Friday, April 30, 2010

LETTER: Questions For Co-op Board

To the editor:

I was unable to be at last Friday's meeting of the SEC board of Trustees, but I've been told some of the details.
Apparently, although the members voted overwhelmingly to reduce the number of Trustees to five (5), the attorney advised them that all eleven (11) could remain on the board until their terms expire. Since those resolutions that were passed are supposed to go into effect immediately, waiting two and three years for expiration of terms doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The Board also seemed to resist the ideas of redistricting and open meetings. Do the strongly expressed wishes of the members mean nothing?
During the month of April, the Trustees met on the 14th, the 23rd, and will meet again on the 28th. These guys get $75 for every meeting they attend --- That's $225 each for the month of April where the main thing they did was to try to block the member's resolutions.
The Co-op Attorney, Mr Francish, seems strongly opposed to the presence of member-owners during the business portion of the Board meetings. Why? What does he want to hide? It is our Co-op and our business. During previous meetings, Mr Francish has stated many times that he "represents the corporation". While a corporation is recognized as a legal entity, it is still composed of people --- Does he think that means only the Board? Who represents the true owners?
As for Mr. Wolberg, who claims he did not campaign for his election to the Board, and now says that he never said he was a "reform candidate", that may be so. But is it treachery to let the reform group campaign on your behalf, pay for your newspaper advertising, and then work against them? Mr Wolberg, you should be ashamed.
I've heard much speculation about using recall as a possible way to get rid of the members who have no right to be there any longer. Does it have to come to that?

Audrie Clifford

No comments:

Post a Comment