I'm confused; help me out here Dave W.

Makes you wonder what numbers they were concerned about giving her?

 

Bill,

I hope you are willing to ask the tough question of AB/TF - What information did you request that was not given to you? Next exchange - October 13 I think. I should also note that I asked CN for the utilization data she sent to Triarc and she blew me off by not responding. Oh well - Deja Vu all over again.

 

FYI - I can only go from what was in the board packet I picked up and her bio was much thinner than what you described. Can you tell me the source of the information you quoted? I am very confused. Thanks, John

 

John,
RCSC newsletters and Sun City Independent, Oct. 23, 2024 edition, published information about all the candidates. Here’s Anita’s:

Anita Borski

Borski was the director of Revenue, Liability and Parking at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, a representative on the Faculty/Staff Senate Governance Committee, a member of National Association of University Business Officers, and board member of Minnesota Collection Network (a professional financial network).

She worked in automated system design, testing and production of university financial applications and received her Bachelor’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point in communication, public relations and corporate communication.

She is the Sun City Foundation vice president and serves on the Club Organization and Finance, Budget and Audit committees. She is also the community assistance and Sun City museum liaison. She is a member of the Fairway Knitters Club.

Her goals include to expand the Foundation to allow acceptance of federal, state and local grant dollars and continue to assist the most needy residents, continue to complete deferred maintenance items, continue to upgrade technology, require strong financial management, support RCSC clubs with solid financial advice and organizational structure and encourage members to take an active role in the governance process.

 

It was from the Flyers the RCSC puts out every year that shows the list of each candidate and their resume'.

 

That utilization data is included in the triArc presentation just posted online John. It's interesting and really telling.

I have the B and F meeting on my calendar but i have little interest in attending three meetings over three consecutive days. Going to the Mountain View meeting on Tuesday night and the outreach committee meeting on Thursday. As a visitor to the B&F meeting on Weds i would be in an awkward position asking that question. That said, every member of that committee should want to know what Anita has requested and failed to receive?

Hopefully the question is asked, or the board president explains why he felt he had the right to hold anything back from the treasurer, or any other board member for that matter.

 

Thanks Tom - I only had the summary of board candidates in front of me.

 

Bill where would I look to find the Triarc presentation posted online - It is not in the Mountainview project section.

 

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ5zEBM4TkQ

 

What I read of Anita Borski and her outstanding qualifications, I dont feel it prudent to be questioning her abilities. It is clear she is well qualified for the position and should have not aspersions cast on her abilities and knowledge. Her resume reveals a significant career and we are honored she has chosed to continue to offer her service to the RCSC and the Foundation. She has not made a single comment about what has occurred, therefore, until one hears from Anita herself, it is best to keep the sidetalk and specualtion to a minimum. Anita is a person of great integrity and deserves to be treated with respect, period.

There is a third party making allegations. It is up to that person to clarify and provide substance to the allegations made and I suspect this will all shke out in the boardroom, not in front of the viweing public. Providing any additional guesswork as to the actions of others is lunacy, unless you have the proof to substantiate any allegations.

For the sake of all involved, can we please leave the attacks on any board members, past or present, on the wayside? These are good people that need time to get their center again and move forward with the busines of the RCSC. It is the most reasonable thing to do, in my opinion.

 

Personally I wish the questions about the situation were addressed and answered.

 

So you know what happened in the executive session, what the issues were, what the discussions entailed. I highly doubt it so you are blowing smoke out an orfice, as usual.

 

Let's return to the beginning. EO took offense at my comment that when I was Treasurer I could walk into Kevin's office and talk accounting with him. I DID NOT SAY or IMPLY AB COULD ALSO NOT DO THIS. I think she took this as me questioning AB's qualifications to be treasurer. I think the discussion took a wrong turn from that point forward. I should point out there are no written qualifications (other than being a director) to be the treasurer. As pointed out to me AB has a great deal of career experience.

As to my speculation of who did what to whom, my point was the accusations CJR made included time periods after she resigned. In order to make those accusations (if they were valid) the information had to come from a board member. Since one of her accusations specifically mentioned AB isn't it logical to conclude she is the source of CJR's post resignation accusations? No matter. The point here is that many were shocked and dismayed that CJR made these statements in public. Given the subject matter, my legal antennas shot up.

