George Pittel's remarks

Decision of an Issue Ending with the 

Executive Board – and more

Let me first establish I have not supported Term Limits as I feel a person doing a good job should be allowed to continue to serve. A person not serving well can be voted out. I am a member of the Advisory Board and the Executive Board. I was out of town when the Advisory Board met to consider the Amendments to our Bylaws. Therefore I can only rely on what I have heard about what was said there. I did attend the Officers Committee Meeting as an observer. The Officers voted down all the proposed amendments. At the Executive Board meeting I listened and considered the positions for and against the motions. I concluded as above to not support Term Limits. I also did not vote for the other proposed amendments as the points made for and against could not allow me to conclude support for either position over the other. Perhaps I could have abstained.

Then came the word that the proposed amendments would not be brought before the Delegate Assembly. It was clearly explained that the Bylaws state that only if a proposed amendment is approved by the Executive Board does it go to the Delegate Assembly. Now I for one expected that the issue would go to the Delegate Assembly, no matter the Executive Board vote. I believe it has been so stated in the past. At today’s Delegate Assembly a number of people walked out in protest. I heard it stated there were about 50 people who left. Now with a quorum of 128 delegates, had a vote on the proposed amendments been taken today it would have required 86 affirmative votes to pass. Perhaps this can be seen as an enlightenment for those proposing the bylaw changes as to how much support there is with the delegates.

Now where does this leave us?  Not very well off I am afraid. For those in opposition to today’s proceedings, they might now be described as being between a rock and a hard place. An obvious thing to do would be to get greater representation on what we may now see can be the all decisive Executive Board. They have been trying to do so with limited success. If anyone expects that planning an absence of delegates in order to block enactment of a motion it would likely fail as the Bylaws provide that in the absence of a quorum the vote of the  Executive Board determines the issue with the exception of a conflict of Statutes or the Bylaws. 

On another issue. At the Executive Board meeting it was charged by some speakers that UCO elections are not conducted on “a level playing field” They state the office holder has the advantage of being already known to the residents while a challenger is not permitted to distribute promotional flyers. When I came to live in C.V. and for a couple of years candidates for UCO office were invited to present themselves to the residents at the Kent pool. I am uncertain if this was done at other WPRF pools. This practice was ended and no pool or other WPRF property can be used for election candidates to meet and introduce themselves to our residents. I have heard it said that this change was pressed for at the behest of office holders. I can’t say anything about that. I can say that at what might have been our first Operations Meeting with Eva Rachesky, that as I recall she stated she was ruling out politics at the pools   as this was how it was at C.V. Deerfield where she felt it worked well.

For those who attend the Delegate Assemblies I believe they know what to expect when Ed Grossman takes to the microphone. He will likely be raising issues and questions of matters he finds troubling. These things are sometimes delivered in a barrage of words and ends in being just that, without any resolution. I believe it was at the August Assembly that he addressed himself to Ed Black whose response was that if Mr. Grossman would ask one question at a time he would try to answer them. Well Mr. Grossman then asked his questions one at a time to which Mr. Black gave his answer. It seemed to me that Mr. Grossman considered each answer and seemingly accepted it as at least reasonable and may have even thanked Mr. Black.

Which brings us to the Delegate Assembly of 9/4/15. Here again Mr. Grossman rose and addressing PBSO Captain Bruckner he delivered a barrage of words. All that most of us know about a threatening email sent to Esther Sutofsky is what we have read on a blog or heard from others. Surely I denounce sending such emails and am concerned for her safety. It has been said that the sheriff’s response to the email is that they do not consider it a credible threat. While I don’t know all that PBSO knows I still find it unfathomable. I suppose I would need to know what is their criteria for being credible.  Recently, I have received emails seemingly from people I know that were determined not to have been sent by them. I have wondered who did send them and if and how it is possible to find this out. We hear a great deal about emails in today’s news reports and these suggest agencies like the FBI are able to determine who sent an email. In his forceful presentation to Captain Bruckner Mr. Grossman asked  “did you press the button”? Seemingly it is his understanding that doing so would somehow reveal who sent the email to Esther. Along with his commentary on the threatening email Mr. Grossman spoke about the report made to PBSO accusing Olga Wolkenstein of having a cache of guns in her home which brought a visit of 2 deputies. I feel certain they determined that the report was unfounded.  In introducing this matter I feel Mr. Grossman diverted focus from the email. Captain Bruckner having listened to all Mr. Grossman had said simply responded he heard no question and moved on. Well there was a question it was “did you press the button”? Which I feel was Mr. Grossmans way of being cute as though that’s how simple it could have been to find out who sent the email to Esther. Apparently Mr. Grossman lost sight of the exchange he had with Mr. Black last month as to dealing directly with one thing at a time without a lot of verbiage. Perhaps a better way of posing the question would have been to first ask if identifying the sender of an email can be done and then asking if so did PBSO do so? Then again, who knows? Is it not possible that PBSO is pursuing this matter and does not choose to reveal anything about it at this time?

I will submit this to both David Israel and Gary Olman’s blog as well as the UCO Reporter.

                                                                                                   George R. Pittell