Response to Cameron's email to the board

October 18, 2013


Cam,

You are missing some key points here that you really need to know about.

At the meeting held on September 21, 2013 (that was reportedly held on that date to accomodate your schedule and you failed to appear at), it was brought to our attention that since no one on the "board" had ever been elected by a vote from the entire membership, (which is required by the by-laws and this means absentee ballots to all) that we had no board members.  It was acknowleged that there was no board of directors.  It was then determined that the only person listed on the filing with the State Commision was Bert.  He then appointed himself, Dave West, and Al Duff and you, as interim acting board members to see to keeping essential bills paid and tending only to emergency matters which could cause the POA to be exposed to great liability.  It was apparent that all in attendance agreed to the INTERIM ACTING (not actual board members) board with ONLY authority to deal with emergencies, and to have an election as soon as possible.  THIS BOARD HAS NO STANDING OTHER THAN THAT.

A few points that you don't seem to understand......

1.  Board members are elected by a full vote of the membership each first weekend of February.

2.  Only board members are authorized access to the POA funds.  And even then, only within the limits of the by-laws and the full membership approval.

3.  You have not been elected and holding office, nor has Bert, since the February 2011 election did not take place.

4.  By definition, board members are elected.  If they are not elected, they are not board members.  You are not elected.  Therefore, you are not board members.

5.  The current five member interim acting board has no board members on it.  None of us has been elected.

If Obama had decided not to hold an election last year he would not be president, he would be a dictator.  You and Bert have not held elections.  You are not board members, haven't been since February of 2011.  There are a lot more people who see it this way other than just Dave.  Now you want to declare that this is a legal and legitimate board.  Do you have any idea how ridiculous you appear?

(Cameron)
I have heard that there was some comments made about my not attending the Board meeting Dave Called.   Below is my statement at the time regarding the emergency board meeting.   I am opposed on principal to one of a five member board claiming we are not legitimate and then calling board meetings.   This is basically just making up the rules as you go along and is just ambiguous as what Dave claims to be the "illeagal"  Board.

Dave didn't call the meeting, I DID.  Al agreed, so did Dave.

We are an interim acting board with very limited abilities.  This was an extremely hazardous situation and exposed this membership to great liability.  We are not only authorized to act on this but required to.   The fact that you didn't approve only shows your very limited understanding of how this current board is to function.

(Cameron)
Here is my position and is what I have stated all along.

- the board is leagal and legitimate.  Just because one person of 5 says it isn't ,  does not allow them to sabotage the board.   All this positioning about the board not being legit is one person's opinion and negates the work and contribution of the entire board.

The majority of the people at the meeting on September 21, 2013 agreed this wasn't legitimate or legal and it was declared null and void, (along with anything that it voted for or against).  Your past inactions and actions have already negated the entire board, in it's entire history.  Quit blaming the messenger.  He isn't alone.  He is only one of many that you have ignored for far too long.

(Cameron)
- I agreed with the direction to execute the balloting to correct the mistakes that were made in process prior.   I reject the opinion that the board was not legitimate.   And,  I would add,  I could just as easily make my case in front of a judge that with all the events taken into consideration,  the board had and continues to have the full authority to do its job.   The laws being what they are,   are part of a system and a code to use that are part of a legal system.   You may find this hard to believe,  but nothing is black and white and perfect in our  legal system.   Dave's interpretation is accurate and the board agreed to move to make the elections conform to state format,  etc ,  and go in that direction.  However,  the recent actions to go outside of the board and to start making decisions and  calling meetings while at the same time discounting the Boards credibility can only be considered manipulative.

You can hold whatever opinion you like.  Your opinion doesn't seem to be a widespread opinion.
I think that your suggestion that you make your case in front of a judge is a wonderful idea.  
Spare me the legal advice.  You are not an attorney.
The meeting was called from within the board.  I called for it and you were informed of it (I am an interim board member, no more or less than you).  You were given the oportunity to appear.  You chose not to. Who was outside the board?  What you say here is completely untrue. Do you think that you and Bert ARE the board?

(Cameron)
- I have served this association for three years for no personal gain and in the best capacity possible.  If anyone wants to imply that I do not have any concern for the association after the contribution I have made voluntarily then they should be man enough to make it to me directly and not in front of an "emergency"  board meeting that I disagreed with in the first place.

No one implied anything.  What are you defending?


Rich