Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Sv


 


 SVENGALI SEDUCES AGAIN

This time the victim is not the sweet innocent girl from du Maurier’s novel but the majority of members from the Executive board who have fallen prey to David Israel's conflicting dichotomy of legalese.   David interprets the law to his advantage and in so doing, manages to confuse his victims into giving in to his desires. Many people on the Executive board are afraid to acknowledge their confusion when the great master speaks. As a result, they habitually become victims to his bloated charm. He wanted Wi-Fi at any cost, and he managed to get the $3.00 included within the budget.

The issue at hand was the interpretation of the UCO bylaws regarding the budget. The bylaw reads:

The proposed budget may be amended by the Officers and the Executive Board and will be submitted to the Delegate Assembly at their October meeting for consideration and approval.

David Israel interpreted these words to mean any line item in the budget may be altered at the delegate assembly. George Loewenstein added his two cents and agreed with him. I did not agree and so did our attorney Rod Tennyson, who has written an opinion in the matter.

 If you read the bylaw carefully it states it may be amended by the Officers and Executive Board only. It does not say the delegates may alter it; it only says the Delegates will CONSIDER it for APPROVAL.  This only means the delegates have to THINK about the budget and decide whether or not they want to approve it.  The presumption is clear: whether or not they want to approve it, means they may NOT approve it if they so choose. Therefore, I stand by my interpretation of stating the delegates can only vote the budget yea or nay.

Svengali has already seduced the Executive Board. Let’s hope the DELEGATES do not allow him to seduce them.  

 

 
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. AnonymousOctober 1, 2013 at 1:00 PM

    The wording in question is fairly common. You are correct in your view of what it means.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 1, 2013 at 2:20 PM

    HOLY COW!!! SVENGALI SCREWED THEM. I HOPE THEY AT LEAST ENJOYED IT. MY SON IS AN ATTORNEY AND I RAN THE BYLAW THROUGH HIM. HIS OPINION WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH OLGA WOLKENSTEIN. THEY COULD ONLY VOTE YEA OR NAY AT THE DELEGATE ASSEMBLY.
    TAKE THIS ADVICE FROM A BRILLIANT HARVARD GRAD. ---NOT THAT I'M BRAGGING.
    HE ALSO SUGGESTED YOU GET YOUR BYLAWS REVISED.

    ReplyDelete
  3. phyllisOctober 2, 2013 at 2:13 PM

    dear holy cow anonymous, i have requested a $30,000.00 line item in the new budget for a legal review of our by laws. that is the uco by laws. as long as i am able i would see to it that mr. tennyson not be the attorney to do this job. as i said at the meeting where this item was accepted for the budget, we need someone that is familiar with all the new legislation concerning our type of government. I have always been a friend to mr.tennyson but at this juncture in time i feel he is no longer able to give us a clear and unbiased reading of what we need.

    in my never to be humble opinion i feel he will be cutting back on his practice as maine looks better and better to him. he has been with us since our birth and now it is time for him to let go and let us grow into the really great organization we can be.

    ReplyDelete


Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)