What's Going on at MOFIB?

[mpedersen]

No doubt ROOK worked overtime to pull off this 11th hour notification! I commend the elections committee for following through in a manner that ALL MOFIB representatives should.

FULL EMAIL TEXT:

Dear mpedersen,

RE: Resubmitted Notice of Pending Election of MOFIB

The Following is a resubmitted Notice of the original Notice to members dated June 17, 2009; being sent to you as a Voting Member of the Marine Ornamental Fish & Invert Breeders Association ("MOFIB"). This Notice provides the extended time line and details upon with the election of four members of the MOFIB Board of Directors will occur.

This Election will occur via voting software and begin on June 30, 2009. Any additional information and follow-up information can be found at the MOFIB official website: http://www.marinebreeders.org.

The Election Committee of MOFIB is pleased to provide the following outline and summary of the Voting Process - from Nomination to actual Vote and to the results. Please review this in detail and be certain to familiarize yourself with it.

Please Note: The Election Committee is empowered to review the voting process, verify the nominees, verify the election results and attest to the final results; all based upon the rules and guidelines set forth by the MOFIB Board of Directors. The Election Committee has not, will not, nor is empowered to change the rules and guidelines established by the BOD. The following summary is approved by the Board of Directors. These rules supercede any conflicting rules for this and only this pending election.

We realize that there has been some confusion and mis-communication regarding this process. The intent of this thread is to clarify and consolidate the information regarding the Election process.

DEFINITIONS

Member in Good Standing

a. Members of MOFIB in good standing shall be those members who have completed and submitted a membership form for admission to the web forum. A member in good standing: complies with the user agreement, is not on read-only access, has not received any disciplinary action in the last 12 months, has only one user name and has made a minimum of two posts.

Voting Member

A Voting Member is a member that meets all of the following criteria:

a. Have been a "member" of MOFIB for a minimum of 90 days prior to and including the day the nomination notice email was issued, ie. June 17th, 2009; AND

b. Have at least 2 post in the breeding forums in the 12 months prior to and including June 17, 2009; AND

c. Is a Member in Good Standing.

Based upon these rules as established by the BOD; the following list http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/view ... 253&t=5289 has been compiled by the Election Committee as Voting Members. NOTE: If you feel you qualify as a Voting Member and you are not on this list, please contact an Election Committee member or the BOD and state why you feel you qualify.

Eligible Nominee

An Eligible Nominee is a member that meets the following criteria:

a. You must be a Voting Member

And,

b. You Either:

b(i). Posted 20 post in the breeding forums in the 12 months prior to and including June 17, 2009;
OR
b(ii). You have been member "in service to MOFIB"; which is defined as either a moderator, committee member or BOD member in the 12 months prior to and including June 17, 2009.

Based upon these rules as established by the BOD; the following list http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/view ... 253&t=5288 has been compiled by the Election Committee as Eligible Nominees. NOTE: If you feel you qualify as an Eligible Nominee and you are not on this list, please contact an Election Committee member or the BOD and state why you feel you qualify.


NOMINATIONS

The Nomination Process has begun. On June 17, 2009, the BOD caused to be delivered to the Voting Members. All Nominations must be submitted by Friday, June 26, 2009 at 11:59 PM U.S. EDT

Each Voting Member may nominate one Eligible Nominee to serve on the MOFIB Board of Directors. A Voting Member may not nominate themself.

Voting Members may nominate an Eligible Nominee in one of two methods:

1. Voting Members may publicly nominate an Eligible Nominee by posting the nomination in this http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/view ... 253&t=5280 ; OR

2. Voting Members may email, anonymously, their nomination to the following email address: [email protected]

- NOTE: if a person nominates one person via posted nomination and a different person via the email system, the email system will count and the posted nomination will be discarded. Please make sure to not do so though.

