What's Going on at MOFIB?

[mpedersen]

FIRST for the record, MARK VERA edited his post while I was responding to it. I am leaving the quotations here as they were ORIGINALLY INCLUDED in his ORIGINAL text. I am cleaning this thread up to reduce the length of the quoted text of my posts...it doesn't need to be included for a third time.

Forming a hit list and TELLING people not to vote for someone is not acceptable.

It is entirely acceptable in the process of an election. Just as much as I've told people who they shouldn't vote for, I have also highlighted those candidates who I am indifferent on or believe would be good.

This vote is not a forum to grind old axes.

No, this vote is for the members to directly decide the future course of their organization. They do that by selecting the candidates that will make their desired changes happen. If members believe this sitting BOD needs to be removed, and doesn't want to wait a year for that to happen, they need to vote for 4 candidates that do pledge to remove the seated 3 BOD members as their first order of business. It's not an "old axe", it is very much been a problem for at least 3.5 months now. This is CURRENT business that as of yet still remains unresolved for most members.

We have even seen our own political campaigning in the United States being cleaned up since this type of behavior benefits no one. A discussion of who you like and dislike will always be a allowed, but show me how these are fair statements:

Gladly

My reason for Tina being on my "do not vote" list is very easily two-fold. #1. She won't vote out her husband. #2. Her presence in essence doubles up John Lauth's say in the organization - it is beyond foolish to think that she would vote against her own husband....So yeah, NO WAY should Lady Baboon receive a member's vote.

If someone is competent then why would you rail against them. Because you don't like who they married?

I believe I made it very clear. #1. It is inconceivable that Tina Lauth would vote to remove her Husband, John Lauth from the BOD. I contend that this is an action that needs to happen in order to help MOFIB heal and move forward. #2. It is entirely conceivable that Tina Lauth would gladly accept a role on the BOD soas to act in full support of her husband's own votes. Just like my wife would have my back, so too she will likely have his, regardless of the right or wrong.

So now Mark ,show me how those stamens are Defamatory? How am I LYING about Tina? I have only pointed out the potential for her votes to be rubber stamps, and what is clearly a likelihood that she would not to remove her husband from the BOD. Therefore, members should not vote for her. I no way have I lied or committed libel.

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.

Again, Matt is absolutely entitled to his opinion. Yet here Spawner is slandered, in effect saying his friendship with John makes him a bad board member. What next Johns mail man?

Anyone with half a brain should know better than to vote forJohn's mailman, who as far as I know, isn't even a member of MOFIB, just like you weren't when the board selected you as my replacement. The other interesting part Mark is that you in fact have directly mis-quoted me. I don't trust Spawner for his friendship with LUIS, as was clearly written above.

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.

So anyone who has tried to help in the last three months is now exempt from a vote. More alarming Matt compares her to a criminal. Again, slander.

How have I lied here Mark? I have stated that she made a POOR CHOICE. It's more than fair to say that someone who had exhibited poor decision making in the last 3 months should not be voted for. Again, there's no lie here Mark. This statement is not SLANDER / LIBEL / DEFAMATION. It is an opinion, and as you're so quick to point out - "Again, Matt is absolutely entitled to his opinion."

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. ...They've caused incredible harm to MOFIB,...Both of these members are responsible for abusing the moderator powers, and they play an active role in the ongoing censorship of member posts.

Where is the proof?

#1. SPK's statement admitting to asking John to withhold his donation from proper corporate administration was removed from the public record, as was John Lauth's acknowledgement of that as well. Your board has spun this to be that SPK never donated the domains in the first place, and you've now claimed to have bought them from SPK (but there's no accounting of that payment in the Board Minutes...yeah...please show me where that money was accounted for.)

#2. Well, proof of who moved what out of public view is stored in the Admin panel...which you and they have access to. SPK has fully admitted to his involvement in the past on threads that are no longer public. By the same token, we need only to look to the few recent Private Messages sent to me and other MOFIB members by Christian.

