Upcoming POA Election for POA Board

[JBJ]

Attention DIPOA Board of Directors Candidates


It’s time for any and all candidates for the board to declare. As in the past, the election results will be announced at the annual meeting to be held at the Isle Dauphine Club, Saturday, May 14, at 11:00. This year we will elect four (4) directors—three (3) for three (3) year terms, and one (1) for a one year term. Each voter will have four (4) votes—the top three (3) will fill the three (3) year terms and the fourth will fill the one year term. Some of the incumbents will likely run for reelection and others may not. But in any case we need a robust slate of candidates so now is the time to get involved and help make a difference.

The process for becoming a candidate is as follows: Send the POA a statement of your desire to run, by email, fax, US mail, or hand delivery. The statement should include a short ( a max of about 200 words) description of who you are and normally an explanation of why you consider yourself a good candidate, what issues you consider important, etc. It is not uncommon for candidates to send out additional mailings as the campaign progresses, to better explain positions, answer questions, etc. Candidates are encouraged to include email addresses so that they may be contacted by voters. Statements must be received no later than 5:00 PM on Friday, March 25, 2011, but I encourage you go ahead now and not wait.

Please contact me, the POA office, or other board members if you have any questions or need clarification.

Bruce Jones
President-DIPOA Board of Directors

[ambergreen]

Please explain why the fourth spot is only for a 1 year term, rather than all 4 spots being for 3 year terms. Others like myself may not be clear as to why this is the case.

[JBJ]

Feb 20, 2011 3:01:20 GMT -6 ambergreen said:

Please explain why the fourth spot is only for a 1 year term, rather than all 4 spots being for 3 year terms. Others like myself may not be clear as to why this is the case.

Sorry to be tardy in replying--I overlooked this one. Normally we have three board members "roll off" the board each year after having served a three year term. When we have a resignation--as we did last year--it sometimes alters the normal process.

We actually had two resignations last year--Frank Leatherbury resigned and the board appointed Stan Graves to fill his seat. His term expires at the end of this year so the normal cycle was not affected.

We had a second resignation--Glen Coffee--whose term was set to end in 2012. So the board appointed Wes Williams to fill the open seat but only until the next election which will take place this Spring. So we will elect a "one year member" to fill the remainder of that term, along with the usual three, 3-year members to replace B Jones, S Graves, and C Gaba, whose terms are expiring.

[carolinegraves]

Bruce,

Frank Leatherbury was never a member of the Board of Directors. He does not own property on Dauphin Island. Under the law, someone cannot resign from something that they were never on. I told you that last year before the 2010 annual property owners meeting, which you of course ignored me.

You know the Constitution states that you have to own property on Dauphin Island to be a member of the property owners association and to be on the Board of Directors.

Please set everyone straight.

[nancy]

Is there a list of the new canidates for the open positions? If so can you please share there position statements?

[JBJ]

The attached document was mailed to all voting members of record. It explains the amendments and deed restriction removal question, and contains information about the board candidates.

Attachments:

[sgraves1]

I am Stan Graves, and I am a candidate for re-election to the Board of Directors. Yesterday, I received a request from a Property Owner, who as a full-time resident of Dauphin Island asked if I would respond to some questions that the property owner had. I did respond to these important questions. The property owner also has allowed me to post my answers to the DIPOA forum so that others could see my responses. These are my views and responses to the questions. Other candidates may feel differently and respond differently.

1. What is the purpose of the POA? For your information, last July I drafted a Mission Statement and Questionnaire for Property Owner input and to present to the Property Owners. My last draft in January changed some, because of the time lapse. Some of the Board members first requested a work shop to discuss the Business Plan and Mission Statement. Did not happen. Some Board members considered the Mission Statement and Questionnaire a waste of time.

