|
Post by sandymiracle on Feb 7, 2012 10:29:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hendrimike on Feb 7, 2012 10:31:05 GMT -5
a) He resigned, not dismissed. This just was finalized last night. I understand your concerns on his postings and how they are perceived. Please just give it some time. It's 1030am and this was finalized at 1230am. We have to figure out first how to proceed so that it isn't looked upon as censorship. Again, a member of the public can post things on our page. He is not banned. It's a tricky line that needs to be worked out.
b) Again, Michael P resigned from the board.
c) The bylaws of the organization were approved last night and I will work on getting those to you for your own review.
d) All cash raised so far is still in hand with the group unless it was used to this point on things pertaining to business. We have co-treasurers now that I can direct you to for answers on money. Kat Bragdon and David Mauriello
e) The matching donation has been made and is in the checking account. Again, you can ask a treasurer about that for confirmation.
f) No, the donor is not a member of the board. Believe that. I have no reason to lie and do not wish to be branded a liar.
|
|
|
Post by hendrimike on Feb 7, 2012 10:36:50 GMT -5
What do you suggest Sandi as a method of proceeding? He is actually promoting the site using the personal page he has on FB.
|
|
|
Post by sandymiracle on Feb 7, 2012 10:42:03 GMT -5
Why is allowing corruption within our "better new system" and not rooting out the corrupt parties when they have PROVEN themselves corrupt "tricky?"
Why was MP allowed to "resign?" If he had not "resigned" would he still be in charge?
Because given the history of the group, and given his ability to spin a situation, if group members to not take action to ACTIVELY CENSOR him he WILL continue to operate as though he is a welcome, guiding presence among us.
There was no problem censoring others for FAR less damaging things than taking over the page and acting as though he were still in charge of it, just casually decided to move to a different roll instead of being ousted for mistreating people who trusted him to lead them. Does this not send a message that he is somehow better, and entitled to preferential treatment?
Please understand that by allowing Michael Pollok's actions to go uncensored and not censured, by NOT dismissing him, you are allowing HIM to retain control. Both of the situation and the group.
If that was the goal of the board and moderators to whom we have given our voice, I for one must say that it isn't in keeping with MY goal, which is true uncensored communications, no power pulls, and no bullying.
"A member of the public" should be able to post things on our page. "A person who has been removed from the board (not allowed to resign) for misconduct" should not.
Unless it is made clear that his conduct IS NOT tolerated within 99%Declaration... it IS tolerated. And if it IS tolerated, why are the rest of us not allowed to bully, malign, and curse one another at will as well?
Why are the rest of us not allowed to randomly speak for the group and say things that no one else has agreed to?
Why are the rest of us not given authority to ban people that we just don't like, or don't serve our need?
Because we're not on the "board?"
I don't want a board like that. It resembles the current government we have way too much.
But I don't get a say in that, do I? Because I'm not on the board...
Hmm...
I URGE you strongly to publicly rebuke, dismiss, and then BAN Michael Pollok, to avoid this blowing up as a PR disaster.
|
|
|
Post by hendrimike on Feb 7, 2012 10:52:36 GMT -5
Sandi,
What do you want from me? The man resigned. Playing woulda coulda shoulda is not in my interest. It happened the way it happened. Yes, I agree with you on a bunch of what you say, but come on! It's been ten hours since he resigned and the board accepted the resignation. Can we get some time to react before you jump ship and call everyone just as bad as the government??? Man...
Look, bottomline, Michael Pollok has no influence whatsoever on the board or the group. He is now a member of the public. If he wants to promote the site, I don't see an issue with that. He isn't personally attacking anyone. If you notice, he is posting in the "Everyone" section of that page and not in "the99declaration.org" section of the page.
Michael P is not in control of any social media page of The 99 Declaration after today hopefully when I get the passwords back. At the same time, MP will be held to the same standards that are put in place for moderation and the fb pages were just updated with them a few days ago, so he has to abide from those like anyone else.
The "rest of us" are allowed to promote the website anyway they see fit. What is he saying that is so wrong???