#3. The other funny part is that you fully admit this is going on - "While even I think some removals of posts may have been too "Knee Jerk" for lack of a better term...". Don't go admitting to something and then turning to me asking for the proof. Your audacity is astonishing Mark.

Show me where the board slams members like this?

Um, you wrote this, right?

There are but a limited few here who have proven there is no satiation for their complaints and anger. These same few are now creating hit lists and slandering good people in an attempt to prevent their nomination acceptance or members from voting for them. This is nothing short of terrorism, that is why it has been removed from MOFIB's forums. This poison serves no purpose but to influence votes and provide the few with a means of rigging an election. They're even so bold as to suggest block voting their will to people. Very poor form.

You did just refer to our opinions as "poison" and our actions as "terrorism". Or did I somehow misread that like 10 times? We have MOUNDS of examples of this type of stuff coming from board members directed at all sorts of other members. But I think the one example directly above kinda proves my point.

For Acroporas... maybe the next time my boss tells me to steal a company's website I should do it?

Again, calling actions illegal and inuendo

What's the inuendo here? The BOD likes to claim that I retained sole control over all these assets. If that was true, it would not have been possible for ANYONE to remove the MOFIB website, database and email from the corporate hosting account as documented back in April. Given that a) I was not legally removed from the MOFIB BOD, b) I was the president and BOD liason on the Website Commitee, and c) Acropora's removed access I was legally entitled to have, he broke the law by conspiring with John Lauth and Luis Magnaso to illegally remove me and my access to the website that I was in fact required to administrate in the first place, and that was by BOD mandate no less. 100% no slander here...a statement of the facts, following them to their logical conclusions.

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.

Again, libelous rhetoric

Mark, once again, where is the misstatement of fact (aka the lie) in what you quoted? "I fear" = opinion. John Lauth withholding corporate assets from the BOD mandated committee in a private account = that's legally called "embezzelment", and John Lauth himself has fully admitted to those actions. It can't be libelous when the person who undertook the actions fully admitted to them. Oh, and that public admission is one of the many threads that's long since been purged from public view (if not outright deleted). And I've quote all that before here as well. "illegitimate regime"? HMM. BOD illegally removes the main founder of the organization, and replaces him with a private individual who was not eligible by the organization's bylaws to sit on the BOD at the time the selection was made. That to me = illegitimate. That's an opinion as well there Mr. Vera.

If someone wants to state they don't like a candidate because in their opinion they can't fulfill the responsibilities.

Board Members have a duty to follow the law. They have an obligation to follow the bylaws. They have a duty to serve the members. Every person on my list is a member who I believe has failed the organization on one or more levels, or is in such a conflicting position as to be someone I cannot reasonably trust.

Unsubstantiated, slander and opinions on unrelated attributes.

Unsubstantiated? Providing the statements, facts, links, documents, records, communications that back up ALL my statements is somehow not substantiation enough?

Slander? Not a single case of slander/libel/defamation anywhere you've tried to claim it.

Opinions on "unrelated attributes"? Wait, how are a person's statements and actions "unrelated attributes"? Basically Mark, it really seems that you don't view much of your own responsibilites as a BOD member...because if I were to follow your guidelines, so long as you can show up to a BOD meeting, you're fully qualified and SHOULD be voted in?!

Show me where these statements help or contribute to the greater good. They only serve to discredit good people in the interest of ones opinion. That is why they are not allowed on MOFIB.

These statements server the greater good by revealing the true nature of people's actions while abusing their power. They server the greater good because the founder of the organization, the one who invited everyone else to join in, the one who wrote the mission statement on the homepage, has a strong opinion about the current state of the organization and what needs to change. By all accounts, I don't believe that the seated BOD, it's advisors, and a couple suspect friends, should be elected, and I have taken the extra steps to explain WHY. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with revealing the flaws and pitfalls of any particular candidate. And by all means, it is in the interest of my opinion, something you yourself said I am fully entitled to.