Purpose: The Dauphin Island Property Association is a 501 C4 non-profit organization that was organized under the laws of the state of Alabama and has the purpose to promote the development and betterment of Mobile County and in particular Dauphin Island and Little Dauphin Island in the public interest and to apply its net assets to that end without pecuniary profit to the incorporators or the members of the Association, and to become incorporated to that end and entitled to all the powers and privileges of private corporation as provided by Section 150 of Article 6 Title 10 of the Code of Alabama (1940).

My Draft Mission Statement: I believe the Mission of the POA Board of Directors is to serve and represent the Property Owners of Dauphin Island, the protection of their property rights, and the undertaking of actions necessary for the betterment of POA common property for the use and enjoyment of the entire membership; to effectively and efficiently manage the financial, physical and real properties of the POA for the common good of all members. The Board of Directors to provide timely and effective communications and information so that all POA members can understand the events and issues that affect them.

Also, it is our mission to maintain a viable and beneficial working relationship with the Town of Dauphin Island, the Mayor and Town Council to further the development and betterment of Dauphin Island, to contribute to the vitality of the community and the relationships among all property owners.

2. What is the function of the POA? My belief is that the POA Board of Directors is primarily to serve and represent the Property Owners of Dauphin Island, the protection of their property rights, and the undertaking of actions necessary for the betterment of POA common property for the use and enjoyment of the entire membership; to effectively and efficiently manage the financial, physical and real properties of the POA for the common good of all members.

3. What are benefits of the POA? That is a good question. I do believe there are benefits. Right now I only see that a golf course (which has run at a deficit over the last ten years), pool beach, the Gulfview restaurant. Ensure the proper management of the Dauphin Property Owners Association Trust funds and the Corps of Engineers Settlement funds and requirements of the DIPOA Trust, as well as any conflict of management over POA financial assets.

4. What are the negatives of the POA? I do not believe The Board of Directors is providing timely and effective communications and information so that all POA members can understand the events and issues that affect them. The latest example is the issue with the AFRC that is finely coming to surface. Since last July when Mike Rogers developed a Master Plan (now called a Vision plan) there was reference to a R&R hotel for the Military which made a statement about guaranteed reservations. Since that time I have been asking questions of our President and the Mayor about the Military Hotel. I was aware of the Town of Dauphin Island’s Proposed Armed Forces Recreation Center Hotel/Recreational Complex (AFRC). The President of the POA denied knowing about it and the Mayor denied either being aware of having it in his files. Yet a resolution in support of the AFRC and a letter was written to Mr. Larry Warnken, which was co-signed by our POA President and Mary Thompson, Councilwoman, Tom Howes, Park and Beach Board and a member of the Water and Sewer Authority agreeing to support and provide certain amenities. The letter is posted on the DIPOA Forum. I opposed the resolution because no one would provide any information about what was being proposed. The letter to Mr. Warnken, though dated December 10th was only provided as a draft at the January Board meeting. It was signed and mailed around December 10th. The letter was never discussed with the Board, at least I was not aware of it, and it is my belief that the President did not receive authorization to sign the letter from the Board according to the Constitution. Only now are facts concerning the AFRC stating to surface.

5. How does the POA help members? The POA acts as the voice of the Property Owners and is responsible, but I believe there is much that has to be done concerning transparency of issues. If performing responsibly, then the purpose and the Mission that I drafted would be help POA members.

6. How does the POA harm members? By not being transparent

7. What are the powers afforded to the POA? The Constitution affords the powers of the POA. I have attached the Constitution for your information.

