Saturday, January 17, 2009

JNS BLOG EXCLUSIVE: "Old Majority" States Its Case, Says New Majority Guilty Of "Mutiny"

Photo By John Hoff

I've stated repeatedly that I will print all points of view in this Jordan controversy, but for a couple days I was in a position where only one side was giving me information. At today's press conference, I finally had a chance to receive information from the group I've called the "Old Majority," in the form of papers passed out during the meeting.

One of the...

...documents, lime green in color on the second page, is in the hands of the man standing in the middle of the photo, above.

Here is that document, in its entirety.

(Document bears JACC emblem, at the bottom has the address "1922 25th Ave. N." which is the address of Jordan New Life Community Church, which one individual actually called "the JACC church" in a conversation right after today's press conference. Document is sky blue on the first page, lime green on the second, printed on all four sides. The boldface headings are mine and not part of the original document)

We Are The Legal JACC Board

January 17, 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

RE: JACC Board of Director's Press Release

This letter is being released on behalf of EB Brown, (Legal) JACC Board Chair. Mrs. Brown could not attend this press conference due to urgent business. Ben Myers, (Legal) JACC Vice Chair will be the voice representing JACC today. Robert Scott is still Treasurer as well as Steve Jackson is Sergeant at Arms and Ms. Shannon Hartfield is the (Legal) JACC Secretary.

We, who are the legal representation for JACC have come here to state that our priority and support is strictly for the betterment of the Jordan Area Community Council and the Jordan neighborhood. Each of us made a commitment when we chose to represent JACC as their Executive Committee to follow the by-laws set forth by JACC and to follow Minnesota Statutes regarding non-profit organizations.

It is with great disappointment that we the JACC Board of Directors have come here today not as one, but divided. This division is the result of a selective few Board Members who have chosen to ignore due process. Consequently, they are illegally representing themselves as the Executive Committee.

A Mutiny Has Occurred

Jordan Area Community Council attempted to hold a regularly scheduled Board of Directors Meeting on January 14, 2009. Unfortunately, the regular board meeting was adjourned within minutes of starting for the Board to go into closed session to discuss a personnel concern. As we stated above a selected group of board members (some of which were just voted on to the board this past Monday) decided to take over the session in a term that can only be described as mutiny.

(Paragraph break not in orginal text)

In the closed session the group illegally took it upon themselves to propose a resolution to terminate the Executive Director and Executive Committee and appoint themselves into the positions. This was very alarming to the rest of us since a legal election was previously held voting the Executive Committee into office on or about November 2008. Not only was this done in an illegal meeting; they failed to establish just cause or follow appropriate steps.

In JACC by-laws Article V, Section 4, Removal; it clearly states "Any member of the Board of Directors may be removed from office "with cause", (sic) provided that the following steps are taken in succession:

1.) A resolution detailing the member's misconduct "with cause" is passed, at a regularly scheduled Board meeting, by a simple majority vote of those present.

2.) All Board members are notified by mail of the resolution and impending action.

3.) Two thirds of the total membership vote at a regularly scheduled meeting to remove the member in question.

4.) At least one month passes between steps one and three.

These Select Few Have A Hidden Agenda

Clearly, these selective few have a hidden agenda proven to definitely be detrimental to Jordan Area Community Council and the Jordan neighborhood as a whole. The organization has already suffered collateral damages as a result of their actions. JACC is the fiscal agent for two counselors who provide mental health services to youth in the Jordan neighborhood. JACC also works with Henry High School allowing two teens to do on the job traning at the JACC office.

The self appointed Executive Committee put both programs out in the cold and changed the locks on the doors. Additionally, they misrepresented themselves to the landlord of the building. Changing the locks has prevented AJCC from being anything but operational. The group unsuccessfully attempted to access JACC bank accounts.

(Paragraph break not in orginal text)

These select few obviously do not understand their role as a Fiduciary. (sic) Their duties as a Fiduciary (sic) are clear; they are of care, loyalty to the organization, and obedience to the law. These duties are owed to the organization itself and, if the organization has members, those persons, as well. No where (sic) in the above description of a "Fiduciary" (sic) does it state follow your own agenda and ignore anything that does not benefit their personal goal. That would be a conflict of interest!

Hostile Take Over (Sic)

Those of us who legally represent the Board as officers are very concerned that Barb Johnson; President of Minneapolis City Council has already issued a letter of support acknowledging the illegal Executive Committee. Mrs. Johnson has not taken an opportunity to interface with the JACC Board since May 2008, therefore it is obvious that she has been misled and is not aware of the hostile take over (sic) or any of the circumstances leading up to recent events.

