What does POACRE and The SOPRANO's have in common?
- Thread starter exnodak
- Start date
punchbuggy
New Member
I find it really interesting that the exec. of the water company stays on top of "hot topics" and reads and responds to postings on the forums yet the GM of CRE (as the rest of the board) does not. Who do they think they are? Wait, don't answer that! I know who they THINK they are but they are messing with the wrong people. Don't hold your breath for minutes either. If it was an Admin Session they either won't get typed or they will be filed in the "X" files somewhere. They don't get shared with the membership. They'll tell you it's "legal issues" when in fact, anything can be discussed. I'm sure an attorney didn't see the letter either and if they did and didn't advise NOT to send it, the HOA needs a new attorney.
woogie
Member
Yeah, folks, I'm going to "yell" again.....
WHAT FLIPPIN' PART OF "PRIVATE CITIZEN" DON'T
YOU UNDERSTAND???????
WHAT PART OF "FREE SPEECH" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND??
WHAT PART OF "NOT AN EMPLOYEE" DON'T YOU ALL
UNDERSTAND???????
WHAT PART OF "RETRIBUTION" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND??
You want his EMPLOYER to "take him to task" (a DIRECT
QUOTE from that letter sent to HIS EMPLOYER)
WHAT PART OF "THREATEN" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND???
What's the NEXT "unilateral action" by the Board???
"CRE MARTIAL LAW"??? Are you going to have "Security"
come around to people's houses? Are you going to take
people's birthday's away? Are you going to suspend them
from the Human Race for two weeks without pay?
And the PRESIDENT of the board is ALSO on the Water Company
Board?? And THAT is NOT a "conflict of interest"?? (Oh! My bad!
"such things only apply to OTHERS ... NOT the CRE board!
They ARE, however, used to SCREEN OUT prospective candidates
who want to run AGAINST this board! I see how it works!)
WHAT FLIPPIN' PART OF "PRIVATE CITIZEN" DON'T
YOU UNDERSTAND???????
WHAT PART OF "FREE SPEECH" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND??
WHAT PART OF "NOT AN EMPLOYEE" DON'T YOU ALL
UNDERSTAND???????
WHAT PART OF "RETRIBUTION" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND??
You want his EMPLOYER to "take him to task" (a DIRECT
QUOTE from that letter sent to HIS EMPLOYER)
WHAT PART OF "THREATEN" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND???
What's the NEXT "unilateral action" by the Board???
"CRE MARTIAL LAW"??? Are you going to have "Security"
come around to people's houses? Are you going to take
people's birthday's away? Are you going to suspend them
from the Human Race for two weeks without pay?
And the PRESIDENT of the board is ALSO on the Water Company
Board?? And THAT is NOT a "conflict of interest"?? (Oh! My bad!
"such things only apply to OTHERS ... NOT the CRE board!
They ARE, however, used to SCREEN OUT prospective candidates
who want to run AGAINST this board! I see how it works!)
punchbuggy
New Member
The President's message in the June RUT is a joke! Dare to ask questions or you'll be considered the boat rocker!
R
residentofcre
Guest
Some time ago [during Ed Harvey's Board] the Water Company Board wanted to meet. I think they should have met with the Water Company. There were a majority of that Board that bickered over the meeting place. I didn't see any difference but I was in this case a minority.
woogie
Member
For QUITE SOME TIME people have been asking
just exactly what Ms. Mellinger's occupation was
and the question always went unanswerd through
"artful dodging".
Now that it is out in the sunlight that she is on the
Water Company Board, I submit to you that due to
the "conflict-of-interest" criteria, she should be
UNSEATED from the POACRE board! She should have
NEVER been seated on the POACRE board due to this
reason! This has happened in the past regimes and
person had to make a choice of either leaving the WC
board or the CRE board.
"Simple Recusal" is NOT enough as ALL POACRE business
is intertwined with the Water Company, such as road
construction and maintenance, contracts, capital
improvements, etc.
Just ANOTHER example of shady dealings by the CRE
"government".
THEY ALL SHOULD BE IMPEACHED and there IS a device
in the Corporate Documents to do this!
just exactly what Ms. Mellinger's occupation was
and the question always went unanswerd through
"artful dodging".
Now that it is out in the sunlight that she is on the
Water Company Board, I submit to you that due to
the "conflict-of-interest" criteria, she should be
UNSEATED from the POACRE board! She should have
NEVER been seated on the POACRE board due to this
reason! This has happened in the past regimes and
person had to make a choice of either leaving the WC
board or the CRE board.
"Simple Recusal" is NOT enough as ALL POACRE business
is intertwined with the Water Company, such as road
construction and maintenance, contracts, capital
improvements, etc.
Just ANOTHER example of shady dealings by the CRE
"government".
THEY ALL SHOULD BE IMPEACHED and there IS a device
in the Corporate Documents to do this!
Jbeckman
New Member
EXACTLY...
The two boards should have gotten together months ago... had an open meeting....
EXACTLY....
An open or closed meeting about what....we (poacre bod) don't like what your employee is saying about us....
This is not meeting material...unless again you want to meet with my employer.
Jbeckman
New Member
Bold above...you (BOD) did not write personally to him at his residence (that's where his membership is) asking him to act professionally....you couldn't.
