It's going to be pretty impossible to make a nomination count unless we know who is already nominated. I'd hate to waste my ONE nomination on a person that has already been nominated. The only way to get different nominees is going to be by emailing each other and figure out who is going to nominate whom.
What's Going on at MOFIB?
- Thread starter Ret_Talbot
- Start date
- Location
- Duluth, MN
Zooid, don't you know it. the hope is that everone will nominate the same single person or something...again, the bottom line is take away your rights and your power to affect change wherever possible.
Well, have they done it? Has the MOFIB BOD officially banned the founder of the organization? Or is the MOFIB site down for everyone else too?
I'm getting a godaddy parking page....seriously. MOFIB.org doesn't work. MarineBreeder.org, Marinebreeder.com, any of the domains MOFIB owns, doesn't work.
And just so folks know I"m not making it up, here's a screenshot
The timing is nothing short of completely suspect. Has the ongoing outcry finally caused a site admin like Mr. Kennedy, or the board, to move to simply dissolve MOFIB rather than deal?
All very interesting.....what a crock!
Matt
Well, have they done it? Has the MOFIB BOD officially banned the founder of the organization? Or is the MOFIB site down for everyone else too?
I'm getting a godaddy parking page....seriously. MOFIB.org doesn't work. MarineBreeder.org, Marinebreeder.com, any of the domains MOFIB owns, doesn't work.
And just so folks know I"m not making it up, here's a screenshot
The timing is nothing short of completely suspect. Has the ongoing outcry finally caused a site admin like Mr. Kennedy, or the board, to move to simply dissolve MOFIB rather than deal?
All very interesting.....what a crock!
Matt
- Location
- Duluth, MN
Site is back up and I'm still a member. Concern #1 resolved.
It looks like all the crazy screaming and shouting may have actually gotten through, given that the board has had to take back about 75% of what it and it's lackeys originally posted, although the fact remains that the board will continue to push ahead with it's idea of free and fair elections with whatever voter qualifications it sees fit, regardless of the original bylaws and intent for members and the organization as a whole.
Turns out the post that was deleted was a different point, where I apparently called people names (is referring to general multiple people as minions or lackeys namecalling if that's what they actually are?). The funny thing is that the President is not facing any actions for his own calling of names when he referred to me as an "outright liar" when in fact I posted pure truth. Whatever.
It looks like all the crazy screaming and shouting may have actually gotten through, given that the board has had to take back about 75% of what it and it's lackeys originally posted, although the fact remains that the board will continue to push ahead with it's idea of free and fair elections with whatever voter qualifications it sees fit, regardless of the original bylaws and intent for members and the organization as a whole.
Turns out the post that was deleted was a different point, where I apparently called people names (is referring to general multiple people as minions or lackeys namecalling if that's what they actually are?). The funny thing is that the President is not facing any actions for his own calling of names when he referred to me as an "outright liar" when in fact I posted pure truth. Whatever.
Yeah, those rules have been hypocritical ever since ... well, I was going to say "you left" but that's not quite it, it is? The board forces everyone else to stay civil or their posts (or threads) are deleted, but certainly sees no reason to censor their own comments or even attempt to be civil.
- Location
- Duluth, MN
Zooid, anyone who wants their email publicly accessible to their fellow MOFIB members, you should see an email icon where you can email them outside MOFIB, outside the PM system. And you can certainly PM anyone you like. I am also in possession of outdated mailing lists from when I was responsible for mass mailing all the BOD-approved mass emails sent...I really probably can't use that for anything, but I'm more than happy to say I have it at my disposal and have not touched it in the three months since being locked out forcibly
I'll be more than curious to see how legal notifications to members are now accomplished since there's no other way than email...of course I suspect given the strange reworking of what the BOD thinks a voting member is, I fully suspect that as they've said, they will only be emailing members to notify them of their status as an eligible voter. No public listing, no general notifications to ALL members that an election will be taking place, let alone how anyone who is currently ineligible based on the BOD's new rules can make themselves eligible.