Nominations via the email will be automatically forwarded to each of the Election Committee members. Likewise, the Election Committee members will periodically review and record nominations set forth in the nomination thread. The Election Committee will verify that each proposed nominee is (1) an Eligible Nominee, (2) properly nominated by a Voting Member, (3) not the result of a Voting Member nominating themself or nominating more than one nominee.

Each of the Election Committee members will independently verify the nominations and the Committee will as a group compare the results for accuracy amongst the Members. Once the nominees are verified, the Election Committee will contact each proposed nominee to seek their acceptance of the nomination. If the collective Committee members are unable to elicit a response from a proposed nominee (via email, forums, pms, telephone, etc.) then that nominee will be withdrawn. The Election Committee will thereafter post via a new thread, the Official Nominees for MOFIB Board of Directors on June 28, 2009.

Once the Official Nominees are announced, the Nominees will have until June 28th, 2009 to submit to the Committee a couple of paragraphs describing their particular qualifications and the reasons why members should vote for them. By noon, U.S. EDT on June 28, 2009 the Committee will post all of the Nominees statements to the Members for consideration before the vote process begins. If anyone believes that a Nominee's statement is false or misleading: please contact the Election Committee and we will act accordingly.

VOTE

The official vote and election of the four new Board of Director Members will begin on June 30, 2009 in the morning and will expire on July 4, 2009 at 11:59 PM U.S. EDT.

The Voting Process will take place via a third party voting software system. A new post and a new email will be established after the end of the Nomination process and prior to the Voting process with complete instructions on how to vote.

Only Voting Members may vote for the directors. Voting Members may vote for themself.

Upon the expiration of the voting process; the Election Committee will meet to discuss and review the vote and the results and verify that we are satisfied that the election was un-tampered and proceeded in accordance to the rules set forth herein. Once all the results are tallied and the Election Committee is satisfied with the process, the results will be post in all of the forums for the members to see.

Vote results will be published on July 6, 2009 by 6:00 PM U.S. EDT

It is our hope and expectation that our diligence in reviewing this process will bring some confidence to the MOFIB members that this election is carried out in accordance with the voting guidelines and without any undue interference.

Sincerely,



Rook, Aomont, Fishboybt, Skearse, Mikegreen
Election Committee
The Marine Ornamental Fish & Invertebrate Breeder

I knew the BOD was gonna botch this process somehow yet, and they did, because they killed the timeframe for people to submit the "Campaign" statements, and there's NO TIME to debate (more stories of disappearing posts over on MOFIB for other people...it's not just me )

Here's my responses as emailed to Rook:

There's a conflict in the scheduling of the nomination + "Campaigning" period. This gives official nominees 0 days and 0 hours to submit their paragraphs.

The Election Committee will thereafter post via a new thread, the Official Nominees for MOFIB Board of Directors on June 28, 2009.

Once the Official Nominees are announced, the Nominees will have until June 28th, 2009 to submit to the Committee a couple of paragraphs describing their particular qualifications and the reasons why members should vote for them. By noon, U.S. EDT on June 28, 2009 the Committee will post all of the Nominees statements to the Members for consideration before the vote process begins. If anyone believes that a Nominee's statement is false or misleading: please contact the Election Committee and we will act accordingly.

Also, did this email go to ALL members? I really hope this time the email went out to EVERYONE. If it went out to only "voting" members, this section is kinda "pointless" :

Based upon these rules as established by the BOD; the following list http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/view ... 253&t=5289 has been compiled by the Election Committee as Voting Members. NOTE: If you feel you qualify as a Voting Member and you are not on this list, please contact an Election Committee member or the BOD and state why you feel you qualify.

FWIW, I have also re-emailed my nomination of Carl Kmiec to the provided email address. It didn't bounce back. I informed Rook that I had resent it in the hopes that he'll be looking for it (and if it doesn't show up, well, there's cause for concern).

Matt

 

[mpedersen]

GRESHAM, it would appear that YOUR POST is now deleted, I can't find it anymore Seems like they're watching for me the most, as mine was right after yours. How yours survived a few hours longer???

