you are in town, definitely make the next General meeting (election night).
Phil
Thanks Finn...seems I am hearing two pretty different stories. I should be here to make Monday's meeting and it is always better to get it first hand.
There are two. Are you basing the 55% on a recent census?
OK, let's look at another question and answer:
What are SPAR’s plans to address the By-laws issues. Will SPAR fix the transgressions or change the by-laws? If the by-laws are changed, will a neighborhood vote for ratification be held to gain by-in? QuoteThere are no transgressions.
This is, of course, up to personal interpretation as to what would constitute a transgression. If grossly misrepresenting what the by-laws say is considered a transgression, then there were indeed transgressions. Decide for your self.
QuoteBylaw changes may be suggested. They will be reviewed, and the Board will vote on whether the changes actually happen.
Several have already done this. A lawyer who is also a resident has offered their services to help fix the various contradictions within the current bylaws but was told by the Executive Committee “Thanks, but no thanks.†(My words, not a quote). In the Executive Board’s defense, at the October Board meeting it was pretty obvious that they considered the current bylaws done and finished regardless of what anyone else thought, but at the Q &A meeting they had a more open stance.
QuoteThe past changes were reviewed several times by all of the Board members, changes were suggested and implemented. The Board voted unanimously to accept the bylaws that are current.
There was a discussion on the SPAR Council forum and others how the current bylaws were supposedly changed somewhat from the original draft and there was some concern that wording changes were made after the first vote, but before the minutes from the vote were accepted. If that is true, then the process was corrupt. No written proof has been offered either way so make you own judgment on this one. Here is one explanation from one who was there:
QuoteAt the July meeting a draft of the bylaws was handed to each board member. This draft was used for discussion. I asked that it should be defined how the members (other than the chairman) of the governance committee would be elected. To the best of my recollection we did not agree on how this should be done without removing full board oversight regarding this election/appointment. Another board member recalls that the sentence I objected to was discussed. The final version of the bylaws was then attached to the minutes of the July meeting and the minutes approved unanimously during the September board meeting (there was no quorum in the August meeting). What I failed to do was compare the draft from the July meeting word by word with the version attached to the minutes (which is the official one we voted on). Had I done that, I would not have voted in favor of it. Most likely the end result would have ended up the same.
I can now see the contradiction you try to point out when reading the July minutes.
Quote:
SPAR Bylaws
After review and discussion the SPAR Board unanimously voted to approve and adopt the new SPAR Bylaws. (Copy is appended to these minutes.)
I would presume the secretary kept notes of what changes were discussed regarding the draft handed out in the July meeting. She then later transcribed these and attached them to the meeting minutes which were approved in September.
It is a bit fuzzy about what was actually voted on in July since the changes were transcribed after the fact. But since the full board approved the minutes (including the bylaws) in September the bylaws are now approved.
As the Articles of Incorporation do not specifically state that only the first set of by-laws shall be voted on by the membership, it could be interpreted that all revisions to the by-laws would require a membership vote as well. I believe that the caveat here will be whether the original set of by-laws said that it required the membership vote to revise the by-laws or just a board vote. If it was the membership vote, then we would next need to see if the revised set of by-laws that changed it to the Board only was indeed voted on by the membership.
QuoteFrom the Articles: Article XII. - BY-LAWS
The by-laws of this Corporation shall be made and proposed of the board of directors and shall be adopted by a 2/3 majority vote of the members of the Corporation voting on same.
A ex-board member told me that he has asked for an opinion as to how to interpret this section of the articles from two separate lawyers and they both said: the by-laws must be always revised by a membership vote and that the articles always trump the bylaws.
Quote from: stephendare on December 07, 2008, 09:14:28 AM
Still no answer as to how many african american board members there are in a 55% african american neighborhood.?
Still no answer to the question why does this matter?
It would seem that he's interested in knowing if the board is racially balanced. He also has the right to ask. To my knowledge, it's not.
I guess my statement got deleted. Of the last 12 board members elected, 6 were minority, 5 were black. Several moved out of the state, one left for health reasons, and one left because of all of the negative BS.
Quote
24.) Are the minutes to every board meeting, the voting details and even the "minutes" from the special "e-mail" votes going to be readily made public?
The meetings are open, minutes are posted for reading.
I have asked SPAR through email and posted on the forum to publish the minutes. They are still not posted. Neither is the agenda for the board meeting today.
Quotehttp://www.sparcouncil.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=3664&p=36080#p36080
Quote from: jbm32206 on December 08, 2008, 05:18:43 AM
It would seem that he's interested in knowing if the board is racially balanced. He also has the right to ask. To my knowledge, it's not.
Racially balanced? What is with people? Why does race seem to rear it's little head in these threads. I personally want the best person, for any given job or position. Whether it is a SPAR rep. or the US President. I Don't Care what color their skin is. I want someone that wants to do the best job possible, has the time to afford to their position and can represent the memberships goals.
QuoteI personally want the best person, for any given job or position. Whether it is a SPAR rep. or the US President. I Don't Care what color their skin is. I want someone that wants to do the best job possible
Here, here, roadking...
QuoteOf the last 12 board members elected, 6 were minority, 5 were black.
So this is a positive answer to the question. The SPAR Council membership elects its board without any apparent racial bias. To be honest, I would more readily expect issues of the social economic kind. From what I can tell, the SPAR Council membership has normally elected board members from all of the various social economic “levels†actually represented by it’s actual membership.
Now to the question AlexS brought up:
Quote24.) Are the minutes to every board meeting, the voting details and even the "minutes" from the special "e-mail" votes going to be readily made public?