More importantly since the nominees haven't even had a chance to accept or decline the nomination this only serves to intimidate the potential candidates and limit their ability to defend themselves.

Clearly no one is allowed to critique nominees on MOFIB, so no one need to worry about defending themselves there anyway. It is the sitting BOD and mods who have decided that there will be no free speech in this election on MOFIB. It is the BOD who is "limiting" the ability of candidates to defend themselves, both defend on behalf of why they are a good candidate, as well as to defend against dissenting opinions. Granted, in reality, every candidate who wants to defend him/herself can certainly come here to RDO to do so.

The fact that YOU, a sitting and active board member responsible for all the good and bad of this process. Ironic that the same BOD that has stated it wishes to stop all political debate is all to happy to come here and engage in it. The simple truth is that keeping this debate here on RDO, where likely FEW MOFIB members will ever see it, is acceptable to the BOD. So long as the MEMBERS can't voice their dissent on MOFIB.

And to make matters worse, I would argue that the BOD's policy of changing rules, talking down to members, and forbidding dissent, is much more intimidating than the critisisms levied against a candidate on a third party website. I mean, you've made it so that unless the nominees are the existing "advisors", those that have said anything have severe reservations about becoming a part of the BOD that includes you three in the first place.

Also for the record this thread was opened long before the MOFIB user agreement was being more aggressively enforced. What is the excuse for dragging reefs.org into the mess then?

Mark, go read the whole thread. You'll quickly realize that it was NOT me who started this thread. This thread goes back to the FIRST corrupt election that Luis and John attempted to force on the members. This thread documents the WHOLE FIASCO. Why here? Well, "the MOFIB user agreement was being more aggressively enforced". That's nothing new Mark. SPK was deleting threads all the way back then (and again, even publicly admitted to it).

Quite honestly the fact that you have no history on any of these boards and the fact that you have shown no personal interest in the well being of any of these organizations leaves me with a mutual opinion and unconcerned.

I can't believe you'd treat a member of MOFIB in that way. This gets to the base, fundamental problems with MOFIB Mark. Unless someone is a member who is actively posting, they're not "WORTH" squat in the BOD's mind, or as you put it, Treeman, and his opinions as a constituent of the organization you currently run, are of no concern.

Talk about making people feel invited, welcome and included Mark. WAY TO GO. BRAVO.
(and you wonder why I feel I gave you a fair shot, and now you need to go...)

 

[Ummfish]

Actually, there is a thread in the works Andy.

Really?

Re: Elections?
by Luis A M » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:10 am

Thread closed until election is over.
Luis

A discussion of who you like and dislike will always be a allowed,

Really?

Thread closed until election is over.

Of course it's allowed. Because this is Reefs.org and not MOFIB.

Show me where the board slams members like this?

Maybe you missed Luis calling Matt bipolar?

This vote is not a forum to grind old axes.

No, the new axes are all quite dull enough. No need to, say, go back to last year or anything.

Also for the record this thread was opened long before the MOFIB user agreement was being more aggressively enforced. What is the excuse for dragging reefs.org into the mess then?

Maybe you missed all of the censorship and deleted threads after Matt was booted? Oh, yeah, you weren't a member of MOFIB then. This thread _was_, in fact, started because people needed to talk about what happened and after post after post and thread after thread were deleted, no one really had any confidence that the discussion was welcome or even just going to be tolerated at MOFIB. But, people still needed to talk. When people need to talk and can't find an outlet at the organization whose mission is to ... oh ... let them talk (that's what forums are for), then people will go elsewhere. Absolutely, this thread is here entirely because of board of director decisions at MOFIB. We could be having this discussion entirely in the _non-public,_ members-only thread where all of these discussions started if the board of directors let posts and threads stand. Now it's out in the public instead. I know you weren't on the board when that started, but wish the other guys a rousing, "Good job!" for me.