8. How will these powers impact those property owners who choose to not pay for a membership? The property owners who do not pay their dues will no longer be a member of the POA and will no longer be able to vote on issues that will have direct affect on them, such as the erosion issues that face both East and West End of the south shoreline. How any of the POA money is spent on important projects. These were rights given to the POA property owners with the original deed that was conveyed by the Mobile Chamber of Commerce (in 1953) to the POA. Five sections of the Constitution have been packaged under the Mandatory Dues amendment, which I believe were not approved to be amended per the Constitution. There is also a section of the Constitution being changed if this amendment is approved and that deals with the issue pertaining to a property owner being able to vote once regardless of the number of properties owned. If approved, if a group of owners owning multiple properties up to four, if there are at least four people in the group, these property owners will be able to vote up to four properties if different individuals are named? (Note dues will be paid for each property. I have added this comment after the fact) I believe this will increase voting power into a controlling group of property owners. In addition, I believe this amendment has the intent to reduce the number of property owners voting, which means again that a controlling group of property owners will be in power. Basically, if you do not pay your dues, you have no voice. Jay Minus and I opposed the Mandatory dues amendment. I will vote against the Mandatory Dues amendment.

9. Who proposed this $250.00 membership fee? A group of Board members that developed the Business Plan, which is on the DIPOA website. If you will review that plan, you will see that the proposed budget included in that plan will not be successful unless the dues is increased.

10. What will this $250.00 membership fee be used for? Again, I would suggest that you go to the DIPOA website and check “The Business Plan” dipoa.com/biz_plan081920.pdf. The Business Plan and the included budget were approved in August. The budget for this year is based upon the assumptions budget on page 10. Please note that success of this plan, in my opinion, is really based upon the approval of the Mandatory Dues. As I have indicated to the Board this business plan provides a high level view, but no tactical steps to success. In addition, it is basically a two year business plan that is supposed to hand off to the Master/Vision Plan. Please read the business plan.

11. How will the membership fees be accounted for? That is a financial issue and Bruce Thompson should answer this question. Our accountant is now publishing a financial statement that includes membership dues and a financial accounting of POA. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done.

12. How are POA funds generated now? Funds are generated from the Golf Course, Gulfview restaurant (the full revenue comes to the POA now whereas the Tiki did not), pool, beach area, rental of the Isle Dauphine Building, Interest for CDs, some funds from the Trust fund, which will be dissolved, I believe in 2013. Since I have only been on the board for almost a year, I only know what is happening now.

13. How are POA funds accounted for now? The POA has an Accountant who keeps the financials.

14. What is a "utility easement?" a utility easement is an easement that allows a limited right to make use of a property owned by another, e.g. a right of way across the property. This is typically for something like power, telephone, cable, a gas line, etc. I voted against the easement amendment when the Board discussed this and will vote against it because I do not know the future impact and because the section of the constitution that will be affected deals with encumbrance of property under: Powers of the Association. 2.2 Powers of the Association.

15. Who pays for a "utility easement? The POA is giving away use of property as indicated above.

16. How does this directly impact the homeowner affected? There is no way to know the future impact

17. How does this affect individual members of the POA? There is no way to know the future impact, but this is property that the POA owns. By approving this amendment, the POA member will have no voice in the decision.

18. How does this affect individual non-members of the POA? Non-members would not be notified or have a voice since they are no longer members and would not receive any notification.

19. How much are the members of the Board of Directors on the POA paid? Nothing

20. Are you a full-time or part-time resident of Dauphin Island? Part Time. We do rent our property as a vacation rental.

21. If you are a part-time resident how do you intend to effectively perform your duties? We spend two months a year and I attend all Board of Director meetings, and any needed meeting. I have not missed any meeting while being on the Board of Directors. I also attend Town Council meetings. I stay in constant contact with Board meetings, the Mayor, and Town Council when needed.

Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. I hope that I have answered your questions sufficiently enough.

Note: I added the following comment to the list of questions:

22. You did not ask about the removal of the “for the exclusive use of the property owners” from the POA Deed. I will vote against the removal of the Exclusive Use phrase in the deed. No one at this time knows what will be the overall impact of this change. This change will affect all POA property. Suffice it to say that the justification used to transfer the West Surf Beach to the Town is also being used to make this change take place, but yet there are no identified funds and we still have not received funds to address the erosion issue on the West End. It is my belief that removal of the “Exclusive Use” may have a connection with the AFRC or down the road possible conveyance of property to the Town. There is just not rational reason to make this change now or until we have more information available to us.

