Mar 27, 2003
Chris's proposal to expand the CCHOA BoD appears to be a popular and sound solution. Bravo to Chris for standing up!
If the Board consisted of five or seven elected members, and as long as there was no conflict of interest, it would also make sense to have a non-resident (i. e., Steve Bartlett). From what I witnessed last night, it appeared to me that Steve was more willing than some others to receive feedback and discussion. Also, Jim O'Reilly stated that he was not against a Board expansion...''I don't have a dog in that fight.''
Some other observations:
-Democracy is not pretty and we do not need a Nominating Committee, handpicked by the BoD, to spoon feed us ''acceptable'' candidates for us to vote on. Have a meeting, let the candidates be nominated, seconded, let them have some time to speechify, and then vote. First item to vote on should be Board Expansion!!!
-We also do not need an Ad Hoc Committee to examine potential changes to our BYLAWS. First item to vote on should be Board Expansion!!! and then let the expanded Board tackle any other BYLAWS issues.
-At the end I could not tell who was in charge of the Board...what is it our actual Board or Don Abrams? Committees are nice but First item to vote on should be Board Expansion!!!
-So many questions were asked and not answered last night. One of them was ''When was someone going to be put on the Architectural Committee (along with the 2 from Stratus Properties) and what was the process that would be used to determine the appointee?'' No answer given.
-There was somewhat of an attempt in the documentation provided last night to dispel some of the accusations flying around the Board and others regarding conflicts of interest and rumors of cronism in contract awards and business dealings. What is needed is for everyone associated directly in administering CCHOA business be asked to endorse an Ethics Policy. If those involved cannot endorse an Ethics Policy, then they should resign from their position. After that has been done, the rumors should stop immediately...enough is enough and those individuals levying the charges should not continue to impune the characters of volunteers working on behalf of the CCHOA. No doubt Patrice Arnold could construct an Ethics Policy for endorsement (no committee needed). We all need to remember that we are on the same team.
Being on the Board is a thankless job and I thank them for their past and future efforts.
Chris's proposal to expand the CCHOA BoD appears to be a popular and sound solution. Bravo to Chris for standing up!
If the Board consisted of five or seven elected members, and as long as there was no conflict of interest, it would also make sense to have a non-resident (i. e., Steve Bartlett). From what I witnessed last night, it appeared to me that Steve was more willing than some others to receive feedback and discussion. Also, Jim O'Reilly stated that he was not against a Board expansion...''I don't have a dog in that fight.''
Some other observations:
-Democracy is not pretty and we do not need a Nominating Committee, handpicked by the BoD, to spoon feed us ''acceptable'' candidates for us to vote on. Have a meeting, let the candidates be nominated, seconded, let them have some time to speechify, and then vote. First item to vote on should be Board Expansion!!!
-We also do not need an Ad Hoc Committee to examine potential changes to our BYLAWS. First item to vote on should be Board Expansion!!! and then let the expanded Board tackle any other BYLAWS issues.
-At the end I could not tell who was in charge of the Board...what is it our actual Board or Don Abrams? Committees are nice but First item to vote on should be Board Expansion!!!
-So many questions were asked and not answered last night. One of them was ''When was someone going to be put on the Architectural Committee (along with the 2 from Stratus Properties) and what was the process that would be used to determine the appointee?'' No answer given.
-There was somewhat of an attempt in the documentation provided last night to dispel some of the accusations flying around the Board and others regarding conflicts of interest and rumors of cronism in contract awards and business dealings. What is needed is for everyone associated directly in administering CCHOA business be asked to endorse an Ethics Policy. If those involved cannot endorse an Ethics Policy, then they should resign from their position. After that has been done, the rumors should stop immediately...enough is enough and those individuals levying the charges should not continue to impune the characters of volunteers working on behalf of the CCHOA. No doubt Patrice Arnold could construct an Ethics Policy for endorsement (no committee needed). We all need to remember that we are on the same team.
Being on the Board is a thankless job and I thank them for their past and future efforts.