 

[Clownfish75]

I Just hope that people will vote with common sense, if you believe someone is suitable for the job vote for them, use your own minds.

If the BOD on MOFIB were so bad then the old bylaws were they could apoint whom ever they liked would work just fine, Power could be horded, why bother with an election. Has anyone even considered this?

The fact that anyone who has shown a level of participation in MOFIB perviously as a requirement to be a nominee for the BOD is it such a bad thing, it still has plenty of people to select from.

I suggest to the people who can vote, select people you feel most appropriate for how you feel about things. Dont be swayed by others opinions of what you should do, do what you believe to be right and suitable for MOFIB.

Christian

 

[mpedersen]

Once again, I have to say that my statement of trust in Rook to try to do the right thing was definitely backed up by this post made earlier today:

from:http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=253&t=5280

Please make sure to see the updated list of proposed nominees. Some of you have nominated individuals who have already been nominated. Due to some of the confusion surrounding this process: the Elections Committee has decided to notify Voting Members who have nominated a member that has already been properly nominated by someone else. You will be given the opportunity to nominate someone new, if you wish. Certainly you are not required to do so.

I will contact anyone who has done so via PM and/or email.

This is the caliber of leadership I talk about. Trying to INCLUSIVE. Facilitating their rights, not taking them away. Trying to reach out to members. Doing what's RIGHT, and doing what's FAIR. Treating members as you'd like to be treated yourself. Common sense stuff. I can only wonder what held up this from happening sooner, but knowing that the BOD has pretty well restricted what the Elections committee can do, I suspect we have the BOD to blame for a policy like this to have only been released at the 11th hour.

Rook, I am glad to see this, even if it is rather late in the process (with nominations closing in a little over 24 hours). Folks, I think I've said it before, but we still have some really GOOD MOFIB members who have yet to receive nominations (i.e. Tal, Rook for starters....). If you have not yet nominated someone, they both want to see MOFIB RECOVER from the current crisis, and they have both worked in their own ways to help push for that change.

 

[mpedersen]

If the BOD on MOFIB were so bad then the old bylaws were they could apoint whom ever they liked would work just fine, Power could be horded, why bother with an election. Has anyone even considered this?

Christian, that's just it. The BOARD (LM AND JL) didn't follow the bylaws or the state laws. They had already ANNOUNCED an improper election, but an election all the same, and they had in fact chosen to hold a BOD election (which WAS provided for in the bylaws, and at that time held all registered members, around 1400, as voting members). That election was called for and approved in a BOD vote prior to my vacation. They then stopped the election when they found out I was out of town without internet access, removed the website from the corporate servers, killed my access so I would have no way of manually restoring it, and held an illegal vote to remove me from the BOD, and then they appointed a non-member (who is ineligible even in the old bylaws) as my replacement without ANY general member input.

So wait. Let me make sure I understand this. You're saying that If the BOD on MOFIB were "so bad", they would appoint whomever they wanted to work with, and not bother with an election, right?

Isn't that PRECISELY what John Luath and Luis Magnasco DID in the last week of March, 2009?!

To Mark Vera's credit, I strongly believe that had HE not pushed for elections, there never would've been any. In fact, that very well might have been one of his stipulations for accepting the job in the first place. I've never said Mark is pure evil or anything, my opinion of him overall is that he has not upheld the professional standard he should as person in service to the organization and its members. Being an outsider, he has not had the understanding of the community that made MOFIB important, so he's allowed things like your own wonton deletion of member posts and the overall censorship of the members. Of course the rest of you aren't going to argue, because all of that solidifies the power of the ruling elite.