[Dennis Knizley]

If I correctly understand Mr. Graves post, the DIPOA became a signatory to the AFRC letter before discussion and approval by the Board. Am I reading that correctly and is that true?

Reviewing the Constitution and other material the Association has no power to tax. Requiring mandatory dues with removal of voting rights for failure to pay seems like a tax. The dues amount are such that I have no issue with paying it, but it does seem to be a step toward heading down that slippery slope where a designated group, the property owner, is forced to give money to an entity to spend as they decide to do so, and it is not their money they are spending. Propping up the golf course is the apparent reason, but once it gets leased, sold or absorbed into the AFRC or the next deal that comes along, somebody is still getting a lot of somebody else's money to spend, contrary to the present Constitution and to what property owners bargained for when they bought property on the island.

Back to transparency. Is this dues proposal about the golf course deficiency or something else? Couple it with the removal of the "members only" deed restriction at the same time, the concern about why the Board is proposing this seems justified. If Board member Graves is correct that the letter on the AFRC was a done deal before it came before the entire Board, that also is concerning. Is this a conspiracy theory that needs to be debunked now so that property owners can be confident no skulduggery is afoot on the Board?

[Dennis Knizley]

Apr 10, 2011 19:07:18 GMT -6 Dennis Knizley said:

If I correctly understand Mr. Graves post, the DIPOA became a signatory to the AFRC letter before discussion and approval by the Board. Am I reading that correctly and is that true?

Reviewing the Constitution and other material the Association has no power to tax. Requiring mandatory dues with removal of voting rights for failure to pay seems like a tax. The dues amount are such that I have no issue with paying it, but it does seem to be a step toward heading down that slippery slope where a designated group, the property owner, is forced to give money to an entity to spend as they decide to do so, and it is not their money they are spending. Propping up the golf course is the apparent reason, but once it gets leased, sold or absorbed into the AFRC or the next deal that comes along, somebody is still getting a lot of somebody else's money to spend, contrary to the present Constitution and to what property owners bargained for when they bought property on the island.

Back to transparency. Is this dues proposal about the golf course deficiency or something else? Couple it with the removal of the "members only" deed restriction at the same time, the concern about why the Board is proposing this seems justified. If Board member Graves is correct that the letter on the AFRC was a done deal before it came before the entire Board, that also is concerning. Is this a conspiracy theory that needs to be debunked now so that property owners can be confident no skulduggery is afoot on the Board?

The post may be more appropriate in one or more forums.

[sgraves1]

TO: LLL

You are correct in your presumption. The letter was co-signed in December. The letter was dated December 10th, and the Board was not aware of the letter until we received an e-mail on January 17, 2011 and it was attached as a draft. At the January board meeting we were advised that the letter went out about that time. I no reason to believe other Board members were aware of this letter at that time.

As I mentioned, the first I ever saw the draft of the letter was in January, and I did not know that it had been signed and mailed back in December.

[JBJ]

Apr 11, 2011 16:08:03 GMT -6 sgraves1 said:

TO: LLL

You are correct in your presumation. The letter was co-signed in December. The letter was dated December 10th, and the Board was not aware of the letter until we received an e-mail on January 17, 2011 and it was attached as a draft. At the January board meeting we were advised that the letter went out about that time. I no reason to believe other Board members were aware of this letter at that time.

As I mentioned, the first I ever saw the draft of the letter was in January, and I did not know that it had been signed and mailed back in December.

I know conspiracy theories are more fun, but sometimes facts get in the way. The board adopted the following resolution well in advance of the subject letter. The letter--it's posted here somewhere--makes no commitments of any kind and is basically a "chamber of commerce" type listing of the good things about DI. Given our resolution, I didn't think twice about co-signing the letter with the other island entities.