Matt

 

[Tal Sweet]

At least you were notified... my last thread just dissapeared... :roll:

 

[mpedersen]

At least you were notified... my last thread just dissapeared... :roll:

Not to beat a dead horse, but lets put it this way. Between what I know publicly and what I know privately, I think at this point the number of people who's comments (many of which include perfectly normal discussion) is above 10 people now in the last 24 hours. That very well could represent 10% of the users who logged in today, and could be as much as maybe 30-40% of the POSTS made in the last 24 hours.

At this point, it is more than fair to assume that the MODS are squelching dissent, commentary, criticism, you name it. Which is ironic because they intially started the BOD forum as a way for members to communicate openly WITH the BOD. Apparently, they just don't like what they're hearing, and they don't want to hear it any longer, and since they have they power, they might as well use it.

 

[Tal Sweet]

Matt,

I was quoting treeman, forgot to "quote" it and my previous post came in after yours.

 

[mpedersen]

NOTE - URGENT. I think Rook simply didn't realize or think about this, as he's been keeping the list of nominees updated in the ORIGINAL POST in the thread. Of course, it never moves the thread up, no one gets email notifcations of new posts, and we all typically go to the end of a thread for the current info. I conveyed that to him when he told me what he was doing.

At any rate, FROM http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/view ... 253&t=5280
the current list of emial and posted nominations include:

The following is the updated list of all the nominees nominated,both publicly via this thread,and private nominations via the email system. This will be updated periodically as new nominations are made. Duplicated nominations are not posted twice.

1. Zooid
2. Kmiec123
3. "Umm, Fish"
4. Thales
5. spawner
6. mpedersen
7. Miles
8. Spraklcat
9. Fmarini
10. spk
11. Amie
12. Colby
13. acroporas
14. Clownfish75
15. FuEl

On this current list, the following people are people who I strongly reject for the BOD: #5 (Spawner), #8 (Spracklecat), #10(SPK), #13(Acroporas), #14(Clownfish75). In other words, don't vote for these people. In fact, all but Spawner are also people I strongly encourage the new BOD to thank for their service, and dismiss them from their posts.

Spawner, I simply cannot accept you as a suitable board member given your close relationship to Luis. I made that mistake when I accepted John to the board, knowing that he was friends with SPK, and in the end, the two of them royally screwed things up for MOFIB. Sorry. MOFIB cannot risk another cycle of vendictive or proxy BOD members, or at the very least, I don't think you'd be interested in removing the seated BOD.

For Spracklecat, sadly, I believe she has simply made a poor choice in supporting the BOD over the past three months (being the getaway driver you still get charged with armed robbery even if you never touched the gun or walked into the store). It is not 'personal', it is simply that MOFIB needs a true CLEAN SLATE if it's to be "reborn". Sometimes there just needs to be consequences.

For SPK, he has been the root cause of MOST of the drama, quickly followed up by Clownfish75 who really should just worry about breeding fish, as that is his main talent. Both have worked soley towards their own agendas, they have undermined the organization, and fail to understand the concept of working on a team when you're NOT the one in charge. They've caused incredible harm to MOFIB, and I believe they do so because they feel they are not getting what they feel entitled to. Both of these members are responsible for abusing the moderator powers, and they play an active role in the ongoing censorship of member posts.

For Acroporas, well, sadly, Acroporas again largely falls into the area of overstepping his bounds and blindly following the BOD even when being asked to do things that constituted facilitating theft from the organization (without Acropora's help, the BOD could not have illegally removed me from the BOD and removed the website from the corporate server to prevent me from retaking the rightful access I was legally authorized to have). Again, I recommended Acroporas for his role as an administrator of the Website Committee, and in that function, he was a tremendous asset to MOFIB during the process of moving the site. However, Acroporas abused the trust and power placed in him, exercising extremely poor judgment. He now enjoys special consideration for his loyalty to the sitting BOD, not his service to the organization. His contributions were great, but he didn't stop to think about his actions in this coup. Of course, Acroporas could argue that he was just doing what the bosses told him to do - maybe the next time my boss tells me to steal a company's website I should do it?

