Here is a letter that Art Buist, a candidate for the Rodgers Forge board, has asked me to post on the Flyer. He also sent a copy to the board, and it was published in the Towson Times.
Some background: He is protesting the fact that the board has decided to extend the terms of seven of its members without having them stand for re-election at the annual meeting, which is September 14. The Rodgers Forge bylaws state that all board members will serve for a term of two years and then stand for re-election if they want to continue to serve. But this extension will allow seven board members to have a third year in office without having to be re-elected to serve that additional year.
The board members whose terms are set to be extended are:
– Ginny Allen
– Scott Carlson*
– Jean Duvall, head of the architecture committee
– Pat Foretich
– Jennifer Helfrich, board president
– Bryan Tillman
– Ada Montessoro, who was appointed to the board in December 2010 (when someone is appointed to fill a vacancy, as she was, they are to then stand for election at the next Annual Meeting, per the bylaws)
Here is a portion of the letter:
I write to shine a light on what can happen in a neighborhood when the power structure is so deeply entrenched, it forgets to represent its community.
Several members of the Rodgers Forge Board of Governors have been serving on the Board for 40 years or more; their dedication is laudable. We need people who will give their time; but the coming annual election reveals a Board that is obsessed with holding onto power rather than adapting to the world as it is.
… [T]he most troubling issue is this: The Board has decided to extend the terms of many of its own members, without having them stand for re-election. The Board says this is necessary because of bylaw changes which it passed earlier this year changing the composition of Board. Previously, eleven Board positions were elected as one-year term ‘District’ representatives, and twelve positions were elected as ‘At-Large’ representatives for staggered two-year terms. The recent bylaw change means 18 of the 23 positions on the Board will expire in 2011. The current Board majority has decided to simply extend the terms of six of its members.
The bylaws do say “approximately one-half of the At-large Members are up for election each year.” But, there is no authority under the bylaws or the law for Board Members to arbitrarily extend their own terms. Those, whose terms expire in 2011, must stand for election in 2011.
There are other ways in which the Board could ensure staggered terms under the bylaws. For example, some Board members could volunteer to serve only one year, instead of two; but they can’t just extend their own terms for a year! … (Read his full letter here.)
It was not clear to me if he was concerned over the term extensions themselves, or the fact that the board didn’t alert people ahead of the vote approving them, as outlined in the bylaws. (Read the procedure for amending the bylaws here.)
Here is his response: “Had they taken the time to fully follow the notice requirements of the amendment process, those amendments would have been out in the public to be fully vetted by the public, and anyone with concerns could have raised them with Board Members. This is the purpose of notice requirements. Had this been done, the Board would be in a stronger position, because they could point to a specific bylaw provision.
On the other hand, the action of extending the terms would still be under a cloud. A legitimate question could be raised as to whether, even with authority of bylaws, a board can extend its own term. Lincoln put the country under Martial Law during the Civil War, but still stood for election in 1864. Also, as you are well-aware, when ever the subject of a pay raise for government representatives comes up, the pay raise is for those elected in future terms. They don’t vote to raise their own pay, unless there is an election before the pay raise goes into effect. I hope this provides the clarification you sought.”
I contacted the Maryland Homeowners’ Association and asked them to comment on the situation; the RFCA is not technically a homeowners’ association, but I wanted them to give some perspective to readers. Here is what they said: “MHA agrees that it is not right for members of the [board] to extend their term of office. As a temporary measure, it would seem better to have an election and have everyone run for staggered terms with the person having the most votes having the longest term, etc.”
The board president declined to comment for this post. In her response to Buist she said, “The RFCA made decisions amending the by-laws in a very thorough heavily discussed meeting. Perhaps if you attended the meeting, or any subsequent ones, you would have more insight as to the motives for the changes. The RFCA in no way violated its by-laws or acted in bad faith. The intent was to be able to go forward doing board business in a simpler and more efficient way and to make board membership equal in service and duty. …
I am sure if you made your concerns known to the RFCA board at the time the changes were published on our website, our blog and in our newsletter, or anytime after that before the month of the election, the board would have discussed your objections at a meeting. …” (Read the full response here.)
This is a little confusing because the board actually never posted its plan for extendeding terms on its website or blog, and the only time it was mentioned publicly was in the August newsletter mentioned in the newsletter was in August. So it’s not clear how he, or anyone else, would have known to contact the board with concerns prior to the vote authorizing this change (which happened in May).
[Clarification: Apparently the board posted notice of the extensions on the bylaw page of its website on May 3. The vote was May 11 and then the notice was taken down May 14. It was not posted on the blog prior to September 9 and it was not mentioned in the newsletter until August.]
*My husband, Scott Carlson, is one of the members whose terms would be extended and he was head of the bylaw committee that approved the plan. The committee member who came up with the idea of extending terms, Janice Moore, is not among those getting a bonus third year in office. So while I don’t believe this was a case of someone rigging the system in order to stay in power, it does appear that, for whatever reason, the community was not notified of this change at the proper time in the proper way.
And there is still the question of whether this is the right thing to do at all. Board members do more than plan picnics and organize Dumpster Day (both of which are much appreciated.) They also tell residents what they can and can’t do to their homes, they occasionally sue residents, and they testify against them at variance hearings. So having a say in who is leading us is not an insignificant thing.
Subscribe
0 Comments
newest