DIPOA Resolution

Dear Mayor Collier:

The Dauphin Island Property Owners’ Association (DIPOA) is proud to announce that the following resolution was presented and adopted at our board meeting held August 21, 2010 at Town Hall on Dauphin Island, Alabama:

“Be it resolved:

The DIPOA fully and enthusiastically supports the Town of Dauphin Island in its effort to obtain a hotel on Dauphin Island and will provide any help within its capabilities for this much needed and worthy project. In addition, DIPOA urges Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus to do everything necessary to convince the Department of Defense to enter into a public-private partnership with the Town of Dauphin Island to finance, construct, and operate the hotel.”

We sincerely hope that this will become a reality and will be one of the projects that will assist in the economic recovery of Dauphin Island.

Sincerely,

Board of Directors
Dauphin Island Property Owners’ Association

[carolinegraves]

Bruce, how could you sign a letter without asking who the private partnership--the developers-- would be that would finance, construct, and operate the hotel? There is a lot of money tied up in this enormous Military complex.

By the way, how much money will the Town/Developers Military Complex cost, not just the part on the POA property, but the whole island? Did you noticed on the documents that you received, how much profit would be made from this complex on the whole island?

Do you think it time to follow the money?

[JBJ]

Apr 11, 2011 23:03:12 GMT -6 carolinegraves said:

Bruce, how could you sign a letter without asking who the private partnership--the developers-- would be that would finance, construct, and operate the hotel? There is a lot of money tied up in this enormous Military complex.

By the way, how much money will the Town/Developers Military Complex cost, not just the part on the POA property, but the whole island? Did you noticed on the documents that you received, how much profit would be made from this complex on the whole island?

Do you think it time to follow the money?

Notice the board resolution supports a public/private partnership--that done as it was (and is still) assumed that that would be the way to make the project work. The board--as far as I'm aware--has no preference for this method ( P/P partnership) vs. other methods ( all public, all private, etc.) --just that the arrangement--whatever it may be--is good for the island in general and the POA in particular. And again--for the benefit of new readers--there is no..."part on POA property..." It's possible that we ( POA) may be approached re. making property available under some arrangement but this has not yet happened.

[Dennis Knizley]

The August 10,2010 Board resolution appears to give clear authority for the President of the POA to co-sign the letter. It also strongly suggests that a hotel with military affilations was discussed and support of such a concept was voted on and adopted by the Board. The signing was consistent with the resolution.

That being said, property owners can now monitor with interest what if anything develops from this suggested proposal.

[paulas]

As a property owner...and someone who attends meetings when I can....I do hope other property owners will think twice before checking your ballot for re-election of certain board members in the upcoming election...and make certain about any new (unknown) candidates. There are people on the board that "always swim against the current". PLEASE...be informed before you mark you ballot!!

[carolinegraves]

Also, I hope all owners are informed that they do not have to do a secret ballot.

All owners can
1.sign the proxy
2. cross out the Board members names and
3. put in a new NAME.........Make sure the person named on the proxy will be at the annual meeting in person to vote it
4. Write in the names of the board members that you are voting for the Board of Directors
5. write on the proxy that you vote NO to all Constitutional changes


Also, before voting for anybody running for the board, ask them to sign a statement that they will vote against putting any part of the AFRC or any military complex on the POA property and they will not make all of the POA properties for the public use. I think you will be surprised how many board members will not sign it.

Please elect Board members that will question why thing are happening, and not just people that blindly follow the crowd.

[sgraves1]

This reply is to LLL concerning his post of April 12th that the POA President based upon the resolution (signed in August) and stated that the signing of the December 10th letter is consistent with the resolution. I believe you are incorrect on several points: 1. The Resolution does not give clear authority to the President to sign the December 10th letter. It only states that the DIPOA fully and enthusiastically supports… efforts to obtain a Hotel on Dauphin Island. See below. I voted against the resolution because there was no information or plans available concerning the Military Hotel, in fact the Resolution changed with some input from Rod Grimm, the Town’s lobbyist. 2. The issue with the December 10th letter, which a draft was not provided to the Board of Directors until January 17th for the Board to review is that the President made an agreement without authorization. In that letter, the President agreed to support a lot of amenities that had not been discussed with the Board of Director’s, or for that matter the POA property owners. At the January 19th Board meeting we learned that the letter had been mailed around Dec 10th, though his e-mail with the draft was the first time I saw it. I do not know about the other Board members.