At this time, I believe that #1, #2, #3, #4, #7 would make the absolute best candidates given my personal knowledge of their vision for MOFIB. That is not to slight #11, #15, #12, and #9, just rather to say that I have not personally talked with them about their intentions for MOFIB should the accept the nomination and be elected.

I will post any additional thoughts/updates if I notice new nominees.

 

[treeman]

Well, it looks like they totally deleted a bunch of posts on the elections thread or am I going crazy to think the last post was on the 19th of June. I remember posting on there yesterday in response to many other posts. So they took out 3-4 days worth?

 

[spawner]

Nothing has been deleted. Someone just move them to the QT forum, out of public view. No, I don't know why. But nothing has been deleted.

 

[chris&barb]

I posted this question yesterday and it was quickly removed, followed by this PM.

Where did my thread go? I asked a simple question about voting and its gone? This is just crazy.

Why cant members ask questions about this vote and have them remain in public view? If everything is on the up and up from the BOD, why remove threads from members asking questions?

If a simple question is going to be ignored and removed like it never happened how can you/we expect the results from this election to be taken seriously?

Hi

Your post was removed as it was answered, it was also forwarded onto the election commitee, If was also answered, in that you didnt qualify with the criteria to be an eligable voter.

The request for why your post was removed has also been removed as there is a suspension of political comment till after the election at least.

This pm also constitutes an answer to your question.

Christian

My reply

Thank you for the response, but this is a complete joke. Your holding an election but no one is allowed to talk about or question the election until after it? What a farce.

 

[Ummfish]

A suspension of political comment until after the election? What?? What is an election then, if it's not one long expression of political comment? And if you can't talk about it, it certainly isn't free.... What, do we have to call in international observers?

 

[mpedersen]

Well, it looks like they totally deleted a bunch of posts on the elections thread or am I going crazy to think the last post was on the 19th of June. I remember posting on there yesterday in response to many other posts. So they took out 3-4 days worth?

Remember, that thread was GONE for 2 days. My note of that when it returned to the public eye. Instantly removed. But yeah, it certainly looks like they deleted anything after the 19th. It seems to me that Luis's "polite request" on the 20th is most assuredly not a polite request, but the BOD's way of spinning their policy of 100% censorship.

Nothing has been deleted. Someone just move them to the QT forum, out of public view.

FWIW Andy, to remove them from public view is to "delete" them from public view. Only mods like yourself can see them in QT. Of course, I should ask this - how do you know that everything is being put into QT. You as a moderator don't know what's being deleted vs. what's being QT'd. Now, mods may not currently have the power to delete a thread or posts, but mods who are site admins (like SPK) do. If any administrator decides to blow a post off the site, that's the end of it. Just saying...how well can you trust the people who have that power. As well, are all these quarantined threads going to be restored at some later date? Of course not. So in effect, they are deleted, stricken from the public record, at the whim of whomever did it, without discussion or recourse.

No, I don't know why. But nothing has been deleted.

I think Christian's PM to chris&barb, Mark's email to me, and Luis's public statement, all paint a pretty clear picture.

Otherwise,I kindly request that all members refrain from posting any political subject until the voting is finished.This is to provide a quiet condition for the members to evaluate in peace all the different proposals and make their choice.Each voting member can elect four candidates.

Remember when posted, I said I felt this was not really a request, but a statement of a policy.

I would point out much of the blocking and censoring is because members are reporting posts. Further the mods as a whole have been given a more liberal reign by the BOD as this is their job and need more autonomy to perform it.

So now the mods can act with autonomy...no one is looking over what they do...which means Christian and SPK can run wild.