I think at this point, a "software" solution for the vote is totally a sham...all it takes to manipulate any software is the proper knowhow, which SPK and Acroporas both have. Sadly, the only way any election can be held with any air of trust would probably be if it's administered by a THIRD PARTY - maybe MASNA?
Matt
I'll be more than curious to see how legal notifications to members are now accomplished since there's no other way than email...of course I suspect given the strange reworking of what the BOD thinks a voting member is, I fully suspect that as they've said, they will only be emailing members to notify them of their status as an eligible voter. No public listing, no general notifications to ALL members that an election will be taking place, let alone how anyone who is currently ineligible based on the BOD's new rules can make themselves eligible.
I think at this point, a "software" solution for the vote is totally a sham...all it takes to manipulate any software is the proper knowhow, which SPK and Acroporas both have. Sadly, the only way any election can be held with any air of trust would probably be if it's administered by a THIRD PARTY - maybe MASNA?
Matt
- Location
- Duluth, MN
Wow, I'm shocked to see SPK's post not allowed to stand here, granted I never got to read it, and by all means, I personally would've been "curious" to see what it said. I suppose I should say maybe SPK knows how it feels now
Matt
Matt
- Location
- Duluth, MN
This was emailed to me by a concerned member, and I have to say right now, this looks suspect.
Why is someone who has made ONE POST on MOFIB posting to turn down a nomination to be on the board? Let me start this off by saying in the bylaws, which have again been CHANGED, now state:
What is that?
So in truth, the BOARD (John Lauth, Luis Magnasco and Mark Vera), or possibly people working on behalf of the MOFIB BOARD, appear to be soliciting for candidates OUTSIDE of the pool of ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES for the board!!! People the members have never heard of are being asked to come in and lead the organization.
If that doesn't reek of trying to stack the vote and the ballot, I don't know what does! I have further suspicions, but need to do a little more research before making any further allegations.
Matt
Why is someone who has made ONE POST on MOFIB posting to turn down a nomination to be on the board? Let me start this off by saying in the bylaws, which have again been CHANGED, now state:
What is that?
So in truth, the BOARD (John Lauth, Luis Magnasco and Mark Vera), or possibly people working on behalf of the MOFIB BOARD, appear to be soliciting for candidates OUTSIDE of the pool of ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES for the board!!! People the members have never heard of are being asked to come in and lead the organization.
If that doesn't reek of trying to stack the vote and the ballot, I don't know what does! I have further suspicions, but need to do a little more research before making any further allegations.
Matt
And not only that, but Mr. Vera is telling them that they probably _are_ eligible to serve on the board despite the fact that he just changed the bylaws to, I assume, make sure that someone not connected to the community could serve on the board:
If the bylaw changes weren't to keep non-community members from voting in the elections and not serving in administrative capacities, what were they for? Oh yeah, maybe they were to keep people who are withholding participation in the community until the leadership has changed from voting.
I wonder which it could be....
If the bylaw changes weren't to keep non-community members from voting in the elections and not serving in administrative capacities, what were they for? Oh yeah, maybe they were to keep people who are withholding participation in the community until the leadership has changed from voting.
I wonder which it could be....
- Location
- Duluth, MN
Well, at this point I suppose we shouldn't be surprised in the least, given that Mark Vera himself was ineligible to sit on MOFIB's board when John Lauth and Luis Magnasco simply made him a board member while I was on vacation and locked out from the website/domains/database/email. They board didn't consider eligibility then, and Mark didn't flinch at the technicality that he himself was ineligible, so why now, right? Perhaps I should've just taken all of this to the State and risked dissolution of the corporation rather than step aside in an effort to keep the corporation intact. It is beyond clear that the BOARD will do whatever it wants to do, regardless of the rules, common sense, you name it.
