Eastman Apartheid

It is not about a building, it is not about vehicles, it is not about green grass, smooth sand traps, pretty views or Sunday afternoon Jazz Concerts. Nature provides us with beauty in tens of thousands of places on the planet. There will always be a better building, faster better vehicles, greener grass, smoother sand traps, bigger fancier bars and outstanding food experiences.

It is about human rights, it is about equality of people, it is about openness, it is about honesty, it is about transparency, it is about mutual acceptance and it is about common values. Most of all, it is about you and me; our ability to accept differences and respect differences. If Eastman is to be one community, that has to be what the new Eastman is about, however I have yet to see any capacity whatsoever to move in this direction. The scars and prejudices against certain owners are well entrenched. If a viewpoint is 180° opposite of what those in power evangelize, then that individual is verbally pummeled. That is what Eastman stands for today.

The first step to solving any problem is to acknowledge it. We have a long way to go with this first step. It’s questionable whether we even have the courage to take that step. My experience in moving groups to teams is that everything I said in the preceding paragraph needs to be created and made an on-going part of the Eastman culture.

I am sure some Eastman owners will recoil at the word Apartheid: it means "the state of being apart". In such a "state", owners are not all Equal: rights, associations, participation (direct vote) committee membership and governance actions are restricted for "some" owners. Governance actions occur against certain groups or individuals. Social and civil rights are established by the State/Eastman Governance.

·      Is denial of financial information to owners appropriate?

·      Is unsubstantiated financial data presented to the community appropriate?

·      Is collusion with public officials appropriate particularly when the target of the collusion are the owners?

·      Is secrecy appropriate ?

·      Is disproportionate representation by Special Place a governance where all owners are equal? 

·      Is review of the governance body decision by that same body (or members of that body) not a conflict of interest?

·      Is governance's member selection by committee non-discriminatory?

·      Is not allowing write-in votes non-discriminatory?

·      Is the use of Eastman owner lists by Governance members for advocacy purposes but the non-allowance of the use of that same list by non-governance owners non-discriminatory?

I could go on however Eastman is an apartheid state. How can we Reconcile?????

Submitted by Robert Logan