Your post was removed as it was answered, it was also forwarded onto the election commitee, If was also answered, in that you didnt qualify with the criteria to be an eligable voter. The request for why your post was removed has also been removed as there is a suspension of political comment till after the election at least.

And now we come to see that my "paranoid suspicions" once again were anything but paranoid. There has been a suspension of political comment. Anything that any mod feels is "political comment" can be removed. I wonder, truly wonder, if someone PRAISED THE BOD and said they should stay in office, if that falls under the notion of suspended political comment too?

If that doesn't paint a clear enough picture for anyone, well, the fact that everyone seems to be coming here and saying "my posts are gone"...CENSORSHIP 101. I love the first part of Christian's response. We deleted your thread because we answered it. Seriously?! We answered it, you had time to read the response, and then we deleted it for no reason other than we answered it.

I think the reality is that the board and it's lackies pretty much are deleting anything they don't want out there. There's two threads still there that haven't been removed at this time (Dave A and DAVID M) that frankly I'm surprised...the board / mods aren't even showing consistency in their actions when they allow a post titled "This Organization Sucks" to remain, yet a post of a member asking why they can't vote is removed. I think it boils down to the fact that if there's TRUTH to the posts, they REALLY can't let them be seen publicly. IDK...but Andy, that's what's being done to MOFIB by the BOD and it's "Advisors".

 

[mpedersen]

It has come to my attention that the mass emailing that went out last night DID NOT GO TO ALL MEMBERS.

At least, those members I know who are not on the list of "registered voters" responded to my inquiries that they had not seen this announcement. It only takes the disenfranchisement of a single founding member to really tick me off. While I will keep the person I'm quoting anonymous, here's what one member who didn't receive an email had to say about it when I forwarded it.

No, I didn’t get this nor have I got any interest in reading it. This does not mean you shouldn’t query me about such things. It just means that I have no interest in them nor will I be following them. MOFIB is dead to me.

This is what the BOD is doing, whether it will admit it or not. This is the member sentiment it has created over the past 3.5 months. And folks, it all goes back to John Lauth withholding corporate assets as a personal promise to Stephen Kennedy, and Luis not being willing to follow his fiduciary responsibilities in doing what was best for the organization, and then Luis and John together breaking the law to force me out of the organization. And then a handful of people supporting them (and thus being moved up in positions of power). Those few critical acts have destroyed MOFIB.

Seeing that the BOD is in control of the Election's committee in the end, it leads me to believe the following - #1. The elections committee does not have the authority to send mass mailings, that must be going through the BOD. #2. The BOD maintains that it only needs to notify those members it has deemed to be "Voting members". #3. The board has once again let the members down. Afterall, they sent out a mailing clearly meant to reach ALL members soas to be inclusive (see my earlier response to Rook) which basically said "if you're not a voting member but think you should be, contact us".

What a crock.

 

[Anonymous]

Guilty as charged! I've worked with MOFIB "old" and MOFIB "new", without regard for who the leadership is. My loyalty and volunteered time go to the organization as a whole, and I have held on and helped out because I think MOFIB has something to offer the hobby. I will continue to do so as long as my assistance is needed at shows, online as a moderator, whatever. I still push MOFIB when I give hobby talks. I am a Switzerland, and I'm glad you recognize that Matt. I listen to everyone's point of view as a practice. You're absolutely right--it is not "personal" at all as long as people maintain respectful communication with one another. If people are disrespectful or argumentative with me, I ignore it: fighting serves no purpose and helps MOFIB not at all.

So, that's all I have to say, and I thank Matt for, in his way, recognizing my commitment to making MOFIB a viable entity.

 

[Anonymous]

Nothing has been deleted. Someone just move them to the QT forum, out of public view. No, I don't know why. But nothing has been deleted.