Could it be that this board believes the only way it stands a chance at surviving past the first board meeting after elections is if it stacks the board with hand-selected outsiders who do not have an interest in the politics or past history? If they're willing to nominate people who aren't even MOFIB members, why should any of us believe that the elections process will be any more "above board" than their own nominations?
Again, I have to do more research on this nomination - it seems VERY fishy in more ways that what I outlined above.
Matt
Could it be that this board believes the only way it stands a chance at surviving past the first board meeting after elections is if it stacks the board with hand-selected outsiders who do not have an interest in the politics or past history? If they're willing to nominate people who aren't even MOFIB members, why should any of us believe that the elections process will be any more "above board" than their own nominations?
Again, I have to do more research on this nomination - it seems VERY fishy in more ways that what I outlined above.
Matt
I also thought that this nomination post was odd. The members haven't even been authorized or told how to nominate board members yet but here is someone that has had "all the support you have given me over the past few days". All this and NO posts other than the non acceptance post?
Now who nominated this person, and since she refused the nomination, does that member get another nomination choice?
Now who nominated this person, and since she refused the nomination, does that member get another nomination choice?
- Location
- Duluth, MN
Funny, another member caught something I may have overlooked, the fact that I used a random "Jane" in my examples...this is likely someone's attempt at humor perhaps, or could simply be out there to "fan the flames". Of course, this violates the T&C and Members in Good Standing rule about members having more than one user account
- Location
- Duluth, MN
Ah, but as a Board Member, is he exempt from the definition of "good standing"? I.e., in order to become a board member you have to be a member in good standing, which includes only having one user account. If you fall out of "Good Standing", are you still on the BOD?
The theory that someone possibly on the BOD is now trolling is a whole new low once again...can't believe how much lower this thing keeps sinking, but I guess ships that are sinking don't miraculously stop until they hit bottom...and this is one deep ocean!
I'm not 100% convinced it was a fraudulent post....the choice of user location is curious and is what requires me to make further research. I have a feeling there very well could be a Jane in Mozambique who happens to be friends with a Board Member of other "administrator" (remember, admins are basically being treated as impromptu / unofficial board members at this point).
Matt
The theory that someone possibly on the BOD is now trolling is a whole new low once again...can't believe how much lower this thing keeps sinking, but I guess ships that are sinking don't miraculously stop until they hit bottom...and this is one deep ocean!
I'm not 100% convinced it was a fraudulent post....the choice of user location is curious and is what requires me to make further research. I have a feeling there very well could be a Jane in Mozambique who happens to be friends with a Board Member of other "administrator" (remember, admins are basically being treated as impromptu / unofficial board members at this point).
Matt
- Location
- Duluth, MN
Another case of the BOARD shirking it's legal responsilbiities, and in this case, outright saying it's intends to break state law because it's too expensive to comply.
--my response, which probably won't be left standing as it's considered "inciting"--
MOFIB has a legal obligation to notify ALL MEMBERS of a wide variety of things, but specifically I'm referring to Board of Director votes. Since anyone registered for the website is a member of the organization, MOFIB must notify approximately 1600+ members of this elections process in order to be in compliance with the state. Failure to do so will be breaking state law and at best, would nullify the results of the vote.
Since the only thing we have available for all members is their emails, the only legal way to notify them is through mass emailings. Mass emailings were FREE to MOFIB in the past when I handled them and frankly, I explained exactly how such mass emailings were made to both Acroporas and Luis when I was leaving for my vacation (the one during which they scrapped the plans for elections and brought Mr. Vera into power instead). To complain that notification to members is now expensive and not possible is an extremely poor excuse and further validates the concerns that the board is purposely excluding members through a myriad of policy decisions.
In no uncertain terms, there are legal requirements for the notification of ALL members in this process. Failure to meet this obligation would more than justify the members at large reporting the board to the state and asking for its removal. I have made board members aware of this legal requirement when I was a member of the board myself, and they opted to delete that public post and throw me off the board. The continued and flagrant disregard of this legal requirement for full communications with all members is beyond alarming...in fact, it is possible that even the changes in bylaws are not valid given the failure to notify members appropriately (and again, that's separate from the concerns over the NEW bylaws that alter voting member's qualifications without their consent).