 

“Let's return to the beginning. EO took offense at my comment that when I was Treasurer I could walk into Kevin's office and talk accounting with him. I DID NOT SAY or IMPLY AB COULD ALSO NOT DO THIS. I think she took this as me questioning AB's qualifications to be treasurer.“ ~ JF

John,
For your clarification, I had NO concerns about your relationship with Kevin when you served as treasurer or AB’s qualifications.

I only addressed your demeaning “opinion” comments, speculations and guesses:

“So here is my speculation on the CJR attack. It was probably initiated by AB.

My guess is AB, like CJR who publicly stated so, wants to provide the players club with their wish list and the data is not supporting it. Therefore, AB decides to go after golf data which TF wants to keep her out of and he starts to intervene.

Now CJR, WHO IS NOT ON THE BOARD, would have no way of knowing any of this EXCEPT *IF*AB COMPLAINED TO HER THAT SHE WAS NOT GETTING THE DATA SHE WANTS. Hmmm. The plot thickens.”

Kind regards, EO

My referenced comment;
John, while your “speculation” stated as opinion is not legally libelous, it does cause damage to the persons you criticize good names.
Reprehensible, in my opinion.

• Speculate
speculate vb

-lat·ed
-lat·ing
vi
:to theorize on the basis of insufficient evidence NOTE: A jury is not permitted to speculate on a matter about which insufficient evidence has beenpresented in reaching its verdict.

vt
: to take to be true on the basis of insufficientevidence

Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Published under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

 

Drag out the graphic of the white flag for Chris. It appears there’s an issue with not recognizing where the end of discussion needs to be honored.

Once again, unless anyone has written or other documentation that supports this discussion, it’s between the parties that are responsible. Continuing to try and prove a point of wording or context would be for the injured party to pursue with an attorney, if so deemed. Are you claiming to be one of the pseudo named parties above? Do you have legal standing in this case? If you have grounds to pursue a claim in court as one of the parties, then please move forward. Trying your case hear should be done.

 

To be clear, I responded to John who chose to continue the discussion. I did not initiate ignoring the suggestion to surrender.
Final contribution to this thread.

 

Wow! You are now, suddenly, an expert on parliamentary procedure?

I know very well we are not privy to what was said in the meeting, but we are privy to any of the results of that meeting if they affect us.

Next: I still can't believe a man as ignorant as you appear to be of parliamentary procedure was selected to be on the committee to revise the bylaws, not once, but twice!!!!

Will you at least admit that the meeting that was held that removed Karen McAdam from the board was a meeting held in violation of even the RCSC's bylaws? And I have the proof to back that up. The results of any meeting held in conflict of the bylaws in null and void!

 

We must overcome our differences for the common good.

 

Tom, as I told you before, from the day I was born until the first by law committee I had no use for Robert’s. I did not buy as I thought I would never need one again, hence I used that institution called on the library for my immediate needs. Then I returned it.
As for the recent incarnation we had a certified parlementarian at hand for which I deferred to as that person would know more about Robert’s than I could learn. I like experts on subjects and have utilized them in the past.
As for me being chosen twice, the committee must have liked my skill set covering germane areas to be covered and discussed extensively, rather a non certified one trick pony.

Also, Karen McAdams letter that was printed in the paper was complete and utter caca and I have a witness to the entire story. So under your argument are we suppose to 8nvite back to torment us even further with her never ending word salad verbiage? My understanding is that she moved from Sun City to who knows where rendering your statement moot. I suggest you go find a windmill to tilt at.

Never underestimate surety bond underwriters as we have long memories even in old age.

 

Dare I ask who that parliamentarian was? If it was the same one we had at our Annual Membership Meeting it certainly leaves me with concerns. I have had disagreements with her in the past and had to show her the actual citation in RONR's.

So, are you now telling me you know what went on in that Executive Session? Hmmm?

No. All I want is for those who voted Karen off the board to understand that, not what they did, but how they did it violated the bylaws.