By default if no one can read it *but* MOD/ADMINS, it's "deleted" in the public eye . Other forums mirror the thread in QT, or post about it in the MOD forum, but they don't outright remove it from public view. Even RC leaves the post and edits the contents. What you guys are doing is HIDING THE FACT you are censoring by moving them to a forum no one but you can see, with absolutely no indication to anyone as to why. Just the opposite of what needs to be done to foster an environment where the free exchange of ideas can take place.

Do you remember just what caused Matt to start MOFIB in the first place? Could it have something to do with censorship? Remember?

 

[Anonymous]

Since one of my posts got deleted I think I will mirror what I post there here on RDO

Most of all it's two posts. Can you really tell me that you couldn't post two questions in the last year?

Well Mark, I think that is obvious, otherwise I would have posted! I found information that I needed without asking, so, because of that I have been declared non-important. Actually there have been, what 1200 members that the board has deemed un-important! Maybe I should have asked without looking for it. That's much better isn't it? Just post to have a count.

Well, since I have no other option, I will wait for these absurd elections and see if I will take myself elsewhere.

You bring up a very good point Matt, and I for one commend you for your efforts in MO aquaculture .

MOFIB just isn't for those that post and just because they don't post does not equate to them not helping MOFIBS mission.
If they take away any helpful info and apply it to their efforts, MOFIBS job is partially done!
The unspoken/unwritten members & non members are just as important to MOFIB mission.

In case people have lost sight of this, here it is...

MOFIB is Marine Ornamental Fish & Invertebrate Breeders,
an international group of private and commercial aquarists, aquaculture/mariculture businesses
and researchers, dedicated to increasing the production, variety, quality and availability of
captive bred marine fish and invertebrates by fostering innovation and advancement
in the art and science of marine fish breeding and marine invertebrate breeding.

We believe by improving, growing, and centralizing
the world's Marine Breeding Community,
Saltwater Fish & Invert Breeding Information,
and Captive Bred Fish & Invertebrate Marketplace,
we foster Innovation, ultimately helping to preserve
the wild reefs that currently provide the vast majority
of life we keep in the marine / saltwater aquarium hobby.

What is in bold is where non posting members help the MOFIB mission.

And just why was this post moved to QT Andy or Spracklecat? Nothing political other then to remind everyone of MOFIB's stated mission and to point out how non posting members help achieve the mission. I have no intention of running for BOD, nor do I intend to vote (pointless anyways, BOD will pick and choose who they want by simple software settings most likely) so just what was the reasoning behind the removal? If it's not a violation of the UA, or not a political statement about the current election, what other then a personal agenda is there?

 

[mpedersen]

I'll take the bait

I am a Switzerland

Well, to be fair Christine, doesn't Switzerland stay uninvolved?

So from my standpoint, where most people chose to stay uninvolved, you did get involved, and thus did align yourself with a particular side of this issue. So you really aren't neutral like the Swiss.

I can certainly understand the mindset that allows you to believe you are remaining neutral, but unfortunately you are helping to facilitate BOD implemented practices and policies that harm the members. Furthermore, through your involvement, your laborious support gives the BOD the implied notion that you support what they are doing (whether you believe it's right or wrong). So despite your personal mental neutrality, your actions aren't neutral. You are one of the very few who enjoy a seat at the BOD's table. You certainly did not have to get more involved than you were. You certainly did not have to volunteer or accept the invitation to help out.

And thus, if you believe that what the BOD & Admins is doing is right and legal, all the more reason you would not make a suitable candidate. If you believe that what the BOD is doing is largely wrong but are still supporting their actions, well you are doing something I could never personally reconcile, as I could not sit silently and help enforce decisions that I felt were wrong. I can't bring myself to that level of loyalty (which is why I, unlike you, cannot mention and promote MOFIB at this time, because I feel MOFIB does not deserve the membership of members it seeks to disenfranchise). If you fall somewhere in the middle, well, again, there are many more suitable candidates in my mind who made better choices for the organization by standing up for their rights, for the laws, for common sense right and wrong, and for the open community (not this censored BS) that I set out to create.

