I have found it to be interesting that many of the comments don't actually have anything to do with the content of the posts. It seems that some visitors read the comments and then post their reaction. Apparently this has been noticed by others and has provided an opportunity to spur or goad their fellow readers. It seems to be good sport for a few. I suggest that you, the reader avoid entanglements and where possible, limit your comments to the content of the blog, rather than the positions of the commentators. I appreciate efforts to defend this blog, but I am concerned that the real issues are being obscured. That may, of course, be deliberate on the part of the commentators. Everyone has an opinion and when hidden behind "anonymous" there is no concern on the part of some of the commentators. I too have opinions, but I attempt to provide sufficient information to move them from personal beliefs or judgments not founded on proof or certainty, to the level of assertions.
On creating this blog, I decided that I would not, in general, interact with commentators. As I expanded the purpose of this site, I reconsidered and decided only to provide a comment where information was absolutely necessary and avoid interaction with those who post anonymously. It would seem obvious, but why would I, a known person, interact with someone hiding behind the mask of anonymity? I do interact with those who send me emails, and that is the only way to communicate with me and expect a reply or detailed, direct response.
There are ways to deal with this, including the prevention of completely "anonymous" identities. I'd be interested in the perspective of readers.
As an example of content issues, the recent Code of Ethics which was affirmed by the board, stated that "Board members should, or should not" do certain things. "Should" is a non-binding term which indicates advice or a recommendation to do something. There is no obligation to follow a rule which is merely recommended. So the code of ethics is seriously compromised in my view and I stated so. What is the point of a "code" which is languaged in such a way that it states "you may or may not follow this, as you are inclined" and is thereby affirmed? In other words, the board members stated "we affirm or agree, that we will or will not follow this code of ethics." There were 17 comments about this post but only one picked up on this. Not one indicated any questions about the notion of "being of service" to others. A commentator threw barbs and it was off to the races. As I stated, I sometimes think that is the sole purpose of some of the commentators; hijack the comments and divert the reader.
A recent poster complained about the fact that "No one knows who anyone is. Everyone just keeps posting at anon...." They then signed their post "Anonymous". I wonder if that reader got the irony of their comment? Somebody else should reveal their identity, etc. However, the commentator prefers to remain "incognito".
There has been some mud slinging back and forth about our "Communications Director" who has both supporters and detractors. True, I have not spared this individual from attention, but if a board member persists in a course of action, ignores the facts and attempts to manipulate association meetings and the board, I would think that it would be expected that not everyone will fall in line. In the end, I suppose the question is what kind of board and association do the unit owners want here. And I don't mean the handful that attend meetings, or the squeaky wheels with their complaints about services or special requests. I mean the unit owner body, which numbers about 336. The board represents that body in its entirety, and is required to, by law. That law also establishes guidelines for our board, no matter what unit owners want. One of them is a fiduciary duty, which I have written about extensively in this blog. Simplified, this is, according to Black’s Law Dictionary “a duty to act with the highest degree of honesty and loyalty … and in the best interests of the other person” to whom that duty is owed. I added the emphasis because that "other person" in this case is the entire unit owner body, not simply one or another of us, or friends. I'm certain that some of our board members do not understand this. It appears that a personal perspective is to "act in the best interests of the other person when they are my friend and ignore implications for the rest of the unit owners, or the future of this association."
An observer commented "....we are apparently now a social association. A few here purchased in error....and now are disappointed and have discovered they are "trapped" due to the economy. So they will plea, beg, threaten and cajole anyone and everyone because they feel they are entitled to better. Some, or all of the board do and will continue to act on their behalf". It would appear that I am not the only person who suspects they are being marginalized here. I can sympathize with this commentator. I too purchased a "condominium unit" and am a shareholder in a business. I did not purchase a share in a church or other non-profit which is obligated to provide certain social services or social benefits.
A comment was made that it is "Time to give it a rest and move on. If you have it out for the CD and the current board, keep it to yourself....all this negativity isn't making our association look any better...If you were a prospective buyer... whould (sic) you buy a home here...So lets all move on and start giving everyone a chance." If the primary issue is about "looking good" then we do have a problem. I always was of the opinion that a well maintained and functioning association would automatically handle the issue of looking good to potential buyers and to those living here, as well. Ergo my emphasis in the blog on creating priorities and long term maintenance programs, and my willingness to work with the former AD. But it seems the major interest of some is to "look good" so they may attract buyers.
I can understand the desire to quell dissent. However, dissent is a healthy thing if grounded on facts. I also question the position of this particular writer. I think we had a rough year here at BLMH. If you are unsure of this, then all you need do is read about some of the goings on and "activities" that occurred during association meetings, the difficulties on forwarding needed projects, attempts at firing nearly the entire professional staff and so on. If you don't regularly attend meetings, or read this blog, then you would not be aware of most of this. I provided some assistance to the board last year. Could this have had any bearing on the difficulties faced by the former Architectural Director? All is silent on this matter and those who know aren't talking. That would be consistent with an emphasis on maintaining the facade of "looking good." For an interesting perspective on "dissent" I suggest the reader go to Reference 2.
Of course, this is a new year with new members on the board and so I can understand the desire for this association to "move on" and forget the past. But that is easier said than done. The remains from the mud slinging which began prior to the election in 2008, are still hanging on the walls here at BLMH. Some people expect everyone to make "nice" as a commentator stated. Yes, it is difficult when you are on the board and charged with getting results, and critics are throwing barbs, isn't it? It always has been. The only difference, is that some of the former "throwers" are now on the receiving end. There was no call to "make nice" in September of 2008. Quite the contrary. I do think that the echoes of the past year will reverberate for a while. I question if anything has really changed, or are we merely operating with an eye toward damage control and improving image? Only time and action of the board will reveal this. If the board acts well and responsibly, these problems will disappear in the course of daily events here at BLMH.