This board continues to steamroll the members, the rules, the bylaws and the actual corporate law as it sees fit. It has been more than duly notified of it's responsibilities and has not done it's due-diligence in this process.
--my response, which probably won't be left standing as it's considered "inciting"--
MOFIB has a legal obligation to notify ALL MEMBERS of a wide variety of things, but specifically I'm referring to Board of Director votes. Since anyone registered for the website is a member of the organization, MOFIB must notify approximately 1600+ members of this elections process in order to be in compliance with the state. Failure to do so will be breaking state law and at best, would nullify the results of the vote.
Since the only thing we have available for all members is their emails, the only legal way to notify them is through mass emailings. Mass emailings were FREE to MOFIB in the past when I handled them and frankly, I explained exactly how such mass emailings were made to both Acroporas and Luis when I was leaving for my vacation (the one during which they scrapped the plans for elections and brought Mr. Vera into power instead). To complain that notification to members is now expensive and not possible is an extremely poor excuse and further validates the concerns that the board is purposely excluding members through a myriad of policy decisions.
In no uncertain terms, there are legal requirements for the notification of ALL members in this process. Failure to meet this obligation would more than justify the members at large reporting the board to the state and asking for its removal. I have made board members aware of this legal requirement when I was a member of the board myself, and they opted to delete that public post and throw me off the board. The continued and flagrant disregard of this legal requirement for full communications with all members is beyond alarming...in fact, it is possible that even the changes in bylaws are not valid given the failure to notify members appropriately (and again, that's separate from the concerns over the NEW bylaws that alter voting member's qualifications without their consent).
This board continues to steamroll the members, the rules, the bylaws and the actual corporate law as it sees fit. It has been more than duly notified of it's responsibilities and has not done it's due-diligence in this process.
- Location
- Duluth, MN
More BS.
We got emails sent out to tell us that were are qualified to vote / nominate. I don't know if the election message went to ALL members as required by State Law...looking into that now with some people who I suspect will not be notified as legally required.
I won't include the email here, but bottom line they've taken every possible chance to make your nomination fail to count. You must email the board with your nomination in the next 4 days (I think by law, such a notice must actually be 5 days). You can only nominate one person, and it can't be yourself. The board will review the nomination and attempt to get a yes/no. After the nomination period is over, the board will "try" to publish a list of nominees. So, you get one blind shot in the dark to pick one name and hope that person hasn't already been nominated. If that person already was, well, you just wasted your nomination. If the person you nominate declines, you don't get to nominate someone else apparently. In other words, your second choice might be everyone else's second choice, and that second choice person might never even make it to the ballot.
I'm suggesting to any MOFIB member reading this - Andy (Ummfish) started a thread on Nominations and we have publicly posted our nominations there. That way, you can see who's been nominated already and don't waste your nomination again. I'd strongly suggest contacting the person you nominate to see if they'll accept it, so again, you don't waste your nomination. Remember, this isn't an election...don't waste your influence...nominations don't aggregate like votes do!
HOWEVER, here's the thing I'm really mad about - apparently members are supposed to send their nominations to "[email protected]" by June 21st. Now, try that email if you like, because it won't work. in fact, marinbreeder.com isn't even a registered domain...you could go buy it. Anyone who does a copy & paste of the email address will automatically get a bounce back of their nomination email.
If you're smart enough to realize it's a typo, you'll try [email protected] instead. MOFIB does own that domain. You'll get a bounceback there too currently.
If you're not totally pissed off and have the tenacity of a rat terrier on my ankle, you'll figure that the official MOFIB domain is actually marinebreeder.org, so maybe they just picked the wrong domain extension. So you can try emailing your nomination to [email protected].