Due process was not followed! Just cause was not established! Though this selective group left the meeting this past Wednesday feeling they had successfully taken over this organization; THEY NEED TO THINK AGAIN! The Executive Committee that was legally voted into office for a term of one year is not stepping down nor will allow any harm to come to this organization or the neighborhood.

We want to thank everyone who attended this press conference today and reassure all of you that we are taking steps to rectify this situation. Once these issues have been resolved, Board Training will be our number one priority.

Sincerely,

EB Brown

JACC Board Chair

Pages Taken From The Bylaws

In an attached page, lime green in color, with text on both sides, text from bylaws is included. It is unknown which set of bylaws is being cited. Based on my observations of the January 14 board meeting, there is apparently a dispute over which set of bylaws is the legitimate set being followed by the "Old Majority" and the "New Majority."

The sections attached to the letter pertain to eligibility, nominations, balloting, installation, and removal of a member of the Board of Directors "with cause" and include the section cited in the letter by Myers.

Commentary Welcomed

Those who have opinions or info to add are urged to use the comment threads and/or email me at hoffx106@umn.edu.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Where is the money Jerry?!?!"

Anonymous said...

it's important to realize that the "old majority" is citing by-laws which pertain to removal of a board member. NO board members have been removed! The legitimate board voted to elect new officers - not to remove board members. As a matter of fact, Ben Myers is guilty of claiming a title he DOES NOT HOLD ANY LONGER. In the letter that they gave to you they state Myers is the Vice Chair. Follow along with me here: Myers' term was up in October, the elections were postponed to January. November Myers was one of several that they voted to extend the board terms until the January elections. Now the January elections have occured and Ben Myers was NOT voted to the board! Matter of fact he was a candidate on the ballot and he DID NOT even show up for the elections. He was not re-elected, his term "extension" is up, and he is simple serving on the board in ex-officio status as the by-laws allow for the outgoing chair to do. So he is clearly out of line. Furthermore, their 'letter' states that Robert Scott is the treasurer, HOWEVER Robert Scott resigned clearly and definitely on January 14, 2009 in front of entire board and community. He resigned so how can he be treasurer

About the 2 sets of by-laws, here's the deal. By-laws exist until a process of ratification takes place and the ratified set of by-laws is filed with the proper agencies. Myers and Moore and others worked to re-word and change the by-laws and they never followed the proper channels of ratification. They didn't announce, didn't notify, didn't have the community vote. So for the past year they have been using and passing out a set of by-laws that are bogus. When it is pointed out to them they do not want to hear it. Add it to the list of improper or failed job responsibilities of Jerry Moore. There is one legal set of by-laws and that is the set being recognized by the NEW MAJORITY board because that board has adopted a platform of following all laws, by-laws and proper procedure.

Anonymous said...

What is also left out is that the closed session and anything that transpired during that session occured while the old executive comittee was in charge.

While I am not at liberty to discuss what occured during that session, (we were warned by the old exec comittee that matters were to remain confidential, something they now are ignoring), I can say that the motion to reopen the positions of the executive comittee and hold a new vote for those positions came AFTER the closed session had concluded.

The motion to reopen the positions, nominations for candidates and votes were held in open session before the members of the community. Many of the old executive comitte participated in each phase of this process, even nominating candidates for the newly open positions and voting on each.

In fact, after Mr. Browne was voted in as chair, Ms. Brown recognized his election and turned the
meeting over to him. If this was an invalid election, why was this done? Why did they participate in the motion to reopen the positions, nominate candidates and vote on them? Why has no greivance been filed contesting the actions and events surrounding January 14th?

Anonymous said...

What is also important to remember is that in November 2008 board meeting, in which votes were taken to extend the terms of board members - especially including a board member Dokor Devongsa who was not even interested in running for re-election prior to ocotber - but all of a sudden she is interested in extending her term and voting for her life partner/law firm partner Ben Myers - NOBODY wanted the position of secretary - no secretary position was filled in November 08. Then in December 08 EB Brown had to 'beg' Shannon Hartfield to remain the secretary for one more month until the January elections when new board members would be on board, and a new secretary could be filled at that time! So even in December it was clear that new officers were going to be chosen in January!!!! Can anyone say 'sour grapes'!!

Johnny Northside said...

But clearly there is a distinction between ALL NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS versus filling a secretary position nobody appeared to want.

Arguably, it was only clear that a new SECRETARY would be chosen in January.

I'm committed to being fair, here.