Fellow LPCA members,
My name is Jon Jensen and I am writing this letter to encourage you to vote for the reforms proposed by LPCA Renaissance.
I served as president of the Land Park Community Association from March 2007 until March 2008. I can tell you that all of the changes proposed are absolutely necessary if LPCA is to endure as a neighborhood organization.
Sadly, during my tenure as president I came to realize that LPCA has slipped into the control of a few long-time members who seem more interested in control than in furthering the interests of the neighborhood as a whole. Several neighbors have told me they thought these persons had represented the interests of our neighborhood well in the past, but I can assure you that simply is no longer the case. What these members do now is to act in secret to set policy, refuse to include anyone outside their inner circle in the policy setting, and censure and distort information disseminated to the public.
When I joined LPCA, my particular interest was, and still is, land use planning. I have become interested in architecture as well as urban planning and thought involvement in this part of LPCA would be a wonderful way to combine my interest with community service. Because of this interest, I got a view of the LPCA Land Use Committee in operation at the ground level. What I experienced was alarming: a lack of overall objectives other than harassment and rude, unfair negotiating tactics. I was regarded as an irritant simply for asking questions and ultimately “forgotten” in all LPCA correspondence concerning land use issues.
Additionally, I attended the city’s Planning Academy and learned what the outside community really thought about LPCA. Not much. At the same time, and before I realized just how fruitless discussions of internal reform really were, I also attempted to introduce transparency and increased neighborhood participation into LPCA.
Everyone on the board of directors said they were in favor of such reform, but when it came to putting these principles into practice, it was back to the same old control by the long-time members. An illustration of this is the current Land Use Policy. The long-time members formally adopted and published this exclusionary policy last January 16th after I forced them to do so.
Inclusiveness and openness are such obvious requirements of a neighborhood organization that I do not think anyone can dispute their necessity. It is just that when the long-time members say they are also in favor of these principles you cannot believe them. They have had many chances to practice these principles and have chosen to not do so. If not my experience, then the resignation of four other directors in the last year should tell you that.
Vote for the reforms, preferably in person on February 11th or by sending your proxy to LPCA Renaissance before then. We have a wonderful neighborhood with lots of residents who have much to contribute. Lets give everyone, not just the few, a chance to participate.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
How To Become a LPCA Member
Still not a member of the LPCA?
Use this link to the LPCA website where you can electronically join:
http://www.landpark.org/userfiles/115.membership_form.htm
Use this link to the LPCA website where you can electronically join:
http://www.landpark.org/userfiles/115.membership_form.htm
Proxy For Land Park Community Association
Member Proxy
for
Land Park Community Association
The undersigned, a member or applicant for membership in the Land Park Community Association (“Association”), appoints _______________________________ as my proxy to attend and vote on my behalf at the Special Membership Meeting of the Association that will be held on February 11, 2009, as well as at any adjournment of that meeting.
The undersigned authorizes my proxy holder to vote on all matters brought before the membership at the February 11, 2009 Special Membership Meeting (and at any adjournment of that meeting) and to otherwise represent me in the same manner and with the same effect as if I were personally present, but if I choose to personally attend that meeting (or any adjournment thereof), this proxy shall be deemed to be automatically revoked during the time of my physical presence at that meeting. This proxy may be revoked at any time and shall expire of its own terms without notice one year from the date written below.
DATE: ___________, 2009
_____________________________
(Member’s Signature)
______________________________
(Member’s Printed Name)
______________________________
(Member’s Address)
______________________________
for
Land Park Community Association
The undersigned, a member or applicant for membership in the Land Park Community Association (“Association”), appoints _______________________________ as my proxy to attend and vote on my behalf at the Special Membership Meeting of the Association that will be held on February 11, 2009, as well as at any adjournment of that meeting.
The undersigned authorizes my proxy holder to vote on all matters brought before the membership at the February 11, 2009 Special Membership Meeting (and at any adjournment of that meeting) and to otherwise represent me in the same manner and with the same effect as if I were personally present, but if I choose to personally attend that meeting (or any adjournment thereof), this proxy shall be deemed to be automatically revoked during the time of my physical presence at that meeting. This proxy may be revoked at any time and shall expire of its own terms without notice one year from the date written below.
DATE: ___________, 2009
_____________________________
(Member’s Signature)
______________________________
(Member’s Printed Name)
______________________________
(Member’s Address)
______________________________
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Proposed Bylaw Amendments
Proposed Reforms and Amendments
to the
Bylaws of the
Land Park Community Association
To be Considered at a
Special Membership Meeting, 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Holy Spirit School
3920 West Land Park Drive, Sacramento, CA 95822
Reform No. 1 - Increase the Number of Board Members From 10 to 15.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No. 1: The first sentence of Bylaws Section 7.2, entitled “Number and Qualifications of Board Members,” shall be amended to read as follows:
“There shall be fifteen (15) Board Members of the LPCA.”
The second sentence of Bylaws Section 7.3, entitled “Term of Office,” shall be amended to read as follows:
“Eight (8) Board Members shall be elected in odd-numbered years, and seven (7) Board Members shall be elected in even-numbered years.”
Currently, Section 7.2 provides that the LPCA shall have only ten (10) “Board Members,” also know as directors. It is never recommended that a board of directors have an even number of directors as it greatly increases the likelihood of paralyzing board deadlocks, with 5 to 5 tie votes. In fact, a comprehensive “Transparency Proposal” proposed by LPCA director and LPCA Renaissance member Craig Powell, was killed on a deadlocked tie vote this past fall, just one of several LPCA Board dead-locks in the past year. Changing the number of Board Members to an odd number will greatly reduce the opportunity for deadlocked votes.
More importantly, however, increasing the current Board from 10 to 15 will allow a reformed LPCA to bring on board more volunteer leaders who will greatly leverage the LPCA’s ability to perform its existing tasks better and to initiate and lead new projects and initiatives, improving service to the LPCA membership and the Land Park neighborhood. The reality is that in most modest-sized neighborhood groups, the actual work of the organization is performed largely by the groups’ board members. More hands allow for more work to be done. The current workload for the present 10-member LPCA Board is pretty much at maximum capacity. They lack the additional time necessary to effectively implement new projects and neighborhood initiatives.
Also, a substantial board expansion will allow the LPCA to: (1) better diversify the Board to better represent and reflect the membership, both geographically and demographically; (2) allow for better opportunities for community participation by dedicated, neighborhood-minded residents; and (3) inject the Board with a major infusion of new talents, skill sets, backgrounds, experiences and viewpoints.
Finally, it will also allow for the initiation of a program of “volunteer development,” where first time volunteers are recruited, gain experience under the guidance and tutelage of Board Members, assume increasing levels of responsibility and then, if they wish, they can present themselves to the membership as experienced, credible candidates for election as Board Members. With the current board size and the LPCA’s historically very low director turnover rates, there is currently only limited opportunity for developing volunteers into Board Members.
