Realizing the issue

I've been watching with interest the events unfold over the course of the past week.

The public meeting which we attended last Friday was a watershed event. I want to thank EVERYONE who came out and attended the meeting. Such involvement is unprecedented in Seven Bays and I was appreciative that everyone showed up an took part - no matter what side/position you had.

The fact that it ended the way it did suggests to me that the community is wise and can see the writing on the wall. I cannot explain to you satisfactorily why Mr. Cordier ended the meeting abruptly and left immediately thereafter. It was clear that people wanted answers. Although, the public was definitively involved, didn't think anything was out of hand or about to get out of hand.

I stayed after the meeting to talk to people and was encouraged by the thoughts and observations of our community. I ended up turning the lights out in the community center about 45 minutes after George, Linda, and Rick walked away. I should note for the record that Margot walked out one step in front of me after that 45 minutes.

Since then, posts have been flyng on the blog, accusations have been made, and slanderous comments have been thrown at the good members of our community. I have redacted those posts. My intention in creating this blog was to create a forum for one member to slander the good name of another private resident/neighbor in Seven Bays. Board Members are public figures who hold themselves out as being representatives of the community and as such are subject to the scrutiny we hold them too. Private residents of Seven Bays are not.

The slanderous comments made by certain members of our community (who refused to take responsibility for their posts) were inappropriate and I felt it necessary to protect the names and reputations of individuals in our community. "The Other Side" as it were will now probably have some ammunition against me to say "See? He really does control the content and he is clearly editing it." But, I had to weigh that against the interests of the homeowners. I owe them a higher duty, at least I believe so.

Now, let me address the comments weighed against me, the previous board, and a litany of other attached levied throughout the week. It's nice to know the community members don't think I'm an idiot, but I'm a crafty, cunning, maschogenist who is hurting because my ego and pride are bruised. I appreciate the compliment.

However, this isn't about pride for me. It's about consistency. I learned long ago that pride has very little space in this world. Pride is usually the emotion that will take you down as it gets in your way. As an attorney, sometimes I win, sometimes I lose in Court. I take the losses with the wins, it is what I do for a living. Pride has no place in that equation because if I took each loss personally, I would not be a very good lawyer. But it's nice to know that my opposition thinks I am a very good lawyer. Always present a strong front to your opposition - it keeps them guessing.

I know who the anonymous poster is. That person knows certain facts that only someone who has been present in the board meeteings could know. The truth is, I would really like to out you on this blog, but clearly you are too cowardly to step forward and speak to the strength of your conviction. The personal emails lobbied at my family in the past week are a further comment on the anger and frustration you clearly have for me personally. In the end, the impact of your words is lost because of your failure to take credit for them and the viciousness you exhibit. In the end, you have invoked my pity for you rather than my anger.

The subject of the "Bennett Wall" has been much in the news this week. The opposition has been doing their best to steer the issue away from consistency to the 'beauty' of the wall and the good it does for the homeowners in Plat 3. A nice argument, but one that thwarts the true purpose of this blog and that is to shed some light on the inner workings, or lack thereof, of your board, which I now refer to as a "three member board."

Make no mistake, the Bennett Wall was put up without the proper authorizations and everyone has done their best to make the legal wranglings as cloudy and murky as possible. I too spoke the the County and learned that the board acted outside it's scope of authority when three members of the board decided that it was OK to have the wall after the previous five member board unaminously agreed to have it removed as it was never approved in the first place.

Much has been made about previous board members verbally OK'ing the wall and that must surely outweigh the fact that a written letter was written not approving the wall and directing that it be torn down. "The Other Side" has done their best to grasp at any and all straws to try and create an argument about what this is OK including pointing out, inaccurately, that the previous board members all walked out of Friday's meeting early. They tried to throw some mud up on the wall and create some sort of conspiracy between the previous employees of Seven Bays and the Previous Board. Surely this much indicate some type of collusion and fraudulent activity as if they truly were to stand for the courage of their conviction, they would have stuck around to the end. This is a fallacious argument and one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but it is evidence of their desperation. Because could I not take that exact same argument and suggest that George exhibited the exact same behavior when he and two members of the board walked out last Friday night. When you present these desperation arguments, remember that they will usually backfire on you as you exhibit the exact same behavior you accuse myself and the previous board of.

But I'm digressing and I need to get back on point. The real issue about the Bennett Wall and the Ripley Addition, and the other properties that have been granted waivers in the past month by our 'three member board', and that the 'three member board' is acting unilaterally without discussion and without the participation of the other two board members. You elected a five member board. Only three of them are running Seven Bays.

Some of you have said "Well, this is something you should be working out amongst yourselves and it shouldn't involve the community." But it does involve the community. We are elected to represent your interests in this community. I, Margot, Linda, Rick, and George are all representatives of your interests for our respective plats. By the unilateral actions of the board and this 'freeze out', the airport and Plat I aren't getting a whole lot of voice and representation. Keep it to myself? No way, you deserve to know. Hence this blog and these posts, and pat myself on the back if I may, it is working wonderfully. Even 'the other side' has wandered into the fray, I just wish they would exhibit the courage of their conviction and take credit for their words.

But I'm digressing again. . .

