Watch the latest advisory committee meeting. It looks like the whole meeting was about making it harder for residents to get information from UCO. concern was expressed that requests for information are onerous and frivolous. We would think that UCO should concern themselves with making it easier for residents to get information instead of looking for ways to make it harder. Mr. Israel stated that information must be made available, except in the case of "our" lawyers opinions on cases where litigation is being pursued against them. I would like to correct Mr. Israel's assumption that those lawyers are "HIS" lawyers. They are in fact OUR lawyers. Our money pays for them and they are representing US.
An item making it next to impossible to petition for a change in the bylaws was next. ( term limits got an honorable mention) they want to change it so residents need 117 ( previously 35 then 75) signatures from delegates to get any changes considered, and if the advisory committee or the officer's committee don't like it, then it doesn't go to the delegates for a vote. It seems a bit hypocritical when David Israel repeatedly brought up term limits until he got his wish and got them repealed.
They also want to stop any member of the executive of any club from being allowed to vote on any committee. We have to wonder which club they are worried about. Could it be the Messenger club? What are they worried about and what do they want to keep quiet? It was an interesting and revealing discussion, especially when committee members expressed concern that club executives may be privy to information that the committee would rather not reveal. What information is that? What happened to the promise of transparency in the administration's dealings?
Wonder who is their role model? DT anyone? This cannot stand.
ReplyDeleteThe proposed change in the Bylaws to increase the number of signatures to petition amendments to the Bylaws is clearly an attempt to prevent such amendments from being considered by the Delegates. Verifiable facts are important to be published in this regard. The Bylaws presently require a petition of 25 MEMBERS, and MEMBERS are unit owners. To put this distinction in perspective, there are arguably 10,000 members of UCO at any given time (8,754 Units + co-owners). The present requirement for petition permits one signature to be solicited and obtained from 1 of every 400 MEMBERS. The proposed amendment would change the 25 MEMBERS to 117 DELEGATES (excluding alternate delegates, and not more than 1 signature per Association.) There are 349 DELEGATES to UCO. Obtaining sufficient select signatures for such a petition is a daunting task leaving all future proposed changes in the hands of the Advisory Committee and Officers Committee. I thought that the Board of Directors was the POLICY MAKING BODY.
ReplyDeleteI am tempted to delete this post since it is signed by anonymous. I don't understand why, if you have a opinion you don't own it. What is it about your name that is so scary?
Delete"A rose by any other name..." Mr. Olman.
ReplyDelete