You (yep, in early sections of the thread you discussed this matter with other and had your opinion on his employee position), you deny being at the meeting...but you support the letter, but you would have voted against, but you would have been a minority,.....WHAT!
I hope the attorneys and suits are against each and every one of you and your families and POACRE...then the costs to your family would be more than now and I know you don't like to pay more.
Okay, the intent "I am so sorry, I fear you, POACRE and your family may suffer as a result of this matter".
All better
woogie
Member
Just a quick tid-bit here ... You might just want to stay on
this board vs the POACRE board as I understand that the
President (Ms. Mellinger) is NOW the WEBMASTER over there
so you can be SURE that opinions will be screened and posts
that are "detrimental" will most likely be deleted.
ANOTHER way to control the information to the membership
and, thus, control the opinions.
At least here, the owners allow quite a bit of lattitude and FREE
SPEECH. This is good.
this board vs the POACRE board as I understand that the
President (Ms. Mellinger) is NOW the WEBMASTER over there
so you can be SURE that opinions will be screened and posts
that are "detrimental" will most likely be deleted.
ANOTHER way to control the information to the membership
and, thus, control the opinions.
At least here, the owners allow quite a bit of lattitude and FREE
SPEECH. This is good.
R
residentofcre
Guest
Jackie... I think I said if I had voted against it....
I planned to be at the meeting. Since I was not there I can't say how I would have voted. I am told there was a lot of discussion before votes were taken [or a vote was taken... like I say I wasn't there so I don't know how it went]....
But since a letter was written.... there had to be a majority vote.... if I had voted against writing a letter or letters... I would have been in the minority...
I'll say it again....
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 hope there is a positive resolution to this situration.... a good working relationship between all parties would be an excellent outcome.
baydoll
New Member
Becky, WHAT THE HECK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH GOING TO A PRIVATE CITIZEN'S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT and DEMANDING that his EMPLOYER take action against him for exercising his FREE SPEECH RIGHTS as a homeowner, dues/fees payer and concerned citizen?
And also, Becky, do you see how it might be a conflict of interest in that the President of the CRE BOD just so HAPPENS TO BE ALSO ON the WATER COMPANY BOARD that this person WORKS AT????
I mean, come on!
baydoll
New Member
What I wanna to know is and Becky has YET to answer is in WHAT manner was Mr. Hanson acting UNPROFESSIONALLY????
R
residentofcre
Guest
I do... I do ....
Let me say this again....
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 hope there is a positive resolution to this situration.... a good working relationship between all parties would be an excellent outcome.
baydoll
New Member
AGAIN Becky explain to us HOW Mr. Hanson acted unprofessionally? It is a simple question.
baydoll
New Member
I do... I do ....
Let me say this again....
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 hope there is a positive resolution to this situration.... a good working relationship between all parties would be an excellent outcome.
And let ME say this again:
HOW DID MR. HANSON ACT UNPROFESSIONALLY?
my butt.
baydoll
New Member
Boy are they ever.
Last edited:
R
residentofcre
Guest
My personal opinion is that he should not be posting messages on the forums or writing letters to the editor while at work.... that's my personal opinion tho
I know people do it.... it happens all the time.... but it's not professional in my opinion....
If he did them all on his own time .... then I don't have a problem with the letter or the posting....
There is more to this than I can discuss.... I know I'm going to be flamed... I was caught in this with the Richard Navickas dismissal as well.... There is a non-disclosure attached to an Administrative Session.... Also I wasn't there so I can't answer because I don't really have first hand knowledge of the specifics in the meeting. I am so sorry....
Jbeckman
New Member
Make no assumptions in life; state things clearly and properly, there is not intent...it was specific. There was no other way to read or comprehend the letter.I do... I do ....
Let me say this again....
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 hope there is a positive resolution to this situration.... a good working relationship between all parties would be an excellent outcome.
If your (BOD) INTENT, the letter would have gone to him , not his employer.
POACRE, FORUMS, LtoE, etc, as a member have/had/has nothing to do with his employer/employment. Do you need my employer information...cause I am sure you can use it.
woogie
Member
Nooooooooo .... The "intent" of the letter is CRYSTAL CLEAR!
The "intent" of the letter is to have the EMPLOYER
"TAKE HIM TO TASK" ... as DIRECTLY QUOTED
from the text of the letter!
This equals RETRIBUTION for him expressing his FREE SPEECH
OPINION as a CITIZEN as GUARANTEED UNDER THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION (1st and 4th Amendments)
STOP "spinning" this issue! You are part of it! You COULD have
done the RIGHT thing and voted "NO" , but chose instead to go
along with the "majority".
And YOU want to be a LEADER?????!
The "intent" of the letter is to have the EMPLOYER
"TAKE HIM TO TASK" ... as DIRECTLY QUOTED
from the text of the letter!
This equals RETRIBUTION for him expressing his FREE SPEECH
OPINION as a CITIZEN as GUARANTEED UNDER THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION (1st and 4th Amendments)
STOP "spinning" this issue! You are part of it! You COULD have
done the RIGHT thing and voted "NO" , but chose instead to go
along with the "majority".
And YOU want to be a LEADER?????!