 

[mpedersen]

As a matter of public record, it is with regret that I have found myself having to decline Kathy Leahy's nomination of me as a board candidate. I have sent my official "declination", which reads:

I've spoken with Renee moments ago, and I got the official word from my wife. I must respect what she said, which was "I don't want you to have anything to do with it". As I have stated consistently in this proccess, it was highly unlikely that I would accept any nomination, and I firmly and fundamentally have refused to work with John Lauth and Luis Magnasco following their unlawful removal of me from the Board of Directors.

Therefore, I am declining the nomination to be included as a candidate in this election, and I will continue to participate in this elections process as a vocal voting member.

Thanks,

Matt Pedersen
(mpedersen)

 

[Rook]

Actually, there is a thread in the works Andy.

Really?

I'm working on it right this moment.

I know you are all haunting around here under the circumstances: but please continue to review the progress on MOFIB's website. Once again, I have full faith at this point in the election process to provide accurate results of the will of the Voting Members. Clearly there will always be dispute between member of a Board of Directors. There are several disagreements on how to run MOFIB. This election is every Voting Member's opportunity to select representatives that will have the capacity and commitment to reflect said Member's view.

Stay Tuned: The Election Committee is working as fast as we can.

 

[treeman]

Mark,

Your statement to me is a joke coming from somebody that wasn't even a member when becoming a director. Fair and legal to you is not the same as it is to me I guess. I think your actions speak louder than anything I can say, so have at it. I have helped these entities more than you can know. But I guess with you the only thing that is important is posting.

Also, at least try and quote me properly.

 

[mpedersen]

Sorry, but in rereading what Mark wrote here, and in thinking about how he can rationalize coming here to refer to us as terrorists, but silence any political discussions on MOFIB, I really see what's going on pretty clearly. The board's policy of killing any political discussion (and limiting candidate statements to 500 words) is going to help the seated board's desires in the following way. Name Recognition. If you strip away the ability for anyone to critique the candidates, and remove dissenting comments from the site, what remains? Largely name recognition. And who has the name recognition when non-BOD member posts are being removed? Largely the BOD and the "Advisors" who show up in the team list, the BOD minutes etc. That makes people like SPK, Clownfish75, Spracklecat, the "incumbents".

As a voter, if you're looking at a list of candidates and you have been given no other information about those candidates, name recognition kicks in, right?

That's just one more way in which the BOD's policies have been constructed in a way to afford "their" candidates every advantage possible. Of course, we will see what people are and are not allowed to say in the 500 word statements. I have a feeling they will be heavily censored.

FWIW,

Matt

 

[Anonymous]

I think it is bizarre that people that have worked so hard to shut down discussion of MOFIB's election on MOFIB for the good of MOFIB are engaging in that exact discussion here.
I think it is bizarre that people keep insisting that they won't get into an argument with Matt, but the keep arguing with Matt.
I am tired of the intimation that people who disagree with the MOFIB BOD are not thinking for themselves, but are somehow having their thoughts controlled by Matt. In a strange way, this illustrates what I think are many of the problems with the current MOFIB BOD.

I think I would have a lot to offer MOFIB as a BOD member. My concerns are currently fourfold.

1) The complete censorship of any discussion that disagrees with the MOFIB BOD is antithetical to essentially everything I have done in my adult life.

2) MOFIB BOD characterizing disagreements with the MOFIB BOD, and discussion of ways to deal with those disagreements, as terrorism is extremely worrisome, and is not a culture I think I would enjoy joining.

3) At least one of the sitting MOFIB BOD really doesn't like me. He tried to have me removed as a MOFIB mod because I publicly expressed my disagreement with what the MOFIB BOD was doing. I am not sure a constructive working relationship is possible with such a person.

4) By the nature of the way decisions have been made in the last several months, it seems the upcoming BOD has been set up to be combative, which is something I don't believe I need in my life.

At this moment, I think I will 'prolly turn down the 'chance' to be elected. If that is indeed my final decision on the matter, I hope MOFIB eventually recovers from this mess, or that another website takes its place.

