TAMPOA Board Secrecy
The TAMPOA Board is meeting in a totally secret session tomorrow and banning even Association members from all of its meeting, according to a notice approved by TAMPOA Board President Tom Tukey, and an email sent to TAMPOA General Membership by Operations Director, Sterling Christian. " In that this meeting is an executive session, it will be closed to the General membership," said Christian.
The excuse for this deplorable practice is that Bill Andersen, the TAMPOA Attorney, will be present and the Board intends to discuss litigation. We have no quarrel with preserving the attorney client privilege for communications with Andersen. However, the discussion with Andersen isn't until midway down the agenda and only includes one agenda item. That is not a valid excuse to close the entire meeting to the membership, when we and the TAMPOA Board know darn well that, according to the agenda, not every item will be a discussion with Andersen and not every part of the meeting will be about litigation.
To show how absurd TAMPOA's fear of the outside and its members has become, the TAMPOA board has barred TAMPOA members from being present for the following agenda items: 1. Calling the Meeting to Order; 2. Determining a quorum; 3. Proof of notice of the meeting; 3. Approval of the Minutes [of the last meeting, which was open]; 4. Reports of the Officers; 6. Reports of the Committees; 7. Unfinished business; 8. New business; and 9. Member input.
It appears that some of the review of litigation discussion may come in the reports of officers, but the agenda isn't clear about that. It would have been simple to make that clear. One of the reports is the treasurer Report. Many items there have nothing to do with litigation. Besides, we already know what TAMPOA has spent on litigation, so that can't be confidential. If it is, then the board should vote to close the meeting at that point.
And speaking of a vote, nowhere in the agenda does it provide for a vote to go into closed session. Do all of the TAMPOA Board members support the idea of a totally closed meeting? Seems like they're not given any choice in the matter or don't want to stand up and be counted.
By far the silliest part of the closed meeting agenda is that the agenda provides for "Member input" although the meeting is closed to members. How do you suppose the board will accomplish that? Guess they'll just use themselves as surrogates. Is it any wonder their decisions are batty?
Can't you just imagine the kind of "member input" they have with themselves:,
The excuse for this deplorable practice is that Bill Andersen, the TAMPOA Attorney, will be present and the Board intends to discuss litigation. We have no quarrel with preserving the attorney client privilege for communications with Andersen. However, the discussion with Andersen isn't until midway down the agenda and only includes one agenda item. That is not a valid excuse to close the entire meeting to the membership, when we and the TAMPOA Board know darn well that, according to the agenda, not every item will be a discussion with Andersen and not every part of the meeting will be about litigation.
To show how absurd TAMPOA's fear of the outside and its members has become, the TAMPOA board has barred TAMPOA members from being present for the following agenda items: 1. Calling the Meeting to Order; 2. Determining a quorum; 3. Proof of notice of the meeting; 3. Approval of the Minutes [of the last meeting, which was open]; 4. Reports of the Officers; 6. Reports of the Committees; 7. Unfinished business; 8. New business; and 9. Member input.
It appears that some of the review of litigation discussion may come in the reports of officers, but the agenda isn't clear about that. It would have been simple to make that clear. One of the reports is the treasurer Report. Many items there have nothing to do with litigation. Besides, we already know what TAMPOA has spent on litigation, so that can't be confidential. If it is, then the board should vote to close the meeting at that point.
And speaking of a vote, nowhere in the agenda does it provide for a vote to go into closed session. Do all of the TAMPOA Board members support the idea of a totally closed meeting? Seems like they're not given any choice in the matter or don't want to stand up and be counted.
By far the silliest part of the closed meeting agenda is that the agenda provides for "Member input" although the meeting is closed to members. How do you suppose the board will accomplish that? Guess they'll just use themselves as surrogates. Is it any wonder their decisions are batty?
Can't you just imagine the kind of "member input" they have with themselves:,
"Hey P., let your hair down and give us your member input about what we just said.
" Sounds good to me. What do you think, H?"
" Who me? Um, peachy. I just look at numbers. English could be brushed up a bit. Tally ho!"
"Oh, a gate, yes, for Mr. T to keep out the riffraff. Will this do it? We don't want to look like we're anti troops, but the Navy in here after dark? It's not what it used to be. Anyone can be on those ships."
"What do you think Bill?"
"Well, it's not my place to. . ."
"Oh, Bill, cut the crap. You know we gotta stick together here. This is really our only time to talk."
"But this wasn't on the agenda. We need to stick to that, but I understand your point."
"And what about you, Sterl? You're not a member, technically, but you're like family, if we had any." You know the members, what's the chatter?"
"Well, it's not my position to . . ."
"Not you too? Doesn't anyone understand what we're trying to do here?"
posted by Conchette at 4:38 PM
9 Comments:
you need to run for the board. why are you hesitating?
Yeah, run for the board! Those current board members are just soooo stupid that they forget to delete the "member input" item from a regular agenda when they use it to create an executive session agenda. How dumb is that? We need somebody in there that can find fault in anything that the board does!
Since it is the members of TAMPOA that pay the bills for litigation (through your assessments) I would think you would have every right to be at a meeting discussing litigation.
i don't believe you attended a board meeting over the last year or so. why then are you so critical of the board when you don't even participate in any meetings?
i guess that you just like to be part of the problem rather than any part of the solution.
does the concept of "put up or shut up " mean anything to you. either attend meetings and participate or just shut up and let those who are willingly volunteering to put their time and energy into the problem deal with things.
i don't believe you attended a board meeting over the last year or so. why then are you so critical of the board when you don't even participate in any meetings?
i guess that you just like to be part of the problem rather than any part of the solution.
does the concept of "put up or shut up " mean anything to you. either attend meetings and participate or just shut up and let those who are willingly volunteering to put their time and energy into the problem deal with things.
i don't believe you attended a board meeting over the last year or so. why then are you so critical of the board when you don't even participate in any meetings?
i guess that you just like to be part of the problem rather than any part of the solution.
does the concept of "put up or shut up " mean anything to you. either attend meetings and participate or just shut up and let those who are willingly volunteering to put their time and energy into the problem deal with things.
See how stupid those TAMPOA supporters are??? They can't even figur out how to post ONE post, they send it tHREE times. What embosills. Those nuts are the ones who are going to drive our cumunity into the ground.
too bad we can't get an obvious expert like Conkett onto TAMPON. She'd speak for us ReAL PEOPLE who realy know what's going on around here!!!!!!!!!!!!
let's vote for conchette
her motto is:
"it's my opinion and it's very true"
I think any board -- just as any governmental governing body -- should have a right to a closed session with its attorneys. That's not secrecy. It's common sense, and it's their right.
Post a Comment
<< Home