You'll get a bounce back there too. There is currently no viable way to nominate anyone based on what the board has told the members.
In other words, while elections and nominations have been announced, currently the board never saw fit to actually set up the email address they want to use, let along to proofread the email.
Don't even get me started on how the "eligible voter" qualifications in the email are different than what was in the minutes (which were edited, so actually two different standards have been put out), and they also go against the bylaws (which have been changed to reflect who can vote at least 2 or 3 times). So even if you want to accept what's "currently out there" as voter qualifications, you still have 3 different rulings on the field. More if you reject these changes in favor of the legally binding bylaws that the board didn't legally change, let alone that the board probably didn't have a legal right to change member voting priviledges without the member's approval (which means all 1600+ registered member who *should * have the right to vote based on what we all originally agreed upon when incorporating).
Anyone MOFIB member who wants to file a complaint with the state of IL about how the current Board is handling this process will have no opposition from me....this is a sloppy sham top to bottom. Stuff like this did not happen when I was "steering the ship" and as I've said, the members deserve better than what they're currently getting.
We got emails sent out to tell us that were are qualified to vote / nominate. I don't know if the election message went to ALL members as required by State Law...looking into that now with some people who I suspect will not be notified as legally required.
I won't include the email here, but bottom line they've taken every possible chance to make your nomination fail to count. You must email the board with your nomination in the next 4 days (I think by law, such a notice must actually be 5 days). You can only nominate one person, and it can't be yourself. The board will review the nomination and attempt to get a yes/no. After the nomination period is over, the board will "try" to publish a list of nominees. So, you get one blind shot in the dark to pick one name and hope that person hasn't already been nominated. If that person already was, well, you just wasted your nomination. If the person you nominate declines, you don't get to nominate someone else apparently. In other words, your second choice might be everyone else's second choice, and that second choice person might never even make it to the ballot.
I'm suggesting to any MOFIB member reading this - Andy (Ummfish) started a thread on Nominations and we have publicly posted our nominations there. That way, you can see who's been nominated already and don't waste your nomination again. I'd strongly suggest contacting the person you nominate to see if they'll accept it, so again, you don't waste your nomination. Remember, this isn't an election...don't waste your influence...nominations don't aggregate like votes do!
HOWEVER, here's the thing I'm really mad about - apparently members are supposed to send their nominations to "[email protected]" by June 21st. Now, try that email if you like, because it won't work. in fact, marinbreeder.com isn't even a registered domain...you could go buy it. Anyone who does a copy & paste of the email address will automatically get a bounce back of their nomination email.
If you're smart enough to realize it's a typo, you'll try [email protected] instead. MOFIB does own that domain. You'll get a bounceback there too currently.
If you're not totally pissed off and have the tenacity of a rat terrier on my ankle, you'll figure that the official MOFIB domain is actually marinebreeder.org, so maybe they just picked the wrong domain extension. So you can try emailing your nomination to [email protected].
You'll get a bounce back there too. There is currently no viable way to nominate anyone based on what the board has told the members.
In other words, while elections and nominations have been announced, currently the board never saw fit to actually set up the email address they want to use, let along to proofread the email.
Don't even get me started on how the "eligible voter" qualifications in the email are different than what was in the minutes (which were edited, so actually two different standards have been put out), and they also go against the bylaws (which have been changed to reflect who can vote at least 2 or 3 times). So even if you want to accept what's "currently out there" as voter qualifications, you still have 3 different rulings on the field. More if you reject these changes in favor of the legally binding bylaws that the board didn't legally change, let alone that the board probably didn't have a legal right to change member voting priviledges without the member's approval (which means all 1600+ registered member who *should * have the right to vote based on what we all originally agreed upon when incorporating).
Anyone MOFIB member who wants to file a complaint with the state of IL about how the current Board is handling this process will have no opposition from me....this is a sloppy sham top to bottom. Stuff like this did not happen when I was "steering the ship" and as I've said, the members deserve better than what they're currently getting.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