I do think the election committee in place right now is fantastic, but I think they are saddled with not good rules and timelines. I think that if such a comittee had been put in place at the beginning of this mess, as many called for, we would applying all this energy to breeding.

 

[spk]

Post removed......

 

[spk]

Matt,
you have declined to be on the BOD, so are you now going to accept what happens and leave well alone. You have been given the option of making a difference from a driving seat and have not accepted the possibility so therefore you need to let the sitting BOD make the dicisions and abide by it like the rest of the members

Thales, I suppose the same applies for you too.
If you are not going to volunteer for the BOD, then you will also need to accept the decision that they make.

 

[Anonymous]

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?

Naesco, the short of why we have to post here is because basically we can't have these conversations where they belong (on MOFIB). I founded MOFIB in the spirit of open communication (aka. free speech), and now there's currently a policy of total censorship of "political commentary" @ MOFIB (Again, outlined and quoted from the leadership in earlier posts). I suspect that if you post in praise of the sitting BOD though, they'll gladly let that commentary stand

I'm grateful to the folks at RDO for putting up with this discussion and documentation here.

FWIW,

Matt

This is a no troll feeding zone...move along

 

[Enigma9]

This will be my last post regarding these issues here as my intentions were not to use RDO to engage in a debate with those who will never change their mind no matter how much good we do. I simply wanted to point out to anyone who is a voting member of MOFIB to please think for yourself when voting in the coming elections, whether this agrees with Matt's choices or not. Your vote is your own, don't be manipulated by either side. (sad their has to be sides at all).

Further, I felt I had to speak on behalf of the nominees that are being attacked before they have even accepted the nomination. It is not fair to them to be defamed here simply because of their associations. All potential candidates deserve respect and the ability to accept a nomination without fear of having their name trashed by the few. I have written here in an effort to support any nominee who would run for a position on the new MOFIB Board of Directors.

To the members who have chosen to focus on negative statements and constantly try to destroy MOFIBs progress I say either run and make a difference or quite trying to undermine everyone's efforts. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a bad person.

 

[Anonymous]

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

Classic! :lol: Didn't read the whole thread, didja?

I want to thank everyone that has nominated me for MOFIB BOD and has contacted me publicly or privately asking me to actually run.
I find myself unsure of what to do. Besides time constraints, which are really neither here nor there, I am not sure how I feel about working with the sitting BOD, and I feel awkward about running in an attempt to oust them. I feel very strange about how the organization has functioned over the last few months and how they have shut down discussion about the election - I should be posting about this on MOFIB but I can't.

Any advice? I am very confused.

Mine is this; IF you decide to go ahead and participate, understand that you have to be true to two things and understand that your efforts may be thwarted. Understand also that your participation may allow MOFIB to continue, and personally I think that if you did decide to participate they couldn't find anyone better, really. If you decide not to, it is because of your misgivings. First, decide what your goal(s) would be IF you went for it, decide if they're achievable at MOFIB, and move on from there. I see you're likely not going to participate, but there you have my opinion/advice anyway.



Now, as someone completely outside of MOFIB, who couldn't see what was going on as it was going on there, but who's been watching here from the sidelines, you BOD members who've posted here haven't done much to make your case. In fact, from my own point of view, you've vindicated what Matt and others have been saying all along. I don't think that was your aim, but it is what you've achieved.

 

[Enigma9]

Okay not quite my last post but here;

Just as an anecdote. Some nominees have approached me who are unfamiliar with the law or are outside the U.S. Their concern is due to certain threats they worry they will have personal liability by acting as a MOFIB board member. I want to assure ANY nominee that the laws surrounding corporate law were designed to protect it's principles and board members. The only liability a board member faces is if they clearly break the law through embezzlement, conscious mismanagement of funds or negligence. Every nominee is protected by corporate law. We are currently assembling a statement explaining this on MOFIB. If you are fearful to accept a nomination for ANY reason, please contact the board of directors or the election committee and discuss your fears to find out if they are valid.