Though the President explained his reason at the January 19th board meeting that he felt it was consistent with the earlier POA resolution, I did not agree then and still do not agree with that position. Article V, Section 5.2 of the POA Constitution states that the President of the Association can only “…sign as President with the Secretary or Treasurer all deeds, contracts or other instruments in writing which have been first approved by the Board of Directors; and the membership if so required”. I was unable to obtain a signed copy from our President, but did obtain a signed copy from the Town of Dauphin Island.

Below are excerpts from the August 2010 Resolution and the Dec 10th letter that was co-signed by the POA president.

The Resolution stated in part:
“Be it resolved:

The DIPOA fully and enthusiastically supports the Town of Dauphin Island in its effort to obtain a hotel on Dauphin Island and will provide any help within its capabilities for this much needed and worthy project. In addition, DIPOA urges Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus to do everything necessary to convince the Department of Defense to enter into a public-private partnership with the Town of Dauphin Island to finance, construct, and operate the hotel.”

The letter that was co-signed by the President states: “… members of the Dauphin Island Town Council, the Dauphin Island Property Owners’ Association, the Dauphin Island Park and Beach Board, and the Dauphin Island Water and Sewer Authority have agreed that our community would support a military hotel/recreation complex having all or some of the following components:…”

I hope you will give consideration to the above and understand that the President does not have unilateral authority to do things, in fact Section 4.1 Corporate Powers states: The corporate powers of the Association is vested in, exercised by and under the authority of, and the business and affairs of the Association shall be controlled by a Board of nine (9) Directors.

[paulas]

See what I mean???

[carolinegraves]

Paulas,

Are you voting for candidates that are in favor of the Town's Military complex being put on the POA property, the public beach, turning the Holiday Isle condos into a convention center, and the Town and developers getting the Coast Guard property? According to the Town’s proposal for the AFRC, the Town and a private sector entity (Real Estate Developer) “will form a partnership to finance, construct and operate a Military Complex (AFRC) on Dauphin Island” In exchange, the Town/Developers will get the Coast Guard property on the East end “and some other real estate location incentives (such as zoning preference which the Town of Dauphin Island can provide).” The "Zoning preference" part really got me. I wonder what that is all about? Do you think all of the Candidates know about this?

I was just wondering how other people on the Island feel about a Military Complex that will take over the whole island? Is this what the people of the island want? Do the people on the Island want candidates that will vote for the AFRC?

Are you voting for candidates in favor of the removal of the deed restriction? I hope before you do that you and all property owners on the island will look at the map of Dauphin Island and check to see if their property is next to one of the POA easements that will be made for Public use. The easements are all over the Island. I checked to see if my property is next to an easement, which it isn't, but that still does not stop the groups of people pulling up in my driveway and spending the day at our house. There have been many times that I have been at the house alone with no car and people that are drunk drive up, unpack and go to the beach and go to the bathroom in the sand under the house. It is very scarcely.

Is this what the rest of the Islander want to have people wandering around behind the houses on the soon to be "public POA easement"? What about the POA waterfront easements? Do the people around them want the POA Board to make them for "public use". If I lived around any of the POA waterfront property I would be very worried because I have seen all of the Boats at the end of the Island. And with the “New Policy Covering Boat Tie-up at DIPOA Property” if I was some of the owners around the them, I would be mad if the new Board opened it up for "public use".

I have never heard of a board of directors of property owners association making all of its common property for public use. What is the sense in having an association?

