Pages

Pages

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Jordan Neighborhood Controversy: "New Majority" Cleans House

Photo By John Hoff

Word comes from a reliable source about "spring cleaning" in the Jordan Neighborhood: three members of the "Old Majority" have been removed from the "New Majority" led board for--surprise surprise--not showing up for board meetings.

The removed members are...

...Shannon Hartfield, Robert Wilson, and Stevan Jackson. (Note: "Steve" Jackson is apparently spelling his name "Stevan" Jackson, judging by a document bearing his name and signature) The resignations leave four open board seats to be filled, since Bob Scott resigned in January.

Some members of the "Old Majority" did attend the most recent board meeting, however, staying just long enough for the "New Majority" Chair Kip Browne to count them as part of the meeting quorum--which was to Kip's advantage--and then hand-delivering documents styled as "NOTICE OF WRITTEN OBJECTION."

The documents were signed by Robert Wilson, Dokor A. Dejvongsa, Stevan (sic) Jackson, William J. Brown, Lafayette R. Butler, Ethylon Butler Brown and Benjamin Myers. With the exception of the name of the signatory, the documents all said pretty much the same stuff, as follows:

I, (name) am an officer/member (circle one or both) of the Jordan Area Community Council. (JACC)

(NOTE FROM JOHNNY NORTHSIDE: None of the documents actually have the dual choice option circled)

I hereby give notice of objection to the continued leadership, actions and/or votes at meetings of those who claim to be officers of this organization, namely Michael Kip Browne, Anne McCandless, P.J. Hubbard, and Robert Hodson. I have many and varied objections. However, I object to the misconduct of said individuals, including but not limited to holding an illegal, unauthorized, ultra vires meeting of the board on January 15, 2009.

(Paragraph break not in original document)

I hearby object to those named above continuing being officers and/or directors of this organization, because they have engaged in misconduct. Although I will try to raise this issue within the organization, I reserve the right to raise the issue in Court.

I am attending the April 8, 2009 "meeting" set by certain individuals claiming to be directors/officers of JACC, because they are claiming the right to oust me if I do not. I attend under protest and I am not waiving any objections. I am not voting on any issues at the April 8, 2009 meeting, and no record of JACC should indicate that I voted.

The exception to the above, is that I will attempt to raise objections to the misconduct of the claimed officers/directors. And if appropriate, I will vote on that issue. However, I will only vote on that issue if the process is appropriate, and if that vote is not tainted by those who have an interest in preventing a valid vote on that issue--in order to protect themselves in their claimed role in the organization. I am requesting and moving that any claimed officer/director who is the target of the below misconduct resolution not be allowed to vote on such resolution, based on conflict of interest.

I am offering the following RESOLUTION: it should be mailed to all directors:

1. On January 15, 2009, Michael Kip Browne, Anne McCandless, P.J. Hubbard, and Robert Hodson held a non-regular, unpublicized, secret, unlawful, non-authorized or otherwise improper meeting of the board of directors. Only certain members were called by telephone, it was not an actual meeting, it did not pass muster under the by-laws for special meetings, and there was an effort not to call and/or not to reach board members that these individuals thought would vote against their effort to change the signatories on the Franklin Bank account.

(PBNIID)

All those who voted at the improper meeting (and it was obvious it was improper), are also identified as having engaged in misconduct: Daniel Rother; Vladamir Monroe; Tyrone Jaramillo; Dave Haddy; Todd Heintz; and Keith Reitman.

2. On January 26, 2009, executing a non-authorized resolution/documentation for the Franklin Bank, to change the signatories on the Franklin Bank account.

3. Upon information and belief, improperly utilizing segmented funds of JACC.

4. And other misconduct.

I am seeking the immediate resignation and/or ouster under the by-laws of those above-listed.

(Signatures)

(End of document)

Comment by JNS: this reminds me of when I worked on a military psych ward, and there would be meetings of the "patient government" to pass resolutions about, for example, drippy faucets. One consistent division in these "patient government" meetings was the division between patients who had "acute situational crisis disorders" (life making you crazy) versus the truly mentally ill. (Those who not only heard but interacted with "The Voices")

I don't think I really need to say which factions in the Jordan Neighborhood correspond to the two main factions of the "psych ward patient government."

