Recap - May 19 Board Meeting

In the May 19th meeting, several topics drifted and we began to wonder what the purpose even was to begin with. This is a first person recap and I am adding my thoughts, so know that this is editorial in nature.

I think a lot about purpose. Purpose is an anchor - when disagreement is rife, it gives us something to return to. While we don’t know, and won’t assume, the board’s purpose, we can make a guess at topic purpose, because we all are working towards a better neighborhood and our board meetings should serve that goal.

Before the Meeting

Last month, I emailed the new clerk with a newsletter announcement, asking if and how we could include information on the new bus route picking up in front of Ken Lake. I did not get a response.

When I emailed a written comment, I did not get a response. I get it - volunteers are busy.

When I arrived at the board meeting, I dropped a link to my comment and made clear that this was the same link that will be included in the agenda.

The board objected, because links should not direct members outside of board business, and if they want to chat (about board business), that should not take place here.

Then the secretary stated that she hadn’t gotten to it sooner, because she was a volunteer.

And the question becomes - if I volunteered the same information, in the same format, without accusation, what is the problem?

Why are we gatekeeping?

The purpose of chat is to support board business, including community comment.

As the meeting began, Fred Yancey apologized to Craig Burger for falsely accusing Craig and characterizing Craig as aggressive in statements about the Kaiser Woods Lot.

We appreciate Yancey taking responsibility for his words and for the impact of his statements.

As an additional note, many links provided in the agenda packet were not accessible to members.

Approving the Minutes

President Gowrylow asked to remove the minutes for the governance committee from the official record for April 21. I chaired this committee, and we had 6 volunteers giving 5 or more hours of time each week and these minutes created a record of that work.

The purpose of minutes is to create a record.

Read the Minutes

While that may be onerous for advisory (non-decision) committees, the board has been developing a committee communication policy, which included a format in which minutes needed to be submitted to the board.

The governance committee submitted those minutes, in the format requested, with topics and recommendations, as requested.

Gowrylow objected to vocabulary ‘foregone conclusion’, and ‘supervise.’ The former bylaws chair, who was responsible for writing those minutes, asked to be recognized.

Gowrylow said she had to be recognized. She stated again that she was asking to be recognized.

As the former governance chair, I explained why ‘forgone conclusion’ had been used. I had seen a statement written on the report by a board member with the decision to move forward with a pricier, riskier no-bid process with our own lawyer. I updated this with the evidence instead of the conclusion.

I also agreed to change ‘supervise’ to ‘observe,’ reflecting Gowrylow’s preference.

Board members expressed confusion over the new Homeowner Document Review group.

The Homeowner Document Review was formed specifically because the board has refused to engage with members of the governance committee by even seeking a mutual understanding of what is written in the Report submitted for the meeting on April 2.

Homeowner Document Review is formed by all previously active governance committee volunteers, and has made recommendations to bring the volunteers and board back into alignment (they are in the contested minutes) because the purpose, for this group, is an effective and thorough bylaws revision.

I offered to respond to board comments, and Gowrylow promised I would have an opportunity after all board members spoke.

Then he called the vote to strike the record of work provided to the board, at board request.

If the purpose is for all community members to have a record of what happens in committees, the board did not seek to achieve this purpose.

Instead, they summarily removed the record.

No other committee has faced such an audit.

Community Comment

I opened community comment with the response I had been denied.

During the 3rd paragraph of my comment, a timer appeared on the screen with less than 10 seconds left.

I have previously read 2 pages in the allotted 3 minutes, so this was confusing. The board elected to cut me off mid-comment, and in that conversation it was identified that the timer had not commenced with the comment, but was started at the discretion of the secretary.

I did ask in the community comment for the board to commit to an open discussion of the bylaws later in the meeting, so members would know when to comment.

There was no response from the board.

With no response, Homeowner Document Review members made what efforts they could to present recommendations; however, this is better as a conversation seeking mutual agreement.

Additional community comments included Rob Panowitz expressed disappointment in the anger, unpleasantness, and ‘3rd grade attitudes’ currently on display at board meetings. He did not specify what behaviors were problematic.