The issue some may have with this blog is it contradicts the official view. It also reports the goings on which provides substance to the contradictions. It was apparently assumed that the power of office gives one the opportunity and the protection to say and do almost anything, with no repercussions. Controlling the "official" media provides a kind of enforced "anonymity" with the opportunity for censure and an opportunity to take advantage, just as certain anonymous "visitors" have attempted to do here. There are several ways for the board to manage the problem presented by this blog: ignore the dissenters and hope they go away, take a more active approach and attempt to silence dissenters, absorb this blog into the official media, control the remaining media, publish an "official" view which eradicates the less savory actions taken by board members, or go "underground" and hold private meetings out of view of possibly critical unit owners. There are millions of HOAs in the country and it is my understanding that these techniques and more have been attempted with varying degrees of success. I've been studying them and the legal methods of successfully combating rogue boards.
On November 23, an anonymous poster commented on the meeting notes as follows: "Nobody cares". This is an ongoing theme with certain anonymous commentators. So is "Norm is a loser". Possibly simple attempts at squelching this blog, by telegraphing comments such as "there is nothing of value here" or "nobody cares" so "Norm" should just give it up. Another rehashing of the position that I am merely an obnoxious, uncontrolled "cuckoo" and should be ignored. Of course, that is a rather obvious technique designed to marginalize me and anyone else who doesn't fit the appropriate image or fails to back certain positions here at BLMH. If a board member or members are behind this, then they have been trashing the recently affirmed and suggested "Code of Ethics." But as I have also observed, apparently any ends justify the means. As was brazenly stated at a meeting, its all about "justice" for the select few.
By the way, I personally am looking forward to the "official" website. At that point those of us who do "care" and are interested will have access to an official statement, meeting notes and so on, and I will no longer have to put that basic info out here. All I will have to publish is the alternative view, and any information which has been conveniently omitted or modified for official dissemination to the association members.
Reference 1: State-of-the-blogosphere
Reference 2: The power of dissent
LOL, nice link in Ref 2. Are you a peak oil kook/nutcase? That would explain a few things.
ReplyDeleteCommenting on "There are ways to deal with this, including the prevention of completely "anonymous" identities. I'd be interested in the perspective of readers."
ReplyDeleteUsing special identities such as a google account would be acceptable to me. For this site I would create a new account with a unique identity at google, and use it only here. That would retain my anonymity and also provide a unique identity. I suppose, that identity could be traced through google support if I were really bad here. Might deter a few from being unkind or worse.
You are still being anonymous by creating a new account, what is the point. If you were bad, Google can find you by your IP address. Every time you view the blog, your IP address is logged by Google, but it would require a court order to obtain the information.
ReplyDeleteAnswer us, Norm. Are you a peak oil nutjob? If so, shouldn't you have a nice farm out in Oregon or something?
ReplyDeletepoopy farts
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing out the "languaging" of the "Model Code of Ethics for Community Association Board Members". The distinction of "should" versus "will" is significant.
ReplyDeleteI agree that using "should" is pointless. Seems to be a purely political ploy. I am surprised that the CAI would use that language. Sometimes it makes one wonder!
What bothers me the most about this blog and those that subscribe to it, is the comments about the "Model Code of Ethics". The previous board, before the dawn of ROC, never had to sign such a document or were not even subjected to such scrutiny, as being ethical. There was a previous board member who made money from being on the board and everyone knew it.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Never had a board oath at BLMH? A post dated May 25, 2009 contradicts that statement - glad this thing is indexed or I never would have found it! -:)))
ReplyDeletehttp://briarcliffelakes.blogspot.com/2009/05/board-of-managers-part-2.html
Ahhh, we long for the return to the the good old days when the association was nearly broke, fees were low, Clinton was in office, there was no crime, everybody had a savings account, spent less than they earned and in general, everything worked in this country!
Obfuscate = the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret. The activity of obscuring people's understanding, leaving them baffled or bewildered. To deliberately make more confusing in order to conceal the truth. Or, as we used to say, "if you can't dazzle with brilliance, then baffle them with nonsense".
Read my comment before you contradict, I said before ROC, which means the board before the ROC candidates got elected.
ReplyDelete"The previous board, before the dawn of ROC, never had to sign such a document"
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding that prior to the "dawn of ROC" (fanfare please) the signing of the "Oath" was a requirement. Perhaps you are confused because after the "dawn of ROC" and the election of 2008 this document was conveniently ignored by the new directorship. Or am I mistaken and did the board sign the oath in 2008? Perhaps someone can enlighten us on this subject.
Obfuscate = the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret. The activity of obscuring people's understanding, leaving them baffled or bewildered. To deliberately make more confusing in order to conceal the truth. Or, as we used to say, "if you can't dazzle with brilliance, then baffle them with nonsense".
The blog author stated that the model code of ethics "is a positive thing". So we could give it a rest, or we can debate forever. "Earlier boards were never subjected to scrutiny." Does this imply that things got out of hand here because of a lack of scrutiny on the part of owners?
ReplyDeleteBut "everyone knows" there was "a previous board member who made money from being on the board."
How can we know this if there is no scrutiny?
If earlier boards weren't scrutinized, I have to wonder, "why not".
Are you promoting a return to the "good old days" as someone else said, in which there was no scrutiny? In which, you say, a board member "made money from being on the board."
I sometimes am confused by the comments here.