So, that's all I have to say, and I thank Matt for, in his way, recognizing my commitment to making MOFIB a viable entity.

Yes, you have made contributions to MOFIB that were certainly helpful and beneficial, and for that you have my gratitude. Your offerings on committees like the Tradeshow committee and as a Moderator were largely for the good. You most certainly gave more than you took.

In your attempt to remain neutral in trying to resolve our initial legal disputes in the Board of Three, I fear you fell victim to Luis' redirection and recasting of the issue as a referendum on me, not the fact that John Lauth had basically embezzled donations. So you lost sight of the true issues at hand. I can understand how a third party on the outside would react the way you did. However, your "neutral support" of the current BOD is where I feel that you haven't helped the organization, and have instead helped to bring legitimacy to what is fundamentally an illegitimate regime. It is this support that caused me to lose trust in your decision making, as there was a clear legal and common sense way for all of this to be dissolved, and you instead supported scrapping the first elections, removing me in an illegal fashion, and bringing on a replacement who wasn't even valid possibility in the first place. You may not have verbally supported those actions, and mentally you might even think what was done was more than wrong, but it is your actions that are the support I'm referring to. It is the fact that you chose to act in a directly supportive role, aka a "getaway driver" for the heist.

Thus, the recommendations I've made as it pertains to your nomination. MOFIB cannot have leadership that makes or supports those types of decisions.

FWIW,

Matt

 

[mpedersen]

It occurred to me that Rook and other Election committee members might get the impression, based on my comments towards Spracklecat's actions, that I may someday "turn on them" or perhaps change my point of view. I want to clarify the following:

#1. I, like any other human being, may change my point of view based on the facts presented to me. That's life.
#2. Spracklecat's involvement in the last 3.5 months has been in support of getting MOFIB INTO this mess (she may feel otherwise).
#3. The Election Committee members all are playing by the flawed BOD rules, true, but they have gotten involved to help possibly get MOFIB OUT of the mess it's in. Their involvement serves to at least potentially limit the further damage that the BOD can do.

Again, we do have to acknowledge the limitations placed on the Elections Committee by the BOD. Ultimately the BOD is the one calling the shots, and whether the members like it or not, the BOD has offered up only 2 options. #1. Play by the rules that they established and go through the election. #2. Do nothing. Those are the only two options the BOD is presenting. #3, Dissent, is no longer an option, they've ruled it out. #4, filing a compliant to the state, in the end likely makes the members lose and the existing BOD / Admins win. So, there you have it folks.

While both the Election Committee and Spracklecat 'serve the BOD', I want again to draw the fundamental distinction. Spracklecat's actions supported the BOD's efforts to get us into this mess. The Election Committee's efforts serve to bring hope to the members and to provide a proper path OUT of the mess that the sitting BOD created.

I've said it tirelessly, MOFIB needs a CLEAN SLATE. That's the only way I see MOFIB having a chance at restoring the community that's been lost.

FWIW,

Matt

 

[mpedersen]

Andy, you'll love this. Your "Elections" thread, the one that's been first allowed to exist, then recently removed, then restored, then having posts removed and culled (frankly, I haven't gone through it, I wonder what other posts in random pages may have been removed)...well...it is now LOCKED

by Luis A M » 24 Jun 2009 01:10 pm
Thread closed until election is over.
Luis

What brought this about? Amie's simple comment "I feel like I'm watching GroundHog Day...this is fun!"

 

[Ummfish]

I did notice that. I'm still not quite sure why the middle of the political process is the wrong time to have political discussions. Does that make sense to anyone?

 

[naesco]

I am truly sorry to see MOFIB in its current mess and hope that the elections move it to another level.

I know it has been slow on RDO lately but why is the dirty linen being aired on this board. Wouldn't the process be better served on their own board?

For the record, if I could vote I would vote for Number 4