The real issue is consistency and uniformity. Before the new board took charge, decisions were made. The new board went back and revisited all of those decisions and changed the outcome. One of those decisions clearly involved a conflict of interest, and even if you buy into Mrs. Schindlers' disclosure, it still exhibits the appearance of impropriety. And if you didn't think it was any big deal initially, one has to ask why it became so pointed and heated that Mrs. Schindler took it upon herself to craft a legal document purporting to resolve the situation with only three signature lines for three board members? Why are you so desperate to make this wall stay? Why are you so desperate to be right? Why is Roy Graffis going to the County Commissioners and fighting tooth and nail for this wall? Why should he care? Is he on the board? No. Does he live next to the Bennet's? No.

Usually, when you enter a conflict with someone, there is an expected measure of response. Sometimes that measure of response is exceeded but that is your own underestimation. Then there are times when you sit back and watch the other side and wonder why it is that they are overreacting so very much? The original issue simply wasn't that big a deal to justify the reaction that the opposing party is having. We have that situation here. I havent' asked enough questions and I find myself marveling at the fight and effort being put on by everyone except the Bennet's. Why? Just what is going on here? Why are Linda, George, and Roy so desperate to be right on this issue?

Consistency and uniformity are necessary to make a neighborhood, company, or government run. Of course when a new administration comes in, they are going to take a direction that they ran on. In the last administration, we fought to make sure the community didn't pay a huge tax bill incurred by the sale of those two lots by the Bennett Wall. We worked hard to set up Seven Bays as a business and to organize it as a business. Without Warren working every angle of the maintenance manager position, we need to have an organization structure. In the current administration, George wants to push the water project through at the expense of everything else. George wants to do away with an office manager and return to the days of having a maintenance manager run the entire operation. It's not my shared vision, but he has the power and votes to effect that change. That's democracy. I don't like it, but at least it presents itself according to the rules and I can't argue with that. Maybe one day, the roads will get done and the Seven Bays Association will be run as a business, but it won't be this year. That's OK. We elected board members who had different visions of Seven Bays than the previous board. The community elected these four new people and we as a community will reap the benefit of that decision.

What I can argue with is when the three board members are acting unilaterally by effectively refusing to engage the other board members and their community. Declaring the meeting over last Friday was in error. We have a duty to work with the community. I find it interesting that Roy's comments were to not allow the community to be involved in the goings on of the board, but yet, is that not exactly what the purpose of the meeting is? Is it not we that represent you? I don't think any of us should be trusted to run off and manage your community for the year without reporting back to you and getting your input. But, then you yourself could see what was going on in that meeting and make your own judgments. As an aside, Nancy and I looked at Robert's Rules of Order after the meeting. Since the meeting was adjourned improperly, the next time we meet, we will have to pick up right where we left off. I hope that you will continue the discussion then.

What I despise is the inability to manage this conflict. Rather than debating it in the open and arguing it face to face, the three member board runs from the conflict. Meetings are ended, new meetings are cancelled, but I'm willing to be that at any point in time, if I walk into the maintenance shed, I will find three of the five board members meeting and conferring.

As I walked into the meeting Friday night, I realized that no one had asked me to provide input about the agenda, no one asked if there was anything I wanted to discuss about the airport, no one conferred with me before hand about the pronouncement that "if the community couldn't keep it's act together, we're bringing in security." I thought that maybe they simply didn't want to incur a long distance charge on their telephone to inform me, so I asked Margot if they had spoken with her previous to the meeting. She said she heard nothing until she walked through the door. That angers me and as a homeowner in Plat I and the airport addition, it should anger you too.

In the end, I don't care about winning, it's not my pride, my ego isn't bruised. This is about stability, consistency, and uniformity. We severely lack those components right now. The only people who can rectify that situation are you the homeowners. I spoke at the meeting about integrity. I listened to an individual call for a recall of the board members. I asked him to put his motion off for a month. I thought that the other three members of the board would hear what the community was saying and that would force us to come together and make sacrifices to work with each other. But, the posts of the last week indicate to me that I was again naieve. The failure of any of the board members to call or email me in the past week indicated to me that I was again naieve. The fact that the board meeting was cancelled this week again indicate to me that I was naieve.

Integrity is about putting Seven Bays first. I would like to see the board members reach out to each other and work together, but I don't think that is possible. I bear some of the blame for that as well in addition to the other board members. If Integrity is about doing the right thing then perhaps it is correct to let that individual renew his motion for the recall of the board. Perhaps stepping down as a board is the necessary thing to do to preserve the integrity and stability of Seven Bays. I would like to think I have that level of integrity and if the community does motion for a recall of the board, I will stand by my statement to second the motion. I wonder if my other board members will have that same level of integrity to do the right thing?

The meeting for Friday has been cancelled. However, several homeowners have emailed me asking if I would be there anyway. I will be present at the community center at 7 p.m. Margot Rach has agreed to be there as well. I can't speak for Nancy Wolfrum, but the grapevine has indicated she would come too. If you would like to come, you are more than welcome. There will be no official homeowners meeting as a quorum will not be present unless George, Rick, or Linda show up. However, I will be there as I was the week before to answer any and all of your questions to the best of my ability.

Jay S. Jump
Seven Bays Board Member
Airport Addition