However, I will pass on a message from The Voices:

Ben Myers, JACC called. They want their bluetooth and digital voice recorder.

ADDENDUM: This post was corrected as follows: there are indeed four open board seats, but only three members of the Old Majority were removed at the most recent meeting. Bob Scott had already resigned. His seat remains open. 

12 comments:

  1. Corrections: Steve "Jackson" not "Wilson" and Bob Scott resigned (see your previous blog).

    ReplyDelete
  2. correction: I think you have Bob Scott wrong. He resigned on his own at Jauary meeting. The 4 people warned or removed for attendance are Shannon, Robert, Steve and Ben. Most of the abscenses actually occur last year, 2008. With the most recent meetings being missed, only add on to the number of abscences. One of the current board members didn't even know who Robert Wilson was - yikes!

    ReplyDelete
  3. My favorite part of the letter was the statement that the "new majority" shouldn't be allowed to vote on the supposed resolution because they have a "conflict of interest."

    And I suppose the people who (allegedly) stole computers and financial documents, and attempted to shut off the utilities in the middle of winter don't have any such conflicts of interest. (because they are only interested in themselves, you see. No conflict there.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Where do they get the energy to continue this fight that they've obviously lost? It's kind of inspirational in a sad, pathetic kind of way. What is their motivation at this point? Can they possibly think they'll be returned to their former positions?

    ReplyDelete
  5. To the second anon: did Bob Scott resign COMPLETELY or just from his executive officer position?

    I will double check these names, especially the Ben Myers info. This much is certain: spring cleaning happened, and we've got FOUR PEOPLE who were apparently removed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They get the energy to continue because they stay on the offensive.

    Do not forget that Myers is an attorney, and it costs him nothing (other than his time) to dream-up offensive-minded blocking actions.

    If you truly want this to be over, then they need to be slapped with a lawsuit that they're answerable to. Place THEM on the defensive for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As for what motivates the doomed, hopeless fight: at this point I've concluded it happens solely for the purpose of reading about themselves on this blog.

    I'm kidding.

    First of all, once you make statements that you're committed to fighting forever, and you start the fight, it becomes really hard to back down.

    Second, it makes sense to keep the fight alive and going and hope to motivate a sympathetic demographic to show up for the next round of neighborhood association elections. I don't think it will WORK but maybe that plays into the tactical thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob Scott resigned from the board on Jan. 14, 2009.

    Three people were removed on April 8, 2009 for attendance (Jackson, Wilson, Harfield), which means there are 4 open seats.

    Myer's attendance was not mentioned at the meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Me thinks thou dost protest too much." Translated into laymen's terms, if you know you're in an untenable position legally, file a pre-emptive lawsuit/TRO, etc., to keep your opponents off-balance defending themselves.

    I don't think it's really any wonder that the "old majority" hasn't tired in their efforts.

    The best defense is in fact a good offense. If you want them to desist in their efforts, you'll probably end-up having to take the offensive and file a lawsuit of your own, putting them on the defensive.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lets see:
    Sue 3 community members (NRP sustains majority of grievances)
    Sue a board member (Suit denied)
    Sue the entire board (Suit denied)
    Sue the city
    Sue the Councilman
    Sue the police Dept.
    Sue the DFL

    Pay your property Taxes Mr. Myers you are almost 3 years in arrears!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Let's get real here. There is only one purpose in the continuing efforts of Ben Myers and Jerry Moore: It's to do as much damage as possible to the Jordan neighborhood. Their financial mismanagement has cost the neighborhood probably in the range of a quarter million dollars in both misspent funds and loss of good will with funders. Now they are costing neighbors and the neighborhood organization tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, enough to create serious financial hardships for the residents they are suing as well as for the city itself.

    If they truly had the neighborhood's best interests at heart, they would stop this madness and do things in accordance with approved procedures and bylaws. While they ignored the bylaws they were elected to uphold, the new majority has pledged to uphold those same bylaws. That doesn't mean Myers and his crew will win, but they would be heard in a more fair and equitable way than they allowed when they were in charge. And they would have the same right as other residents to appeal to the city if they weren't happy.

    No, the only reason they are doing what they are doing is to cause as much damage as they can. And by doing so, they are creating a legacy that will follow them the rest of their careers--in a very negative way. People have long memories.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And google has an even longer memory.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.