The meetings are open, minutes are posted for reading.
Besides the fact that they pretty much ignored two thirds of the question, I personally got a laugh at the “minutes are posted for reading.†comment. I know that most of the recently posted minutes were posted by AlexS, not the SPAR Council office, so I wonder if the Executive Board who thought AlexS wasn’t a good board member are taking credit for what he did and was part of what they did not like? And I question whether they will continue to be posted at all.
AlexS's post prety much indicates that they won't:
Quote
I have asked SPAR through email and posted on the forum to publish the minutes. They are still not posted. Neither is the agenda for the board meeting today.
Quote from: jbm32206 on December 08, 2008, 05:18:43 AM
It would seem that he's interested in knowing if the board is racially balanced. He also has the right to ask. To my knowledge, it's not.
Still no answer to the question why does this matter?
Quote from: 02roadking on December 08, 2008, 09:24:34 AM
Quote from: jbm32206 on December 08, 2008, 05:18:43 AM
It would seem that he's interested in knowing if the board is racially balanced. He also has the right to ask. To my knowledge, it's not.
Racially balanced? What is with people? Why does race seem to rear it's little head in these threads. I personally want the best person, for any given job or position. Whether it is a SPAR rep. or the US President. I Don't Care what color their skin is. I want someone that wants to do the best job possible, has the time to afford to their position and can represent the memberships goals.
Exactly.
What racist policies? Unless you count trying to make the neighborhood materially nicer as racist, I have never seen or heard anything racist out of SPAR.
BTW, if you are a raging racist, would you even move to a place as racially diverse as Springfield? Wouldnt you move to far out Clay County or may Idaho. :D
Believe it or not there is (or was) a hard core white supremacist living around the corner from me. And 3 years ago we had a bunch of 2am-techno-party-racists punks living next door. THAT was fun. JSO dispatcher and I were on a first name basis.
But I've never heard nor seen anything racist from SPAR.
Phil
Phil-
He moved away!
I
Quote from: stephendare on December 08, 2008, 03:56:22 PM
Boy, River, I guess all that hilarity was pretty misplaced then wasnt it?
Not really. You are an endless source of amusement. :D
In any event, the central point is I know of no racist policies or actions by SPAR. You have not cited any either so I assume that I was accurate in my assessment. ;)
Quote from: triclops i on December 08, 2008, 03:20:00 PM
Phil-
He moved away!
I
Sweet...
Any idea if the house is still lived in? It looks pretty empty.
Really glad you won't have automatic weapons fired by Nazis on the roof this New Year's Eve.
Phil
Quote from: FinnegansWake on December 08, 2008, 04:08:11 PM
Quote from: triclops i on December 08, 2008, 03:20:00 PM
Phil-
He moved away!
I
Sweet...
Any idea if the house is still lived in? It looks pretty empty.
Really glad you won't have automatic weapons fired by Nazis on the roof this New Year's Eve.
Phil
That New Year's Eve activity is now reserved for residents of Lincoln Court shooting at the Life Flight helo. Good times.
Quote from: 02roadking on December 08, 2008, 09:24:34 AMQuote from: jbm32206 on December 08, 2008, 05:18:43 AMIt would seem that he's interested in knowing if the board is racially balanced. He also has the right to ask. To my knowledge, it's not.
Racially balanced? What is with people? Why does race seem to rear it's little head in these threads. I personally want the best person, for any given job or position. Whether it is a SPAR rep. or the US President. I Don't Care what color their skin is. I want someone that wants to do the best job possible, has the time to afford to their position and can represent the memberships goals.
To make this clear, I'm not the one who asked about it being racially balanced, I merely responded to a question....and quoting me, makes it seem that I'm the one concerned about it. I too, prefer to concentrate on having the best qualified, always have believed in that.
anyway...getting back to the discussion of the Q & A...
33.) Why has a group of elected and appointed board members, mostly the executive and Governance Committee, held a hostile take over of SPAR Council?QuoteThere is a group of dedicated volunteers, working very hard to do the best they can for the organization, and for the neighborhood which it serves. One has only to look at the accomplishments over the years to understand that SPAR is not only beneficial to the Springfield neighborhood, but is essential to the continued success and revitalization. Other organizations look at us as a model, and ask for help on particular issues.
This statement is true. There are still a few hard working and selfless volunteers trying their very best. I do wonder how long they will be allowed to remain on the board as they have already convinced at least one to resign recently. And no, I do not believe the
current SPAR Council is essential to the continued success of Springfield. Do you?
QuoteThe present Bylaws were adopted after months of meetings and consultations with a profession board consultant LISC provided free of charge in order to modernize the organization and make its governance more consistent with that of other non-profit community-based organizations. The SPAR Board adopted the bylaws unanimously after much discussion and several amendments suggested by Board members. They were adopted in compliance with State law and the SPAR Articles of Incorporation.
To be honest, if LISC has told SPAR Council to ignore the bylaws and its membership, is it an organization that this community wants to be involved with? I am more likely to believe that the Executive Committee has bastardized the suggestions from LISC into something else that more suits some agenda we do not know about.
QuoteThere has not been a takeover, hostile or otherwise; you cannot takeover yourselves. All actions of the Executive and Governance Committees have been consistent with their duties under the Bylaws.
Well, the Governance Committee and the executive board have certainly been consistent. In not following the bylaws. In fact, they seems to be making it up as they go along. And those people do not represent themselves, but rather they have been entrusted with the management of a corporation that has been around long before they came along and should be around long after they are gone. They have broken that trust and have indeed “taken over†the organization.