What does POACRE and The SOPRANO's have in common?

Should the POACRE Covenants be vacated?

  • yes

    Votes: 13 59.1%

  • no

    Votes: 9 40.9%
  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
tommyjones

tommyjones

New Member
residentofcre said:
Others have posted what I say and they have not been booted....

The meeting was called because a member [not a board member] brought a legal question to the Board. As a result of the discussions concerning that legal question, a couple of letters were written.

Ex's letter was part of the solution to the legal question. Sunshine Law is intact.... I can't discuss it any further... it was indeed an legal issue.
Click to expand...
Should i be worried that the BoD has written a similarly ignorant and illegal letter to my employer?

what was the legal issue?
 
Jbeckman

Jbeckman

New Member
sinwagon said:
Yeah well I have an issue. I got a bill for $1200 in dues which is this year, last year and the year before. I know I still owe last year and I do owe this year, but the year prior to that I PAID! They say they have no proof of paying and want me to submit proof by cancelled check, however I no longer have that check book.

I do NOT want to pay the remaining dues until this is rectified but we all know....If I had not paid 2 years ago, they would have filed against me in court by now!
Click to expand...
I wish I had an aswer for you. Just a thought...could you get an old bankstatement from the bank...have the research it. They would do it if ordered by court.
You may have to pay a couple $ but much less than the fees
 
mAlice

mAlice

professional daydreamer
I haven't read this whole thread. Can anybody tell me how it's any of residentofcre's business what ex does, or when he does it?
 
R

residentofcre

Guest
mAlice said:
Wow. Just.....wow.
Click to expand...
Sorry.... it's just my personal opinion.... I have even "clocked out" to work on a personal issue.

baydoll said:
So is this the reason why that letter was sent? Because Ex is chatting on forums?
Click to expand...
No... see the post to tommy.... I'm not going to be able to discuss this much further because 1) I wasn't at the meeting and 2) it was an administrative meeting....

cdsulhoff said:
Just a matter of time where the members are going to unite to fight against the BOD of CRE.
Click to expand...
I would hope they come to a vote on Municipality next year.....
 
woogie

woogie

Member
And don't forget, folks! THIS is the SAME board that
tells people at meetings to "shut up" and "sit down"!

THEY are the ones who have said that "we know what
is good for them ... they don't".

THIS is the same board that takes "unilateral actions"
because "we know what is good for them".

This is the Board that conducts SECRET meetings in
DIRECT VIOLATION of the MD 'Sunshine Laws'. (This
was NOT a CRE personnel matter, therefore it should
NOT have been a closed meeting!)

THIS is the board that WITH-HELD SERVICES as PUNISHMENT
for "wrong voting" (ala '1984') by cutting hours/access to
the admin offices and NOT HIRING LIFEGUARDS at the lake!

This is the board that ILLEGALLY entered into a contract
(SHUR) WITHOUT the permission of the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP!

And NOW THIS board has ILLEGALLY INTMIDATED and
THREATENED an employee at his workplace because he
exercised his CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN ...
NOT an employee or anything else! (Mr.Hanson is NOT
an employee of CRE, therefore CRE is guilty of HARRASSMENT
on Mr. HAnson at his workplace, thus creating a HOSTILE
WORKING ENVIRONMENT.)

GEORGE ORWELL ... YOU WERE RIGHT!! It IS 1984!

"Big Brother" (aka "the Board") is watching your EVERY move!

And let's not forget about the "wannabe politician"! She "agrees"
with what Mr. Hanson did, but she also 'went along with the
rest of the board' (like a GOOD little lackey) "because her vote
would have been the minority" (don't rock the boat ... might
loose some VALUABLE political support) and then proceeded
to SPIN it through "propoganda" and "rationalization" such as
"he might have been working on this on the clock" (Becky, can
you PROVE THAT BEYOND A DOUBT?)

Oh yeah! CRE is TRULY an"AWESOME" community!
 
Last edited:
Jbeckman

Jbeckman

New Member
residentofcre said:
OK... I usually don't write as a Board Member ..... and as usual I have to say that I have not discussed what I am writing here with the rest of the Board.... I was not at the meeting during which they decided to write the letter... [I was tied up in Greenbelt and didn't get back to Lusby until after 8PM]... but I was informed before the letter was delivered... in this case tho... I need to write this as a sole Board Member... this does not mean that the Board does or does not see things exactly as I do... the usually don't as a matter of fact.... that said....

I agree that George had every right to write the letter.
I agree that George has every right to post to these forums.
George is a member of POACRE and he has every right to express his views.

The morning the letter came out in the paper, there was a Roads Committee meeting at CRE. I am the liaison to the Roads Committee. I had the rare opportunity to attend the daytime meeting and decided to do so.