The Sky Is Not Falling. He's out. It didn't get to the point of dismissal because he resigned because of the pressure for change of the way business was being done and he did not agree with the changes.
|
|
|
Post by marshalld on Feb 7, 2012 10:55:58 GMT -5
Sandy, please be patient and know the group is alive and well. What Diamond and Michael Hendricks have stated above is fact. Yes, Mr. P, still posting to the 99% Declaration's facebook pages. These posts are being monitored, and steps to assure there is no misrepresentation are being put in place. An organizational structure with bylaws are now in place. Further details are forthcoming. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by sandymiracle on Feb 7, 2012 11:02:32 GMT -5
I've made it extremely clear what I want.
"I URGE you strongly to publicly rebuke, dismiss, and then BAN Michael Pollok, to avoid this blowing up as a PR disaster."
If the 99% Declaration is comfortable with the way things happened, and comfortable having him as a member of the group, and comfortable with the impression they give that had he not chosen to resign, he would still be in the exact same capacity, so be it.
If the 99% Declaration is comfortable with the general public hearing the loud outcry against his practices, posted dumps of his diatribes and escapades, and hearing not a peep in condemnation of him, and no ban, when members were banned for less... so be it.
It's not what right this second, in the last 10 hours, he's saying that's so wrong. Right now he is creating spin.
It's what he's SAID that got us to this point that is a problem, and that coupled with the group's general apathy at routing out corruption and insistence on a "sunny side UP! Ignore the skeletons in the closet!" mentality, I am pretty sure, has damaged 99%Declaration beyond repair in the eyes of many.
But hey, the general public is gullible right? That's how the current structure of power in this country was erected. How many will take the time to look to see the shaky foundation and sweeping under the rug?
Just don't be surprised when people DO begin posting and re-posting links to this thread, and holding 99% Declaration accountable for the actions of the group as a whole by inaction and apathy.
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke
|
|
|
Post by hendrimike on Feb 7, 2012 11:15:34 GMT -5
So, you want me to ban someone after they resign? Okay, I will take that up with the board at the next meeting Monday and report back to you. You would think the fact that he is gone would be good enough, but it just never seems to be that way. More, more, more. Why can't we just move on? Him being gone is pretty much a ban anyway, isn't it? He has no power in this group or it's direction anymore.
|
|
|
Post by sandymiracle on Feb 7, 2012 11:26:01 GMT -5
No, I don't want YOU to ban someone after they resign. I don't want YOU to personally have the power to randomly ban people. I want the group as a WHOLE (everyone who hasn't just walked off themselves in frustration that is) to realize just how toxic MP is to the group, and how many talented people are waiting on the sidelines to participate once again, but don't trust the group because they haven't condemned his behavior.
I want the PR committee to do their job and protect the image of the 99% Declaration by calling for the people that have abused the authority granted them to be removed, not allowed to decide a new role of their own volition.
If him being "gone" was a ban, then why do we ban people who have exactly the input power and LESS influence than he does? What is the point of banning people who do and say things that are detrimental to the group, if we're not going to enforce it evenly?
We absolutely CAN move on.
But I promise you, even if I never say another WORD (and I think I've honestly exhausted this... at this point it's just me saying "DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE HOW THIS IS EMBARRASSING AND HOW IT MAKES US LOOK?" and you saying, "NO,") that until the situation is resolved with a PUBLIC denouncement of MP's behavior and a PUBLIC ban, people will question the integrity of the board, and because of his actions on OTHER forums under the 99%Declaration flag and using his own name, possible new members will do a quick Google search and find that our issues have NOT been addressed beyond a cursory shuffling of the masks over the power of a few.
That said... yeah. Change is work. I get that, and I commend how hard you're trying. I'm just urging you not to "settle" for a "snake in the garden instead of the house."
(It's a metaphor for an unwanted element close by and able to have an effect, but a little better than in control... don't ban me!)
|
|
|
Post by hendrimike on Feb 7, 2012 11:35:41 GMT -5
Please take up your PR question with Penelope Rose. I am sure she would be willing to talk to you about a statement because it is in the works. That is PR, not Social Media, which I chair.
I do not disagree with you on some things. I can't change the past and what he did either and have wished for him to not have power in this group, but I do not issue statements. It isn't my committee that does that. I am a part of PR, but as a liasan (sp?) to Social Media. If people want to come back, which they do and are, we welcome them with open arms.
We don't ban people unless they get three strikes off the moderation policy.