Craig Burger asked that meetings be recorded, so members who could not attend did not have to rely on these recaps.

Timers were present only for myself and Craig Burger - no other statements had visual timers presented or were cut off.

During the Meeting

Members raised their hands during the meeting and were recognized. They offered help, asked questions, and contributed specific expertise to information that had not been in the agenda packet.

Members added value when they were allowed to participate.

Because mics were locked, Gowrylow expressed frustration when members were not able to unmute themselves right away.

Executive Session

The board entered the first executive session to discuss compliance recommendations.

Members chatted during this time, and identified a problem with notices. Members were missing board meeting notices and their agendas because the board was noticing from a different list than the one kept by VIS. This discrepancy should be addressed, or at least verified.

Another executive session was held at the end of the meeting to discuss contractor details, including the Common Areas Manager, Mike Frank. Alicia Frank, the secretary, participated in this discussion.

The mics and videos were locked this time. When the board returned, a quick vote was taken to approve changes to the clerk contract.

Deferred Actions

The board deferred actions on Management RFPs, Park Rules, and Asphalt bids.

On the park rules, Frank proposed developing a plan to incorporate feedback to avoid a unilateral decision. Yancey stated “we don’t have time for that.” To the board’s credit, they deferred the entire issue.

Care Committee

The board stated that they would be willing to promote a member led care committee in the newsletter. They were concerned that no one had volunteered, but in previous meetings, members had volunteered instantly to take on this committee.

Bylaws Revision

This portion of the meeting was particularly galling.

Yancey stated that he was resetting the bylaws committee, and that they would meet weekly for just an hour and that there was plenty of time before the bylaws needed to be formalized.

I raised my hand.

I asked why we were not talking about or acknowledging that work that had already been done in the governance committee. Why were we not asking volunteers about the reasoning for the much more aggressive timeline submitted in the work plan?

The flat response was that the committee was starting fresh. 

Which never answers why.

Board members acknowledged that the report was thorough, and a good report. Why do we never discuss its content?

Yancey continues to object that the committee had resigned en masse because we did not like the board’s decision. Even as we spend pages and days showing that we resigned because none of our work has been acknowledged, regardless of the decision. We have even provided recommendations for working with the board again.

This was another, clear, example.

Craig Burger spoke up and told the board about how this description of bylaws committee work was hubris. He had watched neighbors come to his home and talk about one article for 2 or 3 hours every Thursday for months. 

Previous board statements had claimed that the bylaws work was too important for a committee, but now it is being claimed by a committee - simply one without the original volunteers.

If the purpose is to have an effective, volunteer driven revision of bylaws, why are we not even engaging with the people who have been doing the work?

Framing

As the conversation moved to a finance committee proposal on ad sales, Craig Burger raised his hand.

Gowrylow stated that he could speak “If you’re not going to insult us again.”

Craig provided expertise from running two ad sales businesses.

I then responded that members were not here to insult the board, and that we had been staying topic focused and contributing through disagreement.

Only later did I realize that Mike meant ‘hubris.’

The board has called me ‘disruptive,’ told me that I ‘just want control,’ and claimed that my disagreements are ‘acrimonious.’ Outside of meetings, I have been told to ‘grow up.’ A board member - the board president - pointed at my face and told me that I was ‘sneaky and manipulative.’

But the words Craig used were not nice enough for the board.

Better to not let him speak at all.

If the purpose is to always be nice to each other, the board can begin by role modeling the behavior.

Instead of demanding standards board members hardly holds themselves to.

At this point, the discrimination of the board against named members and volunteers is plain - we can show it in how board members call names, who they allow to speak, and what work is considered valid and worthy.

I cannot continue to be the only one who points this out in meetings.

Board members who do not agree with this treatment of members need to speak up.

They are the ones who can do so without fear of a compliance fine.

Which brings us back to purpose.

Is the purpose for the board to agree with each other, or is the purpose to improve the neighborhood?

Why wouldn’t the way we treat members be part of that conversation?