top of page
Search

Jun 16, Complete Comment

Half of this comment was copied into the community comment document. The second half was not included by the board.


At the last board meeting, a board member suggested going into executive session and not returning, effectively ending the meeting for everyone else.


Members immediately knew that wasn't allowed. We started shaking our heads.

But we couldn't say anything.


The chat was closed.


We couldn't unmute ourselves.


The mistake was corrected only because another board member also knew. What if they didn’t? I would like to think the board would want it flagged if they were about to do something improper.


The month before, a question I had asked was put to the board - only it wasn’t. The question had changed, but I didn’t know that before the meeting. I raised my hand and was told that comments were not allowed. Without a chat, I had no way to state intent.


It's easy to be right when nobody else can speak.

When members can't use chat, can't use reactions, can't hold up signs, and can't unmute themselves, information has to wait for permission before it can be shared. But we also can’t ask for permission.


Why are we designing meetings around the assumption that information is dangerous?


These case studies are only a few I have collected this year that show how discussion with members improves both outcomes and time management. 


Further, when a member with knowledge is actually in the room, we risk losing that information after the meeting if they choose not to email. It's poor design to not attempt to capture knowledge in the moment, through chat or by accepting comments during discussion.


I think that's just one reason why email is not an adequate solution for member comments.


But also: Email is private. Questions can be answered without anyone else learning from the answer.


A board member can decide that they’re just done talking, without actually answering the question.


And for me, email is no longer a safe way to participate.

When I have emailed the board, the conversation has not always stayed focused on the content or the issue I raised. At times, it has turned back on me personally, with accusations I believe are unreasonable and unfair.


I hope the board understands why that changes the meaning of "just email us."


A suggestion raised in public becomes community knowledge. 


A suggestion raised in email can simply disappear. Like a stipend for members who host events in their homes. Like how better web design can improve real world engagement. Like questions about actual liability costs of a trail.


After all, it’s also easy to be right when you can ignore everything else.

What is the ask?


Meaningful member comment improves decision making by providing ideas, perspectives, and knowledge the board might not have otherwise. 


To achieve that, city commissions provide all materials ahead of the meeting. Another option would be to ensure that members have a participation channel during the course of discussion. Make sure members have a public option that is not filtered by the board.


If the board wants zoom meetings to be like in-person meetings, remove the mute restriction. In person, if a board director made a snide comment about me or my spouse, I could respond. Or admit that these are not in-person meetings and enable the chat so members can respond or advise of technical difficulties.


We deserve a way to respond when provoked, because your seat does not mean that you get to have the last word.


It’s easy to be right when you control every channel. 

The board may come up with another idea, but I think the current format underleverages the membership as an asset of experience and knowledge.


How would we design our meetings if we truly believed that our neighbors are the purpose of this organization and not a problem to be managed?


ALSO A COMMENT: Outstanding Questions Previously Raised by Members


The following questions have been raised in board meetings, submitted in writing, or published on FriendsOfKenLake.com. They have not been answered. The date each was first raised is noted where available. Where a date range is noted, the question has been raised multiple times without response. 


I am happy to engage with board members outside of meetings on these topics, but have come to the conclusion that recording is necessary - the board continues to call me names in private, and use those pejorative terms as permission to dismiss me with no accountability for their positions.


I would further state that ‘board members’ refers here to the majority of members a majority of the time; individuals have been fair, but are often outnumbered and for everyone’s protection are not named here as separate entities.


Grouped by topic.


Member Participation and Meeting Process

  • What will the board commit to providing so members can meaningfully comment before decisions? Feb

    • This includes providing information on current proposed topics ahead of planning sessions.

  • If the board cannot provide sufficient information beforehand, why not allow limited comment during discussion? Feb/Mar

  • Can the agenda process be redesigned so information discovered during meetings can still be considered and time managed effectively? Feb/Mar

    • What will it take for the board to acknowledge that member contributions reduce time in discussion and the need to postpone business when the answer is not known by one of seven on the board? I have shown this on repeat on FriendsOfKenLake.com. Mar

  • Will the board acknowledge that the president overstepped in his examples of ‘disruption,’ by including statements made when recognized and outside of a meeting? Apr

  • This is the smallest level of governance. Should members feel that their voice depends on the board’s goodwill? Or should we feel that at least here, we can be heard? Jun

  • When a board accuses a member in real time, in a meeting, in front of neighbors, what can the member do to protest the accusation? Jun


Website and Access


Committees and Volunteers

  • Did the board consult current committee leads before drafting a committee policy? Apr/May

  • Why has the board not responded to or acknowledged the previous bylaws committee volunteers? Apr, May

  • What specifically did the board object to in the bylaws report? Apr

    • Why are we failing to acknowledge the other parts of the report? Apr/May

  • How will the board demonstrate accountability to advisory committees and volunteers? May

  • Under what conditions can the March/April bylaws committee minutes be accepted? May

  • When the tech committee lead asked to revisit the website proposal, why would the board not even hear why the proposal was made? Jun

    • The finance committee chair was able to have a full discussion in that meeting, with the board asking questions. The exact respect that the original bylaws committee was asking for. How do we get that for every committee, every time? Jun


  • Will the board work toward acquiring the easement supported by the membership in 2024? Apr/May

  • What liability estimates justified relinquishing the easement? Apr

    • Or are we making decisions based on vibes? Apr

  • Why was the issue discussed primarily in executive session despite affecting all members? Dec-Apr

  • Becker previously provided a letter from her personal lawyer to stop the easement (2024), then provided that letter, again, when asked about why the board was rejecting that easement. The president indicated that Becker was the most knowledgeable on this topic and she stated a personal interest in the Apr newsletter; but if she was involved in the discussion at all wouldn’t that be a clear conflict of interest and violate the responsibilities of the board? Under what process does the board ensure that members with a personal interest in a decision are recused from that discussion? Apr


Governance and RCW Questions

  • Does the board recognize the distinction in RCW 64.90 between advisory committees and committees with delegated board authority? Jan

  • Why should volunteer committee leads not have the same workflow flexibility the board cited when closing meeting chat? Mar

  • Is the board aware that some committees are now hosting off-the-books workgroups due to notice/minutes requirements? This makes it harder for members to participate without exclusive invitation. Jun

  • What process does the board use to ensure recusal when a conflict of interest exists?  A board director has been in the room multiple times when this topic arose, and enters executive session when the topic of her spouse’s contract is listed on the agenda. Jan, Mar, May, June

    • In June, the board confirmed 3 times that this topic was coming up during the executive session.

  • Have you asked VIS how many admin hours we use in a month? This would help for comparing the annual and hourly rates. Jun


Community Conduct and Participation

Comments

bottom of page