I like your analogy.
|
|
|
Post by sandymiracle on Feb 7, 2012 12:00:03 GMT -5
Fair enough. The NEW ban policy needs to be stated, CLEARLY, as I'm pretty sure that "certain individuals" will violate it soon enough anyway. I've said what I meant, so I'll wait tot see how PR handles this. Be aware that quite a few supporters are holding their cash and hard work until we see a strong stance against the sort of Bullying MP exhibited. As as side note... you do realize he still owns, publicly displays himself as owner of, and is posting on this page: www.facebook.com/pages/National-General-Assembly/285789851463510Right? Seriously... You expect us to believe he's "gone?" I'm not just randomly hating here... Seriously. He's still running at least one easily found information distribution channel. He has posted HEAVILY on that channel, AFTER "resigning." That leads me to believe he deceived you about his intention to "leave quietly." Now it is time to expunge him. I'm sure he will show his true colors when instructed to relinquish the ability to pretend to speak for 99%Declaration. He'll probably threaten to "sue your fu*ki*g a*s to oblivion." Wouldn't be the first time.
|
|
|
Post by cowtownmark on Feb 7, 2012 12:42:40 GMT -5
The accounts have been audited and all monies accounted for. New accounts are being established and fund balances transferred appropriately. Matching fund was received yesterday and is included in the reconciliation. As process is ongoing I would assume it will be in next week's meeting minutes.
There is no way for a board to move on other than new members being approved by existing members. Sort of the nature of a corporation or organization, and this remains a 501C4 nont-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York.
The donor has been and remains an active contributing volunteer, but is not and has never been a member of the Board.
It is time to let the past be the past, amigo. We have much work to do - hope you'll be back with us soon.
|
|
|
Post by amadeus on Feb 7, 2012 12:54:39 GMT -5
Whew, Sandy! You are one fired up individual, lol. What committees are you serving on to further the cause of the petition?
|
|
|
Post by nanettejw on Feb 7, 2012 13:18:08 GMT -5
sandymiracle - If I may many new developments have occurred just this week (2/6) To address some of your questions, which by the way are good questions...
1. There was a third party, professional that did an audit of the corporate documents to which were found in compliance with the laws of the State of New York to which the corporation was founded. There were recommendations to certain tax filings that need to be performed upon completion of the fiscal term.
2. While in compliance with state laws as a corporation - the original organization did NOT set up any governing bylaws, Conflict of Interest Policy, policies/procedures etc. Which is where a lot of people that asked questions, like yourself, found issues with the answers or lack there of.
3. There was no formal financial accounting being done other then through paypal and a checking account. It was pretty much run on the fly. When many good, professional people offered to help (within the past 3 months) they were dismissed.
There is now a CPA that is taking over the financial accountability - establishing checks/balances, etc. This person is Lisa Longo and she is very open to answering questions - however, it may take her a few days to get her arms around the finances as they stand and to get the books established.
4. There are 2 ways to select board members which depend on how the corporation bylaws are established (usually by the founder(s) which did not happen) - 1. Is by existing board members nominating and electing new board members 2. If the bylaws call for open/membership votes. Again there were no bylaws established in the beginning and I believe this issue is now being addressed and bylaws are being written as we speak.
5. The matching donation was made. The matching donor is not a member of the board. However, since it is typically the responsibility of a board of directors to help facilitate the financial viability of an organization it is not uncommon for board members to donate substantial amounts of money to the organization to which they sit on a board.
It is important to note that the "donor" everyone speaks too was merely the representation of a foundation that actually donated the funds - which given this is not a NON-PROFIT organization was pretty amazing - as there are NO tax deductions for this donation. As for knowing the donor's name again - it was a donation made by a foundation which made the donation anonymously - the person that has represented this donation has spoken on other posts.
Beyond these answers, which I hope help, It has only been a few days and it will take probably a week or so for the dust to settle. I would ask everyone to be patient - I am confident the new board will answer everyone's questions in a statement that is being prepared.
Kindly, nanette carter
|
|
|
Post by nanettejw on Feb 7, 2012 13:21:42 GMT -5
Forgot to mention that the 'old' Facebook page has been removed - it is my understanding that Facebook removed it because it was a 'corporation' presenting its self as a person - which is against FB policy - but I have nothing to confirm this. I do know they (FB) addressed my concerns about copyright infringement.... There is a new community FB page where you can have your answers respectfully address as many of the board members are the admins... www.facebook.com/pages/The-99-Declaration/335809589775158
|
|