|
 |
| Search |
|
|
Observer Classifieds
Place a Classified Ad
Send a Letter to
the Editor
Send a Press Release
Staff Directory
Archives / Search 2003
Community Links
|
|
Top Stories
By MELODY JAMESON
mj@observernews.net
Kings Point — Amid voices of dissent, four members of this community’s federation board have adopted a 23-point prescription said to be prepared by their attorneys for removing two colleagues.
And doubting dissenters have established a legal fund, looking ahead to possible legal action.
Meeting Friday morning (January 29) in yet another special session called since presentation in mid-January of two signature petitions seeking removal of board president Clifford Seder and board treasurer Paul Hunt, members reviewed aloud the 23 “procedures and criteria [that] shall be followed in carrying out any recall meeting.”
Despite the suggestion of board member Betty Krajewski and requests from the audience of about 60 assembled residents, audience members were not permitted to have or to obtain during the session copies of the 23 “procedures for recall of a Director.”
A copy of the recall procedures as provided to the board, reportedly prepared by Doug Christy, an attorney associated with the board’s currently-engaged firm of Wetherington, Hamilton and Harrison and obtained Friday by The Observer, is not printed on law firm letterhead and is not signed by Christy or any other attorney. Christy signed the now-infamous memorandum threatening negative possible outcomes of “meddling” and constituting the board’s response to pointed questions about decision-making from residents.
But, Brian May, on-site community manager for Kings Point’s management firm, the Continental Group, announced Friday the list of procedures had been emailed by Christy on Thursday evening, January 28.
Neither Christy nor anyone associated with the law firm answered a telephoned request by The Observer this week for verification that the procedures actually are an attorney product.
Opening with verbiage lifted from the federation by-laws section dealing with recall of a director, the prescribed procedures: state a recall petition cannot be submitted more than one time; call for verification of petition signatures by the president or the management company; allow for withdrawal of a petition signature with written notice prior to verification, and design recall balloting similar to election voting.
Ballots marked by residents in each recall/election district are to be returned at the district recall meeting, or by mail, or in person before the recall meeting, to “an independent person or company” known as the “scrutineer.” The “scrutineer” is to be appointed by board members not being recalled. The “scrutineer” is authorized to chair the recall meeting, to count the ballots and to reject or discard any ballots considered to be tampered with or invalid. The management company can serve as the “scrutineer,” the procedures specifically state.
In addition, management is pinpointed to handle details related to establishing recall meetings, including mailing cover letters, meeting notices, and ballot materials.
The ballot count is to be reported to a federation board officer immediately after the count and the ballots are to be destroyed 30 days after the recall meeting. A vacancy created by a recall is to be filled by appointment of a successor from the district by the board at the board’s next scheduled session. A recalled director is to return all federation records and property within 72 hours of the recall meeting.
All costs involved in mailings, certification of voters and balloting, including materials and payment of personnel, are to be borne by the federation’s associations, the procedures dictate.
While several of the 23 procedural points prompted comment or questions from listening residents, one addressing the plurality required at a meeting to effect a recall drew particular attention. Point 17 requires 50% plus one “of the voting interests within the affected election district…”
Board member and former president Richard Singer, noting that May had stated earlier the procedures could “serve a dual purpose” and be adapted for inclusion in the federation by-laws, took issue with the inconsistency between the procedures’ definition of a majority and the different definition in the by-laws. He questioned whether an end run change to the by-laws was being proposed and asserted the issue “needs examination.” His proposed amendment to the board’s acceptance resolution aimed at clarifying the meaning of a “quorum” was defeated.
Ultimately, the board voted, by a majority of one, to accept the 23-points of the recall procedure. As recallees Seder and Hunt abstained, Richard Fabiano, Ray Glover, Richard McCormick and Robert Sitzer combined to defeat the votes of non-acceptance by Pat Boussie, Krajewski and Singer.
At about the same time, residents dissatisfied with their federation board’s conduct and alarmed by the lengthening list of offenses they believe are being committed against them, were establishing a legal fund in order to engage counsel to assert their positions. Dissidents now have several legal objectives, said Carol Ramsey, and have opened the Kings Point Residents Legal Defense Fund at the Wachovia /Wells Fargo Bank to collect contributions.
Copyright 2010 Melody Jameson
What follows is a public comments section. This is not from the Observer News staff - it comes from other people and contains their opinions and theirs alone. The Observer News does not control the material that follows. We do, however, reserve the right to remove objectionable material at our discretion. By that we mean that we will edit or delete any content that we deem is inappropriate. By posting your comments, you are stating that you agree to these terms.
Click here to report a comment.
Comments
mpwiss
07 Feb 2010, 13:43
Where would one find a "list of the offenses" [residents] "believe are being committed against them."
© Copyright 2008 by The
Observer
News Publications and M&M Printing Company, Inc.
Top of Page
|
|
|
Top Stories
Latest Headlines
|
|
