This year we have five candidates—Charles Bressler, Clifford
Cohen, Peg Downey, Jim Jones, and Alfred
Muller—running for three board positions. It takes a lot of energy and courage
to run.
The candidate who presented best was Peg Downey, who not only
has the experience we need (one of her strong suits is finances), but has a
long time involvement with Association committees as well as great ideas for
how to make our Association run better.
Two surprising things happened at this year’s Meet the
Candidates program:
— a sitting board member, and not an impartial moderator,
ran the question and answer period, and
—one of the candidates, currently a sitting board member,
revealed names and actions for something that happened in an executive board
meeting that is supposed to be protected information since it involved
Elizabeth staff members.
In the recent past, the Meet the Candidates program was
moderated by a Legum and Norman representative, but for this April 23, 2015,
program, the Elizabeth Condominium Association president Steven Schattman took
that role. He used that position to ask the first question, which was to reveal
who among these candidates would not attend every board meeting. He also did
this without noting that last year he did not attend the ECA Annual Meeting nor
will he be attending the Annual Meeting this year.
One needs to stop and think why the sitting president would
want to ask the first question of the program without allowing audience members
to think of such a line of inquiry themselves. One can only think that he wished
to eliminate certain candidates and prejudice audience members. Frankly, I
found all the candidates gave satisfactory answers about how they would fulfill
their obligation if elected to the board because that is the point of this
question. Board members are volunteers and they have other things going on in
their lives as does Mr. Schattman.
It’s a fact, as those of us who regularly attended monthly
ECA meetings know, personnel matters are handled privately in executive
meetings of the ECA board. Alfred Muller addressing the sensitive issue of how
former front desk staff members were suddenly dismissed from the ECA payroll,
revealed by name how the voting on that issue played out. Acknowledging that he
should not be speaking about the details of this matter, Dr. Muller used this
opportunity to promote his alliance with the sitting president, who is not up
for reelection this year.
I question Dr. Muller’s ethics, judgment, and his viability
as a board member.
6 comments:
I would suggest that this above comment is subjective and judgemental . It seems to make a point in regards to a fairly small issue in comparison to what these individuals had done for the building over the years . In my opinion it seems to be out of proportion judgement in case of Dr. Mueller. Simply because of this one comment, and drawing a conclusion to his character as a board member ?
I find this to be an unfair judgment of these two board members and surely no one is perfect in their volunteering functions, that is quite challenging in itself.
Dr. Bauer,
I appreciate your comment and would suggest that if you regularly attended ECA board meetings you would have a better understanding about why what you deem are small issues are critical in this election.
Dr. Mueller is a seasoned politician having served not only on the ECA board for many years but also as a Village Counsel board member. As he said himself, he knew better about why he was prohibited from discussing what went on in an Executive session but he chose to do it anyway. He obviously hoped to align himself with sitting board members not up for election and to convince people in the audience that he is part of the inner circle.
Steven Schattman's approach was less egregious but he too wanted to influence the election.
Given the fact that Karren has made a point to vilify my actions I feel the need to respond. Yes, I regularly miss the annual meeting. However I must point out the only only regular Board business conducted at an Annual meeting is the organization of the Board after the election. In my entire tenure on the Board I have not missed a single meeting that involved voting on Association business. I might also point out I have been religious about filing a proxy. My question was deemed inappropriate,I profoundly disagree. One candidate regularly leaves town for three months of the year, another has missed several meetings in the past two years and a third has missed a considerable number of meetings during past tenure on the Board. I find these absences problematic as should everyone.Several candidates proposed electronic measures to compensate for their absences. This has been attempted in the past with very poor results. I do not feel the association should have to pay for additional digital enhancements to accommodate these prospective Board members.
Steve,
Your question about whether candidates planned to be in or out of town during board meetings was a good question. However, you were supposed to be an impartial moderator. Had you waited until everyone from the audience had a chance to pose their questions and then asked yours if no one else addressed it would have worked much better and seemed less politically motivated.
As to conducting business via telecommunications or computer, this is the 21st century. Business in America is conducted this way for efficiency. We need to ensure our miking system works and that we can use use such methods as Skype or telephone with a speaker option. Board members are volunteers and everyone, including you, are entitled to time away from the Elizabeth.
Karen:
I don't usually read your blog since I find it often inaccurate and/or biased. In this case you misrepresented my comments, which were intended to bring transparency to an important issue, the decision to convert the front desk desk to concierge service. False rumors had persisted that this was the decision of a small number of Board members, when actually it was unanimous except for the President, Mr. Schattman, who unfairly bore the brunt of most criticism. Even the Board member who spoke eloquently in support of the old staff voted for the change. No confidence was divulged about any of the staff. This was certainly not an attempt to be part of an "inner circle" on my part. There is no such thing on our Board! You may disagree with some of my votes, and you usually do. But to question my ethics is inappropriate and deserves an apology.
Al Muller
http://www.schildlaw.com/LEGAL%20HANDBOOK%202014-updated.pdf
Dr. Muller
My understanding based on looking at the Maryland Condominium legal handbook is that the meeting minutes—and therefore the details of said meeting—for personnel matters addressed and decided on in an Exeuctive Session of the Condo Board are not for public consumption.
While your intention to provide transparency seems to be in the spirit of helpfulness, this was not your decision to make. Furthermore Mr. Schattman's reputation regarding the outcome of replacing inhouse front desk staff with a consierge serve was not at stake during this Meet the Candidate program. He is not up for election as you are.
Post a Comment