Thank You

Mark Vera
President MOFIB

 

[mpedersen]

Matt, you have declined to be on the BOD, so are you now going to accept what happens and leave well alone.

Absolutely not. I will remain the founder that did most of the work, a former board member, and a VOTING MEMBER. I have a fundamental right to challenge the leaderships decisions, as does every other member. You seem to forget that you, as an admininistrator, and others as board members, are here to server the members, not the other way around. You are extremely arrogant to suggest otherwise.

You have been given the option of making a difference from a driving seat and have not accepted the possibility so therefore you need to let the sitting BOD make the dicisions and abide by it like the rest of the members

As stated going back to three+ months ago, I refuse to work on a board with board members that moved to illegally vote me out off the board. I refuse to work with board members who colluded with you to cripple my ability to do my job, and withheld your only donation to MOFIB in a personal account. I also have to respect my wife, who does not believe that me returning to the board is in the best interests of our family at this time.

That does not mean that I must now sit quiet in the corner. The board exists to serve the members, the mission, and the community that MOFIB is supposed to be. The board is not here to direct the ongoing abuse of the members.

And remember this. It is also better for MOFIB if MOFIB has a CLEAN SLATE, which means ALL involved parties should step back and allow fresh leadership. If there is the removal of the seated board, and administrators who have abused there powers, I believe it is in MOFIB's best interest that that occurs WITHOUT my direct involvement. If I were to lead such an effort, it probably would just be excused as revenge. No, sadly, folks like you really won't get it until someone other than me uses their power to bring the leadership to account for their actions.

Nice to see that we now have SPK & Clownfish75 coming here to engage in political debate, yet all too willing to be involved in the shutdown of it on MOFIB. Nice to see that the president of MOFIB, who's been a member only since March 20th, and who supports this censorship, has made 4 posts here in the last what 12 hours?

Mark Vera, just an anecdote in response - Frankly, I'm just not buyin' it. Not buying your stories of multiple nominees approaching YOU to ask about corporate law. Not buying that member posts are being deleted because general members are reporting them (because I can count on like one hand the number of times that happened over 2 years). Not buying the BS that we can't talk about MOFIB on MOFIB, but you're all to happy to engage in that discussion here. I think you're getting pretty darn desperate if you have to come onto a third party website to plead people to think for themselves rather than be "persuaded". I really think you don't want people to have the ability to make informed choices, to consider the facts, and to consider the circumstances that brought this election to occur in the first place. I think you lied when you said you wanted to be "done with MOFIB by the end of summer" as you told me when we first met. No, I think the power has gone to your head too...why else would you enact steps that automatically keep you in office for another year. I think we all pretty much see it all for what it is. How's that for an anecdote.

Perhaps I'll share one more annecdote, but better yet, I won't just make one up...I'll quote it.

Matt...You cannot serve any good by continually critisizing the board on other forums. More importantly you are alienating yourself from MOFIB with members. I feel in the long term this will, by your own code of conduct and user agreement, serve to ban you from MOFIB. If you genuinlely want to help please contribute to the MOFIB threads about the meetings and minutes. If you feel you are unduely censored then shoot me a message so I can review it.

Mark, um...wait. We're all supposed to contribute to threads on MOFIB about the meetings and the minutes...but wait...all political commentary has been censored and suspended by the same BOD? Oh, and wait, the president of the organization is basically threatening to BAN me from the organization I started because of the commentary I make about that organization on a third party website (because I can't make that commentary there, even though this same president has invited me to do so)?

Oh, and when I inquired with the state after you had told me you submitted the paperwork about changing the registered agent and filing MOFIB's annual report, and refused to be cooperative about it, here's what the state told me directly.

Good Afternoon,

I am showing that the the annual report was returned on 5-13-09 & the change of agent was returned on 5-14-09. They both needed corrections & must be filed together.

As far as I can tell, that was the first time they were submitted.

