Sorry gang, this is where i part company with some of you and the comments that are borderline craziness. I was down this road before with ARS, and while i could buy the whole Title 33 argument, the minute she started with the corruption talk my eyes rolled to the back of my head and i walked away. Let me just say this; RICO...Really? Grand theft auto or whatever the collusion stuff you are envisioning is nuts. These are people who agreed to serve on a board, get no pay and put in extraordinary hours. Casting about with wild eyed claims is way beyond the pale. I don't like some of their decisions; that's been going on since the day we started our self-governance process in 1960. The June board meeting was a shit show, wasn't the first, won't be the last. Unless or until they get better training, they are going to stumble along doing what they think is right or makes sense to them. We can debate whether it does or doesn't, but what you are doing is wrong. Members need to be involved, the board needs to welcome them aboard. I don't sense we are there yet, but wild ass claims, like those that have been floated the past two days, most assuredly won't help get us where we need to go. You're better than that, and if you're not i'll step away and allow the crazy talk to go wherever you are trying to take it. Just one guys opinion.
Thank you, Bill! I am shocked and disgusted by what I'm reading here. This is just plain wrong. Cut it the f out. I am about to delete the rest of my posts and have the admin removed my name from the roster.
It's ok Carole. We all say things and later regret them. I have. And you are not the only one. Have a good evening.
Bill, My removal of the post was to placate the naysayers. The descriptions of the actions still are salient. There is still using privileged information garnered from a boardroom to send emails to a certain group in order to create mob mentality at a board meeting. There still exists directors redirecting funds to a special interest and then agreeing to circumvent the usual rules of ethics by denying the standard process of having motions read three times before approval. By having an agreement to condone the illicit conduct of one director, this means that others colluded with the offending director by allowing and encouraging such acts to occur. I agree that these are nine people who volunteer to do this job. I also agree that they each took an oath when seated as board members to uphold the rules and integrity of the corporation. What consequences are in place when the oath is blatantly ignored and redirects monies to a pet project? Accelerates the spending of monies on a pet project that may place the corporation at odds with an agreement made with a state agency? Used privileged information gathered from a closed door meeting to create a hostile environment and not have the same information available to anyone who may have desired to offer a rebuttal? The actions described are done so without using names, as was the original post. I believe that those who would act on behalf of the RCSC should be held to a higher standard of conduct and ethics as representing a governing body. I feel minimizing the actions is a bad example of a tacit agreement with the egregious conduct by a board member. At what point does anyone expect to have the board to act ethically and when they don’t, have consequences attached? Why is that motion to spend money on a special project not rescinded by the other directors, in a special meeting? Where is the personal accountability to uphold the integrity of the office one is elected to? No mention of RICO in this post, just the same questions asked by myself in regards to the abhorrent actions done by this board. So go ahead and make light of my concerns about the integrity of the board director using his position to create an allocation of resources outside of written corporate documents. And my dismay that the action was not stopped by the other directors right at the time this happened. But mostly that information that is strictly available to board members only was used for personal gain and used email, probably the RCSC email system, which is against the rules, to create an event to promote a particular agenda. I don’t feel this is folly. I don’t find this to be business as usual. And I feel there should be action taken to stop the approval of the money being allocated outside of normal standards. Just my opinion.
Trust me when i say Carole, "no light" was made regarding your remarks. I was and still am horrified by them and the fact you are one here touting their accuracy or veracity tells me you are just fine with them. You needn't remove anything on my account or anyone else's. You are entitled to believe whatever you want; just don't include me in your witch hunt. I've had more than my share of disagreements over the years, but attacking those making them has never been part of my agenda. I've long argued...we can do better. We, means all of us, not just them.
Agreed, all of us. I removed the post because of its veracity. I still have lingering issues with how things occurred I apologize to everyone. I started a very strong medication yesterday afternoon and it is making me most ill. My apologies.
No problem Carole, I get pretty worked up here when I see postings on something and it is evident that they have no idea what they are talking about. Throw away the pills, have Joe make that gnocchi soup again and I have a nice bottle of Chianti to wash it down. Also tie up that vicious beast.
Vicious beast is a 7 year old beagle mix who will love you up one side and down the other. A mere scratch behind the ears and she will be on her way to sit with Joe. Easily placated. Me on the other hand, make sure it’s a really good Chianti.