[ambergreen]

Caroline makes a good point. If all the POA property is going to be opened up for public use, including those easements between the houses, then why should our dues be the only source of revenue to support the land and keep it clean? If it’s all going to be public, then property taxes from all over the island, as well as a beach entrance fee and/or bridge toll charged to the visiting public, should help pay for the maintenance and cleaning.

It would be better if the easements between the houses not be made available for use by the public. Making the beach by the golf course available for use by non-property owners (for a fee) and making the pocket parks available for free use by the public might be one thing (seems like we should sell the pocket parks to the Town since we don’t charge for using them), but making every last parcel of POA property open to the public, especially without remuneration, seems like a bigger can of worms than we might want to bring on ourselves.

The wording of the deed restriction removal should be very specific on this point.

[davidmeyer]

A reminder, folks, that there will be a "Candidates' Forum" after the DIPOA meeting Wednesday night (4/20/11). Hope to see you all there.

Regards,
David Meyer

[whistlingdixie]

Good job, membership!

[scott]

So what happened at the meeting?

[whistlingdixie]

Well, let's see......the results of the vote were read. The new board was declared. The board left for executive session to elect new officers. Charles Gaba, President, Jack Gaines, V. P., Bruce T., Tres. and Mike Rogers, Sec......

Mr. Gaba preceeded the opening of the meeting with a statement that he expected certain behaviors from the POA membership as regards the meetings. That personal issued would be addressed by the board, if issues were presented in writing, but that no personal attacks of individuals would be tolerated and disruption of the meetings would not be tolerated, in the form of personal attacks. That being said, a person stood up and proceeded to read a script that attacked the mayor, called him by name at least five times, and she was called down and asked to stop several times. She kept reading her script, got louder and louder, several people in the audience spoke up, told her to pay her dues or shut up, told her she was being rude........at that point, Mr. Gaba declared the meeting adjourned.....I have some personal observations that I would add, but I am trying to be factual.... It is my humble opinion that a if he had not, a free for all might have resulted....I give credit to Mr. Gaba for halting a meeting that could have escalated into a brawl....

[scott]

Thanks for the report. You would think the fate of the world hinged on the vagaries of the DIPOA...I sometimes think about getting involved--I have lots of time--but who needs this?? Thanks to those that volunteer to try to help us move forward.

[whistlingdixie]

You're welcome!

[lyndamcginley]

Glad we left after the vote. Thanks to Laura for getting us connected to this forum.

[anemone]

I had to leave right after the vote, too- so, when will the new business and old unfinished business be discussed, since the meeting had to be halted apparently before this was done-- ie- when is the next POA meeting, or will there be an extra called meeting?
I would like to attend, but have to plan in advance--

[virginiashanahan]

May 14, 2011 21:02:11 GMT -6 whistlingdixie said:

Well, let's see......the results of the vote were read. The new board was declared. The board left for executive session to elect new officers. Charles Gaba, President, Jack Gaines, V. P., Bruce T., Tres. and Mike Rogers, Sec......

Mr. Gaba preceeded the opening of the meeting with a statement that he expected certain behaviors from the POA membership as regards the meetings. That personal issued would be addressed by the board, if issues were presented in writing, but that no personal attacks of individuals would be tolerated and disruption of the meetings would not be tolerated, in the form of personal attacks. That being said, a person stood up and proceeded to read a script that attacked the mayor, called him by name at least five times, and she was called down and asked to stop several times. She kept reading her script, got louder and louder, several people in the audience spoke up, told her to pay her dues or shut up, told her she was being rude........at that point, Mr. Gaba declared the meeting adjourned.....I have some personal observations that I would add, but I am trying to be factual.... It is my humble opinion that a if he had not, a free for all might have resulted....I give credit to Mr. Gaba for halting a meeting that could have escalated into a brawl....

A brawl, really? Certainly as grown adults you all are capable of controlling your behavior, yes?

[parrothead]

YES, and apparently better than you did !