When I walked in the door I was invited to leave because a member on the Roads Committee [who also happens to be a member on the Water Company Board] doesn't like what I write.... ironic huh....

Of course the letter became a topic of discussion. George is well known in the community. The topic was controversial. Two past POACRE presidents were in the room and they had several issues with it.

I said in that meeting [once the topic was opened] that George has every right to write a letter to the editor. I then asked Kermit Dyke about the issues George sited. Kermit said that George was "80-90%" factually correct. The details where he was mistaken, however, are key.

My suggestion at this point, as a Board Member, is that we should go into the archives, pull out the ballots and clarify the issues.

Now to the letter from the POACRE Board.... I read it before it was sent to the Water Company Board. Even if I didn't approve of it, my vote would have been in a minority. I read the intent very clearly. The letter says that George should not be writing it as the Manager of the Water Company. [He wrote it as a member, not as Manager]

The letter says that he should have brought his opinion and questions to the Board. I agree.

The letter calls for us to work as a community instead of two seperate entities. I agree.

As a member of the Water Company [which I am because I pay for water just as George pays Association dues] I would have a problem if George is writing to the forums or composing a letter to the editor while on the clock. I would have a problem with improper use of the computer. I don't have a problem if he's doing it on his time.

But, bottom line....In my opinion, George has every right to write a letter or post to the forums.

The membership of POACRE and the Water Company have every right to hear both sides of the story.

I approved of the letter because the intent as I read it is "let's all be professional".

OH and George... Frank Simpson wrote me a similar letter years ago when I started working on looking for better ways to pay for the upkeep of roads.... I know how you feel.... The Corkboard is open to you... and all are welcome to join....
Click to expand...

You read nothing in the letter no directed to him personally/member?
It didn't even go to him...it went to his employer.
Frank Simpson wrote you a similar letter...to your employer...not to you and you have a copy of same? Should have sued. But please, be clear...was written to your employer? And if written to you at home...I would have taken action to....but that is separate then this.

THIS LETTER WAS NOT A SIMPLE REQUEST..IT WAS THREATENING...IN "TAKING THEIR EMPLOYEE TO TASK". Can't have it both ways Becky...why send the letter to anyone...I have gotten mine yet...need my employer info?
 
Jbeckman

Jbeckman

New Member
residentofcre said:
First of all... you were removed from the forum because others had a problem with your disrespectful postings.... I told you that....

The meeting was Administrative Session so it was closed. The issue was deemed to be legal in nature.

The Secretary of the Board is responsible for the minutes.
Click to expand...

So the attorney reviewed this and said have at it...every thing is proper?
 
R

residentofcre

Guest
Jbeckman said:
Because administrative duties are your (POACRE) employees and this isn't the case.
Click to expand...

Only employee and legal issues are handled in Administrative Session.

The Attorney had been consulted. I don't know if she was on a conference call because I was not at the meeting but it was a meeting about a legal issue.
 
woogie

woogie

Member
I can't believe that ANY attorney worth their salt
reviewed that letter and approved of the actions
outlined in that letter,or even sending it to where
they did!

As a matter of fact ... I can't believe ANY attorney
EVEN SAW THAT LETTER!
 
Jbeckman

Jbeckman

New Member
So Becky, you wrote a letter on your personal home letterhead asking his employer to check his time online/etc and bring his to task because you are a payor to the water company? THis is how it was done...I see....sorry I thought the POACRE Board wrote the letter to his employer....I didn't realize.
 
R

residentofcre

Guest
Jbeckman said:
So Becky, you wrote a letter on your personal home letterhead asking his employer to check his time online/etc and bring his to task because you are a payor to the water company? THis is how it was done...I see....sorry I thought the POACRE Board wrote the letter to his employer....I didn't realize.
Click to expand...
Whoa... whoa... whoa....

I didn't write the letter or sign it....

It's on POACRE letterhead... I only copied what I received to the posting so you all could see it.


I agree Ex has the right to write the letter to the editor.
I agree that Ex has the right to post to the forums.
I agree that membership should see both side of the questions.
I agree with the intent of the letter the Board wrote because the intent was "all act professionally"


I was not at the meeting... I was held up in Greenbelt at a Federal Jury Selection... I didn't get to my car until 6:15PM and I didn't get back to Lusby until after 8PM.... I don't have first hand knowledge of what was said... and it was a proper Administrative Session... I'm bound by Non Disclosure [once again]
 
tommyjones

tommyjones

New Member
residentofcre said:
Only employee and legal issues are handled in Administrative Session.

The Attorney had been consulted. I don't know if she was on a conference call because I was not at the meeting but it was a meeting about a legal issue.
Click to expand...
what was the legal issue?

I know you might not be able to disclose exactly what it was, but i think we have a right to know the generic circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top