Comparable Organizations: In reviewing the experiences of other local, successful neighborhood groups, we found that neighborhood groups have boards of various sizes, ranging from the 7-member board of the smaller South Land Park Community Association to a 23-member board of the very well run Sierra-Curtis Neighborhood Association (“SCNA”). With the LPCA having a total of about 6,000 homes in its “boundary area,” compared with approximately 3,000 homes in the Curtis Park area served by the SCNA, its seems appropriate that the LCPA should have a board size in keeping with the larger population that it serves, without being so large as to be unwieldy or dilutive of individual director responsibility and commitment. A board of 15 members would appear to fit those needs best.
Reform No. 2 – Democratizing the LPCA: Repeal of Nominations Committee; Creation of Elections Committee; Filling Vacancies by Membership Vote; Access to Electronic Records; Quarterly Membership Meetings
A. Repeal of Nominations Committee; Creation of Elections Committee.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No. 2A: Existing Section 7.4(a), entitled “Nominations Committee,” is repealed and the following new Section 7.4(a), entitled “Elections Committee,” is adopted in its place, which shall provide as follows:
“7.4 (a) Elections Committee. The Elections Committee shall be comprised of all Board Members whose terms do not expire at the next annual membership meeting. The Elections Committee shall:
(1) Canvass the membership at least thirty (30) days prior to each Election to solicit interest among members in becoming a candidate for the Board (self-nomination);
(2) Establish a system for gathering biographical and campaign information from all candidates, compiling it into an unbiased and uniform format and then communicating it to the membership at least ten (10) days prior to each Election, as well as posting it prominently on LPCA’s web site. Each candidate shall have access to the e-mail facilities of LPCA to communicate campaign materials to the membership, subject to reasonable, uniform and neutral time, place and manner rules adopted by the Elections Committee. These rights are in addition to each candidate’s right as a member to obtain a record of the members’ names, addresses and voting rights under Section 11.2, entitled “Inspection by Member;
(3) Provide each candidate a reasonable and equal opportunity to address and take questions from members during the Election component of membership meetings or, if the number of candidates warrants it, to convene a special “LPCA Candidates’ Night” membership meeting prior to the Election; and
(4) Conduct all Elections, including preparing and distributing all ballots, fairly determining voting rights, serving as a “board of inspectors” for each Election, counting ballots and communicating the results to the membership. If an Election is to be held during a membership meeting, the Chair of the Elections Committee shall chair the Election component of such meeting.”
Under the current LPCA bylaws, the Nominations Committee nominates a slate of candidates that are presented to the membership at each annual membership. Historically, this slate of nominees has always, without exception, been rubber-stamped by the vote of those LPCA members who take the time to attend the annual meeting. The established protocol of the board has been to re-nominate compliant, loyal incumbent directors, effectively locking in the current incumbents and turning a nominally democratic governing body into a de facto self-perpetuating board. We propose that the Nominations Committee be changed into an "Elections Committee" which will gather information from those interested in serving as LPCA directors, package that information into a uniform format and then communicate that information to all LPCA members. With this change, the Nominations Committee will no longer serve as a vehicle for protecting entrenched directors but will, instead, serve as a means of democratizing the election of LPCA directors.
This amendment also assigns to the Elections Committee the responsibility for fairly conducting all board elections, grants candidates the means of communicating with members electronically through the LPCA’s e-mail system, and provides for meaningful opportunities for candidates to speak to the members in person.
Comparable Organizations: Smaller non-profit organizations typically provide for a “nominations committee” to select the “board slate” or “official slate” of nominees for consideration by the membership at their annual membership meetings. Larger non-profit organizations, particularly those with a more engaged membership, frequently adopt some variation on a system of “self-nomination” in advance of director elections, as proposed in this amendment, where the members choose for themselves which candidate they wish to elect based on the case each candidate makes to the members for his or her candidacy, rather than just passively relying upon the “advice” of a nominations committee composed of incumbents and then rubber-stamping their selections – a disengaged and increasingly unhealthy practice that has not served the LPCA well in recent years.
Modern electronic communications also makes it much easier for a non-profit to move effectively from a system of “board slates” or “official slates” to one of early candidate “self-nomination.” Candidates for the LPCA board will no longer have to curry favor or demonstrate loyalty to incumbent directors and their policies in order to have any realistic chance of being selected to be on the “official slate” and being elected to the LPCA board. Instead, they can easily (and at virtually no cost) make their case directly to the membership during competitive board elections. LPCA Renaissance firmly believes that this reform will encourage a larger number and a more diverse array of candidates to seek election to the board, a boon to both the LPCA and its members. The current LCPA board is, somewhat embarrassingly, anything but diverse, comprised 100% of middle-aged or senior Caucasians.
B. Filling Board Vacancies by Membership Vote.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No. 2B: Existing Section 7.5, entitled “Vacancies,” is repealed and the following new Section 7.5, bearing the same title, is adopted in its place, which shall provide as follows:
“7.5 Vacancies. Vacancies occurring prior to the completion of a Board Member’s full term shall only be filled by an Election of the members conducted under Section 7.4(a) above at the next regularly scheduled membership meeting or at an earlier special membership meeting that may be called for that purpose.”
Under the current bylaws, the Nominations Committee is directed to “pick” a single candidate and the Board typically rubber stamps its pick. Allowing the Board to fill vacancies – and not the members who they are supposed to represent - is un-democratic and needlessly removes the selection of replacement Board members from the purview of the members. Under this amendment, all vacancies will be filled by the members through the new democratic election procedure set forth in the amendment described in A above. The practice of members filling board vacancies will be facilitated by the adoption of the Bylaw Amendment No. 2D described below, which calls for an increase in the minimum number of membership meetings each year from the one per year, the current requirement, to four meetings per year, which will provide frequent opportunities for the membership to fill any board vacancies.
Comparable Organizations: Most non-profits continue to permit their boards of directors to fill director vacancies that occur. However, most of those organizations also hold no more than one annual meeting of the membership, thereby providing fewer opportunities for the members to fill vacancies. In this era of rapid, almost cost-free electronic communication, LPCA members, meeting quarterly, are fully capable of effectively and democratically electing replacement directors as vacancies arise.
C. Access to Electronically Maintained Records.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No. 2C: A new Section 11.4, entitled “Electronic Records,” shall be added, which shall provide as follows:
“11.4. Electronic Records. If a person has a right under this Article 11, entitled “Records and Reports,” to inspect and copy any record of LPCA and that record is maintained by LPCA in electronic form, LPCA shall, upon written request, electronically transmit the record to such person in a format that is readable and useable by the recipient.”
This amendment updates the LPCA’s existing “inspection rights” to reflect modern practice of maintaining most records electronically and provides a requesting member the right to obtain records in electronic form, if her or she so wishes. This will make it easier for members, particularly candidates for the Board, to communicate with the membership for appropriate, non-commercial purposes. It also addresses the abusive “document dump” that occurred a few weeks ago when the current LPCA leadership refused to provided the membership record to requesting members in an electronic format, which can lead to time consuming and unnecessary digitizing of voluminous records already maintained by the LPCA in electronic form.
Comparable Organizations: Many non-profit organizations have been amending their bylaws in recent years to modernize their practices in light of advances in electronic data retention and communications.
D. Quarterly Membership Meetings.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No. 2D: The first two sentences of Section 6.2., entitled “Membership Meetings,” are repealed and the following two sentences shall be added in their place:
“6.2 Membership Meetings. There shall be at least four (4) regular membership meetings annually, one of which shall be designated the “annual membership meeting” at which an Election shall be held to fill the Board positions of Board members whose terms of office are up. Membership meetings may be called by petition of five percent (5%) or more of the members.”
One of the Values of the LPCA Renaissance is Value #3: “We are committed to increase member engagement in all LPCA affairs.” The very best way to increase member engagement and participation in the LPCA is to have regular meetings of the membership more frequently than the one meeting per year requirement of the current bylaws. Under the current practice, the Board meets monthly and the membership is invited to attend, however, attending members are given sometimes as little as 5 minutes to speak during the “public comment” period of board meeting, which is often relegated to the end of a 21/2- hour meeting. That relegates members to a passive, virtually non-existent role in LPCA management.
By providing for a minimum of 4 meetings per year, most likely quarterly, the LPCA Renaissance’s goal is for the quarterly membership meetings to become a focal point, providing meaningful opportunities for member to truly engage in the LPCA. We envision that quarterly memberships meetings would include speaker programs on important neighborhood topics, brief committee reports (majority and minority reports - for the first time), an true forum for member comments and questions, public debate on major pending policy questions, as well as occasional elections to fill board vacancies that come up.
The more mundane operational details of LPCA management (i.e. reviewing and approving meeting minutes, dealing with LPCA correspondence, highly detailed committee reports, discussion of insurance and banking matters, etc.) can be dealt with at regular monthly board meetings, which are likely to be of less interest to members, although members would continue to be notified of such meetings and their agendas via e-mail.
Finally, this amendment reduces the percentage of members required to call for a meeting of the members from the current 10 % to 5 % of the total membership. This brings this bylaw provision into conformity with the requirements of California law.
Comparable Organizations: This format of holding fairly frequent membership memberships with programs and agendas full of rich opportunities for member engagement, followed by more “business-oriented” board meetings in the “off” months, was very successfully adopted by the Sacramento Old City Association for many years, generating very large turnouts at its membership meetings and greatly enhancing SACA’s stature and respect as a credible voice for Downtown and Midtown communities.
Reform No. 3 - Limitation on the Number of Years Board Members May Serve.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No.3A: The following sentences shall be added at the end of Section 7.3, entitled “Term of Office:”
“A person shall serve not more than a total of six (6) years as a Board Member of LPCA, consecutively or non-consecutively.
Transition Provision: Any person serving as a Board Member on the date on which this amendment is approved by the membership (“membership approval date”) and who has, as of the membership approval date, already served a total of six or more years as a Board Member, shall no longer be eligible to serve as a Board Member after the membership approval date. Vacancies on the Board created as a result of the operation of this provision shall not be filled by the Board, but shall, instead, be filled by the membership by Election at the next annual meeting of members. Notwithstanding Section 7.7, entitled “Quorum,” the quorum for Board meetings after the membership approval date shall be a majority of Board Members then in office until the next annual meeting of members, at which time the quorum shall revert back to six (6) Board Members, as provided in Section 7.7.”
General Reasons for “Limitation on Service” Amendment
All those who serve or have served on non-profit boards know that every volunteer board member has an inherent “sell by” date, the point at which a given director has largely exhausted his or her energy level and his or her reservoir of fresh new ideas. This is also the point at which volunteer directors tend to become habituated to past routines and develop a certain resistance to change and to new ideas. Good boardmanship requires that there be mechanisms in place to assure that good board members do not become “stale” in place and do not impede the consideration of fresh ideas and solutions.
Reasons for Immediate Application of “Limitation on Service” Amendment
Under the “Transition Provisions,” the six (6)-year limit on the total number of years that a Board Member may serve is placed into immediate effect upon passage of the amendment, rendering those Board Members who have already served six (6) years or more on the Board as of the date the amendment is passed no longer eligible to serve on the Board. This provision was included only after a great deal of discussion and deliberation among the members of the LPCA Renaissance over several weeks.
We had originally gravitated towards to make the limitation on service effective as of the next annual membership meeting, expected in April. We have always believed strongly, however, that it would do a grave disservice to postpone the effectiveness of the “Limitation on Service” amendment until the expiration of the current terms of the impacted Board Members. Doing so would leave the current board majority in control of the LPCA for another 15 months (since the terms of 3 of the 4 Board Members impacted by the amendment are not set to expire until April, 2010), a prospect that undermined every single one of the seven values of the LPCA Renaissance.
The disturbing events of the past 40 days have crystallized our thinking on the question of the most appropriate “effective date” for the “Limitation on Service” amendment. The increasingly reckless, grossly wasteful, lawless and consistently anti-democratic conduct of the current Board majority, as well as its contemptuous disregard for the rights and interests of LPCA members, makes it imperative for the protection of the LPCA, its reputation, its functions and its treasury, that the “Limitation on Service” amendment be placed into effect immediately upon passage, as outlined below.
Appropriate Response to an Entrenched Leadership
Adopting the “Limitation on Service” amendment is at the very core of the proposed reforms. All of the other bylaw amendments in the world would prove ineffectual in dislodging a deeply entrenched leadership that is resolutely determined to maintain its domination of a volunteer community organization. The opportunities that an entrenched leadership has at its disposal to fend off all challenges to their control are too great and too numerous to rein in by other bylaw amendments alone. An entrenched leadership has complete control over the LPCA treasury and the facilities for communicating with members (including e-mail blasts, web site postings, membership mailings, access to media).
In a neighborhood association, a sufficiently determined small cadre of deeply entrenched directors can outlast and overcome an unengaged, unorganized and widely dispersed membership that has neither the time, the patience, nor the inclination to challenge control by the entrenched group. The current leadership of the LPCA is a textbook example of that. For the better part of 20 years, it has overwhelmed every internal challenge to its power, leading to round after round of protest resignations by disheartened and discouraged directors. Until today.
If this reform effort fails and the membership rejects the proposed reforms, it is exceedingly unlikely that a comparable organized reform effort will ever again be mounted against the entrenched LPCA leadership. A critical mass has now been achieved that gives members this one last, best chance for creating a new and reformed neighborhood association: a true LPCA Renaissance.
The Downside Risks of Failing to Adopt the “Limitation on Service” Amendment
If all of the other proposed reforms are approved by the membership but the membership fails to adopt this centerpiece of reform – the placing of a limit on the number of years a director may serve and making it effective immediately - it is a virtual certainty that the ruling clique, with its current board majority, will use every single means at its disposal to maintain its control over LPCA, including, if they deem it necessary, draining the LPCA’s $30,000 plus bank account on lawyers, PR consultants and others to undermine and render moot the other reforms.
The current LPCA leadership has already misappropriated $5,590 in legal fees and PR costs at the LPCA’s expense (of which we are aware) – without legally required Board approval - for the acknowledged purpose of stopping or delaying a vote on these reforms by the membership. If the members allow them to remain in power for even one day after the membership vote on February 11th, there is every reason to believe that the ruling clique will spend every last penny in the LPCA treasury should they deem it necessary to preserve their power. With the lawyers that they have engaged charging the LPCA $300 per hour for legal services, it may be only a matter of a few weeks before the LPCA treasury is entirely depleted by the ruling clique – if the membership allows them to remain in power after the membership vote on February 11th.
At yet another illegally convened board meeting on Monday, February 2nd, the attorney hired by the ruling clique for $300– at LPCA expense – spent 3 hours laying out an abusive scheme for the board of directors to solicit proxies from members - giving the board majority the right to vote undesignated/undecided proxies – before the members have a chance to review the proposals in depth and before an open debate on these proposals at the February 11th membership meeting! Even more disturbing, members are being asked by the board majority to fill out proxies and mail them back to the very same people who will be ousted as directors if the reforms are adopted! There is absolutely nothing to stop them from throwing all proxies that are marked “Yes” on the reforms into the nearest garbage can. Their recent record of misappropriating funds and abusing their office to remain in power indicates that there is very little that they will not do to hold on to in control of the LPCA.
We urge you: if you support the reforms, do not sign or return a proxy to the current board. Instead, complete the enclosed proxy and return it to us in the enclosed envelope. You can trust us to cast your vote for the reforms. You can absolutely not trust them to cast your vote for the reforms.
Filling of Vacancies Created by Adoption of “Limitation on Service” Amendment
Under current Section 7.5, entitled “Vacancies,” all vacant Board positions may be filled by appointment by the Board, with the Nominations Committee charged with nominating one candidate for each vacant position. Under California law, the membership can also fill Board vacancies.
In keeping with LPCA Renaissance’s Value No. 4 – “We believe that member democracy is an essential ethic” - we feel it would be un-democratic for the projected six (6) remaining Board Members in office after adoption of the “Limitation of Service” amendment to fill the projected four (4) vacancies on the Board created by passage of the amendment. Instead, we believe that those vacancies should filled by a democratic vote of the membership at the next annual membership meeting, expected in April. Additionally, if Reform #2 is adopted – relating to the democratization of the director election process – such Board vacancies will be filled through a democratized and open election process overseen by the new “Elections Committee.”
Temporary Reduction in Board Quorum Requirement Until Annual Membership Meeting
The “Transition Provisions,” in addition to placing into immediate effect the six (6)-year limitation on a director’s total years of service, also temporarily modifies the “quorum” for Board meetings (the minimum number of Board Members that must be present in order to have a lawful Board meeting). Under Section 7.7 of the Bylaws, the current quorum requirement for Board meeting is six (6) directors. We anticipate that, if the “Limitation on Service” amendment is adopted, there will be a projected six (6) Board Members remaining in office. Without a temporary suspension of Section 7.7’s six (6) directors quorum requirement, the post-amendment Board would be hamstrung by a quorum requirement that would require all six (6) Board Members to be present in order to transact Board business. Under the “Transition Provisions,” the quorum will temporarily be reduced to a majority of Board Members then in office until the next annual membership meeting, expected in April, when nine new Board Members are expected to be elected by the membership.
Comparable Organizations: In recent years, there has been a trend towards more and more non-profit organizations adopting limits on director service, either a limit on the number of terms or the number of years they may serve. According to a survey conducted by Board Source, 3 out of 5 non-profit organizations currently have term limits. Increasingly, experts in boardmanship are recommending the adoption of some type of mechanism to assure that directors do not stay on non-profit boards indefinitely.
Reform No. 4 – Establishment of Advisory Board.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No.4: The following new Section 7.7 shall be added:
“7.7. Advisory Board. There shall be an Advisory Board composed of seven (7) respected members of the Land Park community, who may include both Land Park residents and individuals with associational interest(s) in the Land Park community, who will serve as advisors to the Board. Advisors shall be appointed by the Board upon the nomination of any Board member. Advisors shall serve a term of two (2) years. Former Board Members shall be eligible for appointment as an Advisor. The Advisory Board shall annually select from among their ranks a Chair, who shall also serve as an ex officio Board Member, with all rights and privileges of a Board Member, except the right to vote. The Advisory Board shall meet at least twice annually with the Board, in either public session or unofficially at informal Board retreats.”
An LPCA Advisory Board will have two main benefits. First, it will allow LPCA Board Members to get advice, guidance and suggestions from respected citizens, including former LPCA Board members who, in many cases, possess an institutional memory and long years of experience in matters concerning the LCPA and Land Park. Advisors will also help to give Board Members different viewpoints on issues, challenges and opportunities, as well as provide practical nuts-and-bolts advice on association management.
Secondly, an Advisory Board allows for those with “associational” connections to Land Park to serve as Advisors, including representatives from local schools, churches, other non-profit organizations, government and local business groups. This should broaden the “LPCA constituency” and help build real working relationships with organizations that are invested in the future of Land Park.
Comparable Organizations: The creation of advisory boards for non-profit organizations is not uncommon, but is atypical for most neighborhood groups. One local neighborhood group that has adopted an advisory board, with reported success, is the East Sacramento Neighborhood Association.
to the
Bylaws of the
Land Park Community Association
To be Considered at a
Special Membership Meeting, 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Holy Spirit School
3920 West Land Park Drive, Sacramento, CA 95822
Reform No. 1 - Increase the Number of Board Members From 10 to 15.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No. 1: The first sentence of Bylaws Section 7.2, entitled “Number and Qualifications of Board Members,” shall be amended to read as follows:
“There shall be fifteen (15) Board Members of the LPCA.”
The second sentence of Bylaws Section 7.3, entitled “Term of Office,” shall be amended to read as follows:
“Eight (8) Board Members shall be elected in odd-numbered years, and seven (7) Board Members shall be elected in even-numbered years.”
Currently, Section 7.2 provides that the LPCA shall have only ten (10) “Board Members,” also know as directors. It is never recommended that a board of directors have an even number of directors as it greatly increases the likelihood of paralyzing board deadlocks, with 5 to 5 tie votes. In fact, a comprehensive “Transparency Proposal” proposed by LPCA director and LPCA Renaissance member Craig Powell, was killed on a deadlocked tie vote this past fall, just one of several LPCA Board dead-locks in the past year. Changing the number of Board Members to an odd number will greatly reduce the opportunity for deadlocked votes.
More importantly, however, increasing the current Board from 10 to 15 will allow a reformed LPCA to bring on board more volunteer leaders who will greatly leverage the LPCA’s ability to perform its existing tasks better and to initiate and lead new projects and initiatives, improving service to the LPCA membership and the Land Park neighborhood. The reality is that in most modest-sized neighborhood groups, the actual work of the organization is performed largely by the groups’ board members. More hands allow for more work to be done. The current workload for the present 10-member LPCA Board is pretty much at maximum capacity. They lack the additional time necessary to effectively implement new projects and neighborhood initiatives.
Also, a substantial board expansion will allow the LPCA to: (1) better diversify the Board to better represent and reflect the membership, both geographically and demographically; (2) allow for better opportunities for community participation by dedicated, neighborhood-minded residents; and (3) inject the Board with a major infusion of new talents, skill sets, backgrounds, experiences and viewpoints.
Finally, it will also allow for the initiation of a program of “volunteer development,” where first time volunteers are recruited, gain experience under the guidance and tutelage of Board Members, assume increasing levels of responsibility and then, if they wish, they can present themselves to the membership as experienced, credible candidates for election as Board Members. With the current board size and the LPCA’s historically very low director turnover rates, there is currently only limited opportunity for developing volunteers into Board Members.
Comparable Organizations: In reviewing the experiences of other local, successful neighborhood groups, we found that neighborhood groups have boards of various sizes, ranging from the 7-member board of the smaller South Land Park Community Association to a 23-member board of the very well run Sierra-Curtis Neighborhood Association (“SCNA”). With the LPCA having a total of about 6,000 homes in its “boundary area,” compared with approximately 3,000 homes in the Curtis Park area served by the SCNA, its seems appropriate that the LCPA should have a board size in keeping with the larger population that it serves, without being so large as to be unwieldy or dilutive of individual director responsibility and commitment. A board of 15 members would appear to fit those needs best.
Reform No. 2 – Democratizing the LPCA: Repeal of Nominations Committee; Creation of Elections Committee; Filling Vacancies by Membership Vote; Access to Electronic Records; Quarterly Membership Meetings
A. Repeal of Nominations Committee; Creation of Elections Committee.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No. 2A: Existing Section 7.4(a), entitled “Nominations Committee,” is repealed and the following new Section 7.4(a), entitled “Elections Committee,” is adopted in its place, which shall provide as follows:
“7.4 (a) Elections Committee. The Elections Committee shall be comprised of all Board Members whose terms do not expire at the next annual membership meeting. The Elections Committee shall:
(1) Canvass the membership at least thirty (30) days prior to each Election to solicit interest among members in becoming a candidate for the Board (self-nomination);
(2) Establish a system for gathering biographical and campaign information from all candidates, compiling it into an unbiased and uniform format and then communicating it to the membership at least ten (10) days prior to each Election, as well as posting it prominently on LPCA’s web site. Each candidate shall have access to the e-mail facilities of LPCA to communicate campaign materials to the membership, subject to reasonable, uniform and neutral time, place and manner rules adopted by the Elections Committee. These rights are in addition to each candidate’s right as a member to obtain a record of the members’ names, addresses and voting rights under Section 11.2, entitled “Inspection by Member;
(3) Provide each candidate a reasonable and equal opportunity to address and take questions from members during the Election component of membership meetings or, if the number of candidates warrants it, to convene a special “LPCA Candidates’ Night” membership meeting prior to the Election; and
(4) Conduct all Elections, including preparing and distributing all ballots, fairly determining voting rights, serving as a “board of inspectors” for each Election, counting ballots and communicating the results to the membership. If an Election is to be held during a membership meeting, the Chair of the Elections Committee shall chair the Election component of such meeting.”
Under the current LPCA bylaws, the Nominations Committee nominates a slate of candidates that are presented to the membership at each annual membership. Historically, this slate of nominees has always, without exception, been rubber-stamped by the vote of those LPCA members who take the time to attend the annual meeting. The established protocol of the board has been to re-nominate compliant, loyal incumbent directors, effectively locking in the current incumbents and turning a nominally democratic governing body into a de facto self-perpetuating board. We propose that the Nominations Committee be changed into an "Elections Committee" which will gather information from those interested in serving as LPCA directors, package that information into a uniform format and then communicate that information to all LPCA members. With this change, the Nominations Committee will no longer serve as a vehicle for protecting entrenched directors but will, instead, serve as a means of democratizing the election of LPCA directors.
This amendment also assigns to the Elections Committee the responsibility for fairly conducting all board elections, grants candidates the means of communicating with members electronically through the LPCA’s e-mail system, and provides for meaningful opportunities for candidates to speak to the members in person.
Comparable Organizations: Smaller non-profit organizations typically provide for a “nominations committee” to select the “board slate” or “official slate” of nominees for consideration by the membership at their annual membership meetings. Larger non-profit organizations, particularly those with a more engaged membership, frequently adopt some variation on a system of “self-nomination” in advance of director elections, as proposed in this amendment, where the members choose for themselves which candidate they wish to elect based on the case each candidate makes to the members for his or her candidacy, rather than just passively relying upon the “advice” of a nominations committee composed of incumbents and then rubber-stamping their selections – a disengaged and increasingly unhealthy practice that has not served the LPCA well in recent years.
Modern electronic communications also makes it much easier for a non-profit to move effectively from a system of “board slates” or “official slates” to one of early candidate “self-nomination.” Candidates for the LPCA board will no longer have to curry favor or demonstrate loyalty to incumbent directors and their policies in order to have any realistic chance of being selected to be on the “official slate” and being elected to the LPCA board. Instead, they can easily (and at virtually no cost) make their case directly to the membership during competitive board elections. LPCA Renaissance firmly believes that this reform will encourage a larger number and a more diverse array of candidates to seek election to the board, a boon to both the LPCA and its members. The current LCPA board is, somewhat embarrassingly, anything but diverse, comprised 100% of middle-aged or senior Caucasians.
B. Filling Board Vacancies by Membership Vote.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No. 2B: Existing Section 7.5, entitled “Vacancies,” is repealed and the following new Section 7.5, bearing the same title, is adopted in its place, which shall provide as follows:
“7.5 Vacancies. Vacancies occurring prior to the completion of a Board Member’s full term shall only be filled by an Election of the members conducted under Section 7.4(a) above at the next regularly scheduled membership meeting or at an earlier special membership meeting that may be called for that purpose.”
Under the current bylaws, the Nominations Committee is directed to “pick” a single candidate and the Board typically rubber stamps its pick. Allowing the Board to fill vacancies – and not the members who they are supposed to represent - is un-democratic and needlessly removes the selection of replacement Board members from the purview of the members. Under this amendment, all vacancies will be filled by the members through the new democratic election procedure set forth in the amendment described in A above. The practice of members filling board vacancies will be facilitated by the adoption of the Bylaw Amendment No. 2D described below, which calls for an increase in the minimum number of membership meetings each year from the one per year, the current requirement, to four meetings per year, which will provide frequent opportunities for the membership to fill any board vacancies.
Comparable Organizations: Most non-profits continue to permit their boards of directors to fill director vacancies that occur. However, most of those organizations also hold no more than one annual meeting of the membership, thereby providing fewer opportunities for the members to fill vacancies. In this era of rapid, almost cost-free electronic communication, LPCA members, meeting quarterly, are fully capable of effectively and democratically electing replacement directors as vacancies arise.
C. Access to Electronically Maintained Records.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No. 2C: A new Section 11.4, entitled “Electronic Records,” shall be added, which shall provide as follows:
“11.4. Electronic Records. If a person has a right under this Article 11, entitled “Records and Reports,” to inspect and copy any record of LPCA and that record is maintained by LPCA in electronic form, LPCA shall, upon written request, electronically transmit the record to such person in a format that is readable and useable by the recipient.”
This amendment updates the LPCA’s existing “inspection rights” to reflect modern practice of maintaining most records electronically and provides a requesting member the right to obtain records in electronic form, if her or she so wishes. This will make it easier for members, particularly candidates for the Board, to communicate with the membership for appropriate, non-commercial purposes. It also addresses the abusive “document dump” that occurred a few weeks ago when the current LPCA leadership refused to provided the membership record to requesting members in an electronic format, which can lead to time consuming and unnecessary digitizing of voluminous records already maintained by the LPCA in electronic form.
Comparable Organizations: Many non-profit organizations have been amending their bylaws in recent years to modernize their practices in light of advances in electronic data retention and communications.
D. Quarterly Membership Meetings.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No. 2D: The first two sentences of Section 6.2., entitled “Membership Meetings,” are repealed and the following two sentences shall be added in their place:
“6.2 Membership Meetings. There shall be at least four (4) regular membership meetings annually, one of which shall be designated the “annual membership meeting” at which an Election shall be held to fill the Board positions of Board members whose terms of office are up. Membership meetings may be called by petition of five percent (5%) or more of the members.”
One of the Values of the LPCA Renaissance is Value #3: “We are committed to increase member engagement in all LPCA affairs.” The very best way to increase member engagement and participation in the LPCA is to have regular meetings of the membership more frequently than the one meeting per year requirement of the current bylaws. Under the current practice, the Board meets monthly and the membership is invited to attend, however, attending members are given sometimes as little as 5 minutes to speak during the “public comment” period of board meeting, which is often relegated to the end of a 21/2- hour meeting. That relegates members to a passive, virtually non-existent role in LPCA management.
By providing for a minimum of 4 meetings per year, most likely quarterly, the LPCA Renaissance’s goal is for the quarterly membership meetings to become a focal point, providing meaningful opportunities for member to truly engage in the LPCA. We envision that quarterly memberships meetings would include speaker programs on important neighborhood topics, brief committee reports (majority and minority reports - for the first time), an true forum for member comments and questions, public debate on major pending policy questions, as well as occasional elections to fill board vacancies that come up.
The more mundane operational details of LPCA management (i.e. reviewing and approving meeting minutes, dealing with LPCA correspondence, highly detailed committee reports, discussion of insurance and banking matters, etc.) can be dealt with at regular monthly board meetings, which are likely to be of less interest to members, although members would continue to be notified of such meetings and their agendas via e-mail.
Finally, this amendment reduces the percentage of members required to call for a meeting of the members from the current 10 % to 5 % of the total membership. This brings this bylaw provision into conformity with the requirements of California law.
Comparable Organizations: This format of holding fairly frequent membership memberships with programs and agendas full of rich opportunities for member engagement, followed by more “business-oriented” board meetings in the “off” months, was very successfully adopted by the Sacramento Old City Association for many years, generating very large turnouts at its membership meetings and greatly enhancing SACA’s stature and respect as a credible voice for Downtown and Midtown communities.
Reform No. 3 - Limitation on the Number of Years Board Members May Serve.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No.3A: The following sentences shall be added at the end of Section 7.3, entitled “Term of Office:”
“A person shall serve not more than a total of six (6) years as a Board Member of LPCA, consecutively or non-consecutively.
Transition Provision: Any person serving as a Board Member on the date on which this amendment is approved by the membership (“membership approval date”) and who has, as of the membership approval date, already served a total of six or more years as a Board Member, shall no longer be eligible to serve as a Board Member after the membership approval date. Vacancies on the Board created as a result of the operation of this provision shall not be filled by the Board, but shall, instead, be filled by the membership by Election at the next annual meeting of members. Notwithstanding Section 7.7, entitled “Quorum,” the quorum for Board meetings after the membership approval date shall be a majority of Board Members then in office until the next annual meeting of members, at which time the quorum shall revert back to six (6) Board Members, as provided in Section 7.7.”
General Reasons for “Limitation on Service” Amendment
All those who serve or have served on non-profit boards know that every volunteer board member has an inherent “sell by” date, the point at which a given director has largely exhausted his or her energy level and his or her reservoir of fresh new ideas. This is also the point at which volunteer directors tend to become habituated to past routines and develop a certain resistance to change and to new ideas. Good boardmanship requires that there be mechanisms in place to assure that good board members do not become “stale” in place and do not impede the consideration of fresh ideas and solutions.
Reasons for Immediate Application of “Limitation on Service” Amendment
Under the “Transition Provisions,” the six (6)-year limit on the total number of years that a Board Member may serve is placed into immediate effect upon passage of the amendment, rendering those Board Members who have already served six (6) years or more on the Board as of the date the amendment is passed no longer eligible to serve on the Board. This provision was included only after a great deal of discussion and deliberation among the members of the LPCA Renaissance over several weeks.
We had originally gravitated towards to make the limitation on service effective as of the next annual membership meeting, expected in April. We have always believed strongly, however, that it would do a grave disservice to postpone the effectiveness of the “Limitation on Service” amendment until the expiration of the current terms of the impacted Board Members. Doing so would leave the current board majority in control of the LPCA for another 15 months (since the terms of 3 of the 4 Board Members impacted by the amendment are not set to expire until April, 2010), a prospect that undermined every single one of the seven values of the LPCA Renaissance.
The disturbing events of the past 40 days have crystallized our thinking on the question of the most appropriate “effective date” for the “Limitation on Service” amendment. The increasingly reckless, grossly wasteful, lawless and consistently anti-democratic conduct of the current Board majority, as well as its contemptuous disregard for the rights and interests of LPCA members, makes it imperative for the protection of the LPCA, its reputation, its functions and its treasury, that the “Limitation on Service” amendment be placed into effect immediately upon passage, as outlined below.
Appropriate Response to an Entrenched Leadership
Adopting the “Limitation on Service” amendment is at the very core of the proposed reforms. All of the other bylaw amendments in the world would prove ineffectual in dislodging a deeply entrenched leadership that is resolutely determined to maintain its domination of a volunteer community organization. The opportunities that an entrenched leadership has at its disposal to fend off all challenges to their control are too great and too numerous to rein in by other bylaw amendments alone. An entrenched leadership has complete control over the LPCA treasury and the facilities for communicating with members (including e-mail blasts, web site postings, membership mailings, access to media).
In a neighborhood association, a sufficiently determined small cadre of deeply entrenched directors can outlast and overcome an unengaged, unorganized and widely dispersed membership that has neither the time, the patience, nor the inclination to challenge control by the entrenched group. The current leadership of the LPCA is a textbook example of that. For the better part of 20 years, it has overwhelmed every internal challenge to its power, leading to round after round of protest resignations by disheartened and discouraged directors. Until today.
If this reform effort fails and the membership rejects the proposed reforms, it is exceedingly unlikely that a comparable organized reform effort will ever again be mounted against the entrenched LPCA leadership. A critical mass has now been achieved that gives members this one last, best chance for creating a new and reformed neighborhood association: a true LPCA Renaissance.
The Downside Risks of Failing to Adopt the “Limitation on Service” Amendment
If all of the other proposed reforms are approved by the membership but the membership fails to adopt this centerpiece of reform – the placing of a limit on the number of years a director may serve and making it effective immediately - it is a virtual certainty that the ruling clique, with its current board majority, will use every single means at its disposal to maintain its control over LPCA, including, if they deem it necessary, draining the LPCA’s $30,000 plus bank account on lawyers, PR consultants and others to undermine and render moot the other reforms.
The current LPCA leadership has already misappropriated $5,590 in legal fees and PR costs at the LPCA’s expense (of which we are aware) – without legally required Board approval - for the acknowledged purpose of stopping or delaying a vote on these reforms by the membership. If the members allow them to remain in power for even one day after the membership vote on February 11th, there is every reason to believe that the ruling clique will spend every last penny in the LPCA treasury should they deem it necessary to preserve their power. With the lawyers that they have engaged charging the LPCA $300 per hour for legal services, it may be only a matter of a few weeks before the LPCA treasury is entirely depleted by the ruling clique – if the membership allows them to remain in power after the membership vote on February 11th.
At yet another illegally convened board meeting on Monday, February 2nd, the attorney hired by the ruling clique for $300– at LPCA expense – spent 3 hours laying out an abusive scheme for the board of directors to solicit proxies from members - giving the board majority the right to vote undesignated/undecided proxies – before the members have a chance to review the proposals in depth and before an open debate on these proposals at the February 11th membership meeting! Even more disturbing, members are being asked by the board majority to fill out proxies and mail them back to the very same people who will be ousted as directors if the reforms are adopted! There is absolutely nothing to stop them from throwing all proxies that are marked “Yes” on the reforms into the nearest garbage can. Their recent record of misappropriating funds and abusing their office to remain in power indicates that there is very little that they will not do to hold on to in control of the LPCA.
We urge you: if you support the reforms, do not sign or return a proxy to the current board. Instead, complete the enclosed proxy and return it to us in the enclosed envelope. You can trust us to cast your vote for the reforms. You can absolutely not trust them to cast your vote for the reforms.
Filling of Vacancies Created by Adoption of “Limitation on Service” Amendment
Under current Section 7.5, entitled “Vacancies,” all vacant Board positions may be filled by appointment by the Board, with the Nominations Committee charged with nominating one candidate for each vacant position. Under California law, the membership can also fill Board vacancies.
In keeping with LPCA Renaissance’s Value No. 4 – “We believe that member democracy is an essential ethic” - we feel it would be un-democratic for the projected six (6) remaining Board Members in office after adoption of the “Limitation of Service” amendment to fill the projected four (4) vacancies on the Board created by passage of the amendment. Instead, we believe that those vacancies should filled by a democratic vote of the membership at the next annual membership meeting, expected in April. Additionally, if Reform #2 is adopted – relating to the democratization of the director election process – such Board vacancies will be filled through a democratized and open election process overseen by the new “Elections Committee.”
Temporary Reduction in Board Quorum Requirement Until Annual Membership Meeting
The “Transition Provisions,” in addition to placing into immediate effect the six (6)-year limitation on a director’s total years of service, also temporarily modifies the “quorum” for Board meetings (the minimum number of Board Members that must be present in order to have a lawful Board meeting). Under Section 7.7 of the Bylaws, the current quorum requirement for Board meeting is six (6) directors. We anticipate that, if the “Limitation on Service” amendment is adopted, there will be a projected six (6) Board Members remaining in office. Without a temporary suspension of Section 7.7’s six (6) directors quorum requirement, the post-amendment Board would be hamstrung by a quorum requirement that would require all six (6) Board Members to be present in order to transact Board business. Under the “Transition Provisions,” the quorum will temporarily be reduced to a majority of Board Members then in office until the next annual membership meeting, expected in April, when nine new Board Members are expected to be elected by the membership.
Comparable Organizations: In recent years, there has been a trend towards more and more non-profit organizations adopting limits on director service, either a limit on the number of terms or the number of years they may serve. According to a survey conducted by Board Source, 3 out of 5 non-profit organizations currently have term limits. Increasingly, experts in boardmanship are recommending the adoption of some type of mechanism to assure that directors do not stay on non-profit boards indefinitely.
Reform No. 4 – Establishment of Advisory Board.
Proposed Bylaw Amendment No.4: The following new Section 7.7 shall be added:
“7.7. Advisory Board. There shall be an Advisory Board composed of seven (7) respected members of the Land Park community, who may include both Land Park residents and individuals with associational interest(s) in the Land Park community, who will serve as advisors to the Board. Advisors shall be appointed by the Board upon the nomination of any Board member. Advisors shall serve a term of two (2) years. Former Board Members shall be eligible for appointment as an Advisor. The Advisory Board shall annually select from among their ranks a Chair, who shall also serve as an ex officio Board Member, with all rights and privileges of a Board Member, except the right to vote. The Advisory Board shall meet at least twice annually with the Board, in either public session or unofficially at informal Board retreats.”
An LPCA Advisory Board will have two main benefits. First, it will allow LPCA Board Members to get advice, guidance and suggestions from respected citizens, including former LPCA Board members who, in many cases, possess an institutional memory and long years of experience in matters concerning the LCPA and Land Park. Advisors will also help to give Board Members different viewpoints on issues, challenges and opportunities, as well as provide practical nuts-and-bolts advice on association management.
Secondly, an Advisory Board allows for those with “associational” connections to Land Park to serve as Advisors, including representatives from local schools, churches, other non-profit organizations, government and local business groups. This should broaden the “LPCA constituency” and help build real working relationships with organizations that are invested in the future of Land Park.
Comparable Organizations: The creation of advisory boards for non-profit organizations is not uncommon, but is atypical for most neighborhood groups. One local neighborhood group that has adopted an advisory board, with reported success, is the East Sacramento Neighborhood Association.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Latest News Article: Schism Widens At LPCA
From Inside The City
February 2009,
Schism Widens at LPCA
Rump group wants to make the neighborhood association
‘more democratic’
By Jocelyn Munroe:
Tensions were as high as the tree canopy in Land Park at a community forum last month, held to discuss residents’ dissatisfaction with the way the Land Park Community Association is run.
The January 21 meeting, attended by about 75 residents, at times devolved into a raucous argument between two opposing factions: one representing longtime members of the LPCA board of directors, the other a new group, called LPCA Renaissance, started by two newer board members, that wants to reform the board. LPCA Renaissance has proposed several changes, including increasing the number of directors, making director elections more democratic and implementing director term limits.
The group recently circulated a petition among LPCA general members calling for a special meeting after their request for a membership vote was turned down by the longtime board directors, who mostly disagree with the proposed reforms. Several of the directors have served on the board for 10 or 20 years.
Last month’s meeting was held to discuss a recent LPCA survey, which showed that a signifi cant number of Land Park residents don’t approve of the association’s performance. Many residents were attending their very first association meeting, and some expressed confusion over the conflict. “Is it a power struggle or merely a difference in opinion on valid issues such as crime and commercial development?” asked one.
Board president Elyse Metune hired a professional facilitator to manage the meeting’s agenda. Although several attendees asked the facilitator to let each side explain its position before starting the program, she stuck to the original agenda. At that point, about a quarter of the attendees left, obviously disgruntled.
“There should be a process and a transparency that ensures that the elected body refl ects the concerns of the community,” said Land Park resident Patrick Mentzer, echoing the sentiments of many remaining.
Attendees were asked to make comments on issues such as crime, architecture and association operations, then vote on the five comments most important to them. The ideas gathering the most votes addressed the association’s operations and communications, underscoring the existing conflict and ill feelings. Several comments were sharply worded personal remarks against particular board members.
Other popular comments ranged from starting a crime liaison committee to opposing bridges across the Sacramento River to creating more bike-friendly streets.
Board vice president Scott Rose called for patience and fairness. “We all know we live in a special place, and passions run high; desires run high,” he said. “It may not always be pretty, it may not always be perfect, but there’s an effort here to push the agenda forward.”
During the meeting’s final 15 minutes, each side was allowed to explain its position. By that time, more than two-thirds of the attendees had left.
Board member and local real estate developer and attorney Craig Powell spoke fi rst, representing the LPCA Renaissance group.“Our goal is to return this organization to the members,” said Powell. “It is currently a boarddriven organization. Our idea is to democratize it. We want to expand the board, bringing fresh new ideas and fresh people. We have never had a competitive election. Let the membership decide [who to elect]. The people who have been leading this organization for the last 20 years have done a lot of wonderful things, and I want to let you know I respect that. But the leadership has become increasingly closed.”
Powell, who circulated the reform petition, criticized Metune for abusing her position by using $2,190 of LPCA treasury money to hire attorneys to advise the board on how to deal with his action. “It’s sad,” said Powell, “because these folks have done an outstanding job for a long, long time. I don’t mean to minimize that. [But] they need to move on. We need fresh, new, energetic leadership. They need to let go.”
Attorney and 10-year board director Kearse McGill represented the longtime board members. “What the organization is really about,” said McGill, “is local issues. Are we going to keep the tree canopy in the park or let it die? Are we going to fi nd ways to increase crime prevention tactics in the neighborhood?” he asked. McGill argued that term limits would bring in board members unfamiliar with the issues. Their lack of knowledge would hurt continuity and hinder work on important projects. “I don’t think that term limits are any good,” he said. “Look at the state legislature. Term limits only cut off experience. Some of them [issues] are incredibly complex and go back years. We don’t have paid staff to give us agenda reports.” McGill also addressed the issue of the attorney’s fees. “I don’t see that the abuses are here,” he said. “She [Metune] went and consulted an attorney because Mr. Powell made it clear that legal duties were required of her.”
The LPCA Renaissance group will hold two meetings in February to push forward its proposals. At the fi rst, a town hall-style meeting on Wednesday, February 4, members will discuss reform proposals. At the second, on Wednesday, February 11, the group will offifi cially consider adopting the proposed changes to the bylaws.
Both meetings will be held at 6:30 p.m. at the Eskaton Monroe Lodge at 3225 Freeport Boulevard. For more information, visit the LPCA’s website, landpark.org, and LPCA Renaissance’s website,
lpcarenaissance.blogspot.com/.
UPDATE: Both meetings have been moved to Holy Spirit School Fr. Brady Room
February 2009,
Schism Widens at LPCA
Rump group wants to make the neighborhood association
‘more democratic’
By Jocelyn Munroe:
Tensions were as high as the tree canopy in Land Park at a community forum last month, held to discuss residents’ dissatisfaction with the way the Land Park Community Association is run.
The January 21 meeting, attended by about 75 residents, at times devolved into a raucous argument between two opposing factions: one representing longtime members of the LPCA board of directors, the other a new group, called LPCA Renaissance, started by two newer board members, that wants to reform the board. LPCA Renaissance has proposed several changes, including increasing the number of directors, making director elections more democratic and implementing director term limits.
The group recently circulated a petition among LPCA general members calling for a special meeting after their request for a membership vote was turned down by the longtime board directors, who mostly disagree with the proposed reforms. Several of the directors have served on the board for 10 or 20 years.
Last month’s meeting was held to discuss a recent LPCA survey, which showed that a signifi cant number of Land Park residents don’t approve of the association’s performance. Many residents were attending their very first association meeting, and some expressed confusion over the conflict. “Is it a power struggle or merely a difference in opinion on valid issues such as crime and commercial development?” asked one.
Board president Elyse Metune hired a professional facilitator to manage the meeting’s agenda. Although several attendees asked the facilitator to let each side explain its position before starting the program, she stuck to the original agenda. At that point, about a quarter of the attendees left, obviously disgruntled.
“There should be a process and a transparency that ensures that the elected body refl ects the concerns of the community,” said Land Park resident Patrick Mentzer, echoing the sentiments of many remaining.
Attendees were asked to make comments on issues such as crime, architecture and association operations, then vote on the five comments most important to them. The ideas gathering the most votes addressed the association’s operations and communications, underscoring the existing conflict and ill feelings. Several comments were sharply worded personal remarks against particular board members.
Other popular comments ranged from starting a crime liaison committee to opposing bridges across the Sacramento River to creating more bike-friendly streets.
Board vice president Scott Rose called for patience and fairness. “We all know we live in a special place, and passions run high; desires run high,” he said. “It may not always be pretty, it may not always be perfect, but there’s an effort here to push the agenda forward.”
During the meeting’s final 15 minutes, each side was allowed to explain its position. By that time, more than two-thirds of the attendees had left.
Board member and local real estate developer and attorney Craig Powell spoke fi rst, representing the LPCA Renaissance group.“Our goal is to return this organization to the members,” said Powell. “It is currently a boarddriven organization. Our idea is to democratize it. We want to expand the board, bringing fresh new ideas and fresh people. We have never had a competitive election. Let the membership decide [who to elect]. The people who have been leading this organization for the last 20 years have done a lot of wonderful things, and I want to let you know I respect that. But the leadership has become increasingly closed.”
Powell, who circulated the reform petition, criticized Metune for abusing her position by using $2,190 of LPCA treasury money to hire attorneys to advise the board on how to deal with his action. “It’s sad,” said Powell, “because these folks have done an outstanding job for a long, long time. I don’t mean to minimize that. [But] they need to move on. We need fresh, new, energetic leadership. They need to let go.”
Attorney and 10-year board director Kearse McGill represented the longtime board members. “What the organization is really about,” said McGill, “is local issues. Are we going to keep the tree canopy in the park or let it die? Are we going to fi nd ways to increase crime prevention tactics in the neighborhood?” he asked. McGill argued that term limits would bring in board members unfamiliar with the issues. Their lack of knowledge would hurt continuity and hinder work on important projects. “I don’t think that term limits are any good,” he said. “Look at the state legislature. Term limits only cut off experience. Some of them [issues] are incredibly complex and go back years. We don’t have paid staff to give us agenda reports.” McGill also addressed the issue of the attorney’s fees. “I don’t see that the abuses are here,” he said. “She [Metune] went and consulted an attorney because Mr. Powell made it clear that legal duties were required of her.”
The LPCA Renaissance group will hold two meetings in February to push forward its proposals. At the fi rst, a town hall-style meeting on Wednesday, February 4, members will discuss reform proposals. At the second, on Wednesday, February 11, the group will offifi cially consider adopting the proposed changes to the bylaws.
Both meetings will be held at 6:30 p.m. at the Eskaton Monroe Lodge at 3225 Freeport Boulevard. For more information, visit the LPCA’s website, landpark.org, and LPCA Renaissance’s website,
lpcarenaissance.blogspot.com/.
UPDATE: Both meetings have been moved to Holy Spirit School Fr. Brady Room
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)