You told me you filed this stuff weeks before. You in fact told me on 5-11 that you had RESENT the paperwork on the Friday before,the 9th. So why is the state telling me that what you sent on the 9th was the first time you had ever sent these forms? I frankly tend to believe the state, not you. I tend to think that this is just one example of you telling a "white lie" to cover your butt, rather than risk having to say "oops, I made a mistake". I mean, it's definitely not in your character to fix your mistakes...you never personally sent out the correct email address for this entire nominations process in the first place because apparently that was to technically difficult (to paraphrase what you posted on MOFIB).

I can certainly continue the litany of missteps while in power. Again, where's the accounting for the money given to SPK for his domain? I don't see it in ANY of the minutes. But this is the second time that question gets ignored. Why? I'm assuming it's because you don't have a good answer...at least you won't until you go back to revise the posted original minutes and then call me a liar again.

And people are supposed to trust YOU and what YOU post here?

 

[mpedersen]

And now Mr. Vera has directly emailed me and threatened me with "harrassment".

Matt,

This is a formal notice to immediately desist in contacting me outside of MOFIB. I gave you every benefit to carry on an open discussion and debate with me privately and professionally. I further tried to be your advocate. Your continued publishing of private communication shows you have no regard for anyone but yourself. Not even MOFIB. You have deliberately included my business name in your copious quotes and lengthy ramblings. This goes beyond just having a different opinion, it is seen as harrassment. I was told you had done this in the past and gave you the benifiet of my doubt. You have now exhausted my patience.

ANY communication to my email my employees emails or that of my business outside of pm'ing me in my capacity as MOFIB president will be constued as harrassment. Furthermore if you ever include my business, family or livelyhood, in any way again I will persue you vigorously through the legal system with any means available to me. I assure you if there is one thing I will not tolerate it is your bullying. Should you persue posting my private emails, I will be happy to publish in their entirety the rants and recorded conversations between us the moment I step down as president.

You sir have been given notice to desist any contact with me except in my capacity with regard to MOFIB and through the means of private message on MOFIB. Consider yourself warned of the repercussions of your current path,

Mark Vera
Aqua-Tech Co.
Manufacturers of Phyto2 Quality Phytoplankton

Book of Coral Propagation 2nd edition is here! Visit readingtrees.com to own one today!

For the record, the last time I contacted Mr. Vera outside of MOFIB, via email, was 5-14-09. Mr. Vera is the one who has come HERE, to Reefs.org, to harass us.

And Mark, by all accounts, feel free to publish the "Rants" I've sent to you in private, as they simply mirror what's been posted here already.

 

[mpedersen]

CORRECTION - the last time I contacted Mr. Vera directly was not 5-14-09. 5-14-09 was the last time I contacted Mr. Vera about MOFIB BOD business.

My last contact directly to Mark Vera, AFTER 5-14-09, was an email sent on 6-19-09, entitled "Get a grip on your people", in which I wrote:

Mark, I suddenly found myself with access to read all the boards on MOFIB. I should not have that access, but I most certainly did not stop myself from reading up on things like the vote where I was supposedly "removed", something I'm more than entiteld to see anyway.

Someone had to give me this access, but no one notified me of that change. Therefore, I suspect it is being done with malicious intent. I suggest that you get a handle on the poeple who are working on the board's behalf immediately.

I am requesting that my access be returned to it's original and appropriate state. I have posted this message on the board for all members to see.

And then quoted the post I had posted on MOFIB twice (which was removed) as well as posted here.

I guess notifying the president of the organization about a security breach constitutes harassment.

 

[Rook]

PROPOSED NOMINEES:

Please see this thread at: http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/view ... 264&t=5320

This is regarding any confusion a proposed nominee may have regarding the emails sent out soliciting an acceptance of the nominations. I am posting here simply because it is important that everyone clearly understands their legal requirements should they sit on the MOFIB BOD.

Rook