Sunday, June 13, 2010

On Bullshit Within LCC

I recently circulated a Recall Petition and easily found more than the required 10% of Lockwood Community Corporation (LCC) Members wanting a change in the present makeup of our Executive Board. Together, we have specifically asked that Edna Cudworth be removed and an election held to replace her. Members have the right to an audio copy of Board meetings that will attest the Truth to everything written here.

I am justified in this action and have proceeded according to law. I now cite (a)conflict of interest and (b)public meeting law violations, and (c)opting to use backhanded methods in enacting recent Rules changes, rather than those prescribed by law, as good reasons to replace Mrs. Cudworth and find a more suitable person for her position. As she no longer acts in the interest of the corporation Members, other energy is needed on our Board.

At the regular monthly meeting of that Board held June 9th, I was attacked personally by both members of the Board and by individual Members attending. One even demanded that I, the instigator of the recall action, be made to personally pay for the cost of the recall election. That, fortunately for me and anyone else at loggerheads with the Board, is outlawed. The election will go forward. I urge a "Yes" vote to recall Mrs. Cudworth.
Meanwhile, coincidentally, I have received notice that I must "clean up my space" within a given time period or face fines and possible eviction. 

Edna Cudworth has without doubt been a major contributor in creation of LCC. However, she has committed several acts of "conflict of interest" since her election to this Board. She was a full-time employee of the Management company, and member of the Board of the Canyon General Improvement District, both in clear conflict of interest to LCC Membership. She partakes in secret Board meetings that are held without Member notification in direct violation of existing Public Meeting Law. She remains aloof from the Membership-at-Large. She feels justified in singling out individual Members for LCC action when a simple phone call would suffice. She routinely submits Minutes for Board "rubber stamp" approval that are erroneous both in content and exclusion. She is an instigator of most of the anti-Member action the Board has taken recently. A review of that audio recording of Board Meetings will show she continually acts to influence the meetings according to her whim instead of the best interest of Membership both attending and absent; in particular, several times insisting on adjournment before Member Open Forum comments have been fully heard. She is a sour woman with a bad superiority attitude and ought, for the good of the corporate peace, to be replaced.

There is no Membership Seniority Plan in play in LCC. Throughout this last monthly meeting, I was barraged with the fact I have only lived here for two years. Hear the record. Righteous or not, people keep insisting that their tenure as Members has more credence within the corporation when it does not. Whether 2 years or 20, each Member must adhere to the Rules and the law as they stand. Period. Any action that usurps this critical fact will be challenged however necessary to change injustices.

The notion that any Recall Election action will cost Members personally is bogus. Not one cent will come out of the personal pocket of anyone; the cost is borne in the assessment fees everybody pays. There are other issues regarding cost, but the simple fact is that actions like this are commonly paid out of contingency funds that the Board are required to hold. If it does not, then that is one more reason for the recall; perhaps an expansion to all involved in such an oversight. It is clear in the law that the Board serves the Members, not the other way around.

For those who are are angry that I might cause the expenditure of corporate funds in any manner, I suggest you also investigate and act to lower the amount we all pay. (But I doubt you will.) Making the issue personal will only cause unneeded ill will and personal confrontations. I certainly did not instigate this recall with the intent to take food off your table but did it to insure the Board acts under the law as protection for us both.

Willie Knox, a former Board member, did not understand this, or chose to disregard it. Instead, she physically attacked me following adjournment. I mistakenly took no action with authorities against her for striking me with her fist; although she probably would have were the roles reversed. Instead, since any physical match-up is so heavily weighed in my favor, I simply told her that if she continued I would react physically. I remain cognizant of Willie's influence and former actions against anyone with whom she disagrees. However, she was wrong in her violence and has not apologized as of this writing. I caution further action against me in any form to any Member with like wrong thinking. Against the Edna Cudworth-sponsored Rule against being armed in LCC, I will use my weapons where the situation demands my protection or the protection of my property.

My action has the sole intent to bring the Board into compliance through the only devise available to me and my limited funds. Consider that by changing the Balance of Power, which now requires only 3 Board Members to pass any action, will, with the recall of Mrs.Cudworth, create a new era in LCC administration. While there is an effort to raise the number of Members on the Board to 9 from the present 5, present limitations within the law for a Member to challenge any given action (of the Board through the Ombudsman at the Nevada Real Estate Division) involves considerable time and unreasonable expense. Recall can effect a better solution in a more simple and direct manner. This is not to endorse or usurp any future action against other Board Members or with the RED Ombudsman. Or, for that matter, against corporate LCC itself.

Have you considered the lowering of your property values created by these new Rule changes; particularly the "one-vehicle per licensed driver per Membership" clause? Who would want to live where the NUMBER of vehicles is limited when the definition of "vehicle" can be anything from a boat to an ATV to a car or truck to a RV depending on the whim of those seeking to enforce such a ridiculous Rule? The oversight of not defining "vehicle" makes the Rule action personal, complex and bad legislation. That it is more stringent that the "originating documentation" of the corporation and was passed without a vote of the entire Membership makes it illegal.

BULLSHIT abounds in LCC. (a)My public question about the need for LCC in its present form was met with Ralph Trotter's contention that our homes would "be bulldozed" and some unseen, unknown entity would buy out the property and build in apartments. (b)Another CGID Board member offered that, without the non-profit protections LCC affords, our property taxes would "explode."  (c)Since there was no action otherwise on June 9th, the Board continues to endorse the breaking of  NRS Chapter 116 law to instigate new Rules made May 12th as OK. All these contentions are BULLSHIT.
Willie Knox's contention that she and unseen/unheard/needy Seniors on fixed income not including me cannot afford a recall election is BULLSHIT.
Hopefully, a few of the clear-thinking Members (that I have met in the process of circulating the Petition for Recall) will step forward and take leadership roles less intent on "making example" of a few Members for the benefit of another few.
(My definition of the word is taken from the Harry G. Frankfurt work "On Bullshit" published by Princeton University Press, 2005, 67 pg, available on for as little as $2.30 used plus shipping. The word is in common usage and is not swearing. Saying it is is BULLSHIT.)

LCC still needs a Mission Statement. LCC needs some cosmetic upgrading. LCC, itself, needs to go away and be replaced by a more flexible and humane corporate form like a Land Trust (also non-profit) that allows Members ownership of the land they occupy. LCC needs to rid itself of any notion of seniority based on years in the park. LCC needs communication, although I believe the present Board has voted down a public bulletin board in favor of the very small posting boards at the post office boxes. LCC needs to pay their officers a token expense for attending meetings and for doing the business of the Membership. There are many other positive things that LCC needs to do for the improvement of lifestyle here. But...

NEXT: Edna Cudworth mentioned that the Board is looking at a proposal to rid the park of wood burning stoves. Storey County has no laws, unlike Washoe County, regulating the use of wood stoves. Many Members have wood stoves in their homes and rely on them for heating as an alternative to expensive propane or electrical means. Now, true to form, the LCC Board is seriously considering acting to create even more unnecessary new Rules to which Members must adhere; or fight through the Ombudsman's bureaucracy involving considerable expense and time which cannot be recouped.

It never seems to end. We need to "throw out the bums" and get another set of bums! Often.

No comments: