Annual Meeting Agenda

<sigh> One word… proofread. And this is from the guy who said that all meeting minutes etc would be double checked by the rest of the board before filing. So, this was a group effort.

The law may not require publishing candidates, but transparency would improve participation and trust. Candidates had always been published ahead of time. So the board that has used the term “transparency” a record number of times, clearly still has no idea what it means. And why would they not just list the candidates?

Some possibilities include- perhaps at least one candidate is somebody who will easily draw our attention because they have a proven track record of incompetence and un-trustworthiness. Perhaps this person unlawfully ousted a duly elected officer, with absolutely no thought to letting the district know ahead of time. The district that elected that officer. Perhaps this person has signed numerous forms filed with the county stating the district is imposing a special assessment, and stating numerous times that the district is in no way imposing a special assessment, and has always imposed a levy.

Note the form she filed numerous times actually says ‘special assessment’ right on it.

Or, perhaps it is the person who could not add 3 numbers together correctly… and she was the treasurer.

Oh!! sorry, same person!

On the other hand, if there was a candidate who was not in the pocket of the Board, it does seem likely the Board would not wish to share the facts of that person ahead of time. Even though this has been the procedure for 10 years. You know, giving members all the information they can use in a timely manner… like to decide which candidate they would rather vote for.

Of course, the same can be said for the mysterious bylaws that members are supposed to vote on, and which an entire meeting was called for, and apparently still not discussed. Why not simply share the bylaw?

A couple reasons come to mind- one, the Board doesn’t want to share the bylaw publicly because it could and likely would be ripped apart publicly. Two, … hmm… nope. Can’t think of another reason.

And isn’t it interesting how the public comments are finally after something of substance is said? Kind of like we suggested here so many times.

Although, the public comments SHOULD be sprinkled throughout the meeting, so anytime somebody wants to comment, they can.

Of course, there’s more, but you get the idea.