Governance False Allegations

Recently I received an email from a long-term governance member in reply to my Blog “The Latest Governance Scam at Eastman” that contained false allegations and insinuations.  On November 13 I wrote a reply to the author. As of now I have not received the courtesy of a reply. We seriously doubt that the individual who wrote this, is the sole party in governance responsible for these malicious and wrongful accusations. No democracy ought to tolerate governance members accusing its citizens wrongfully of actions or words. That is a violation of one's civil and human rights. We have the right to state our political position as it pertains to Eastman governance. We have the right to advocate for change in governance model and we will continue to do so.

I have posted the email in italics and my reply below.

"it slowly became infiltrated by governance members." That reeks of conspiracy. What is *your* evidence that it is some secret cabal of governance members seeking to "take over" this group?

My "evidence" of infiltration of governance members --I never said secret cabal (your words),  my reference to secret in the blog post is regarding Larry's statements. When the Facebook group changed its name to the same as the "petition" group, I felt the two groups "merged". Let's be honest here--that group (the Petition Group) is run by governance members who have by their failure to bring forth any meaningful governance change proposals to the Council not demonstrated a proactive approach to change the existing governance structure including equal representation and direct vote. I advocate that equal members should have an equal vote; as did you at one time.

I have said before, the only way to change our governance is from within - that means being a part of governance, not part of some "secret" group prone to sending inflammatory anonymous threats to the ECA on a regular basis. How are we to reform governance without participating in it??? You accuse this group of being "secret" and not naming names - well, I publicly was one of the four who signed the original letter launching the successful petition.

FALSE-- Neither I nor Bob have ever sent an anonymous anything to ECA or anyone else. I don't know who is telling you this or if you created this malicious statement, but it is completely false and borders on slander. If you have positive proof, then produce it--otherwise stop spreading malicious rumors for which you have no basis. I am not in the business of spreading rumors--only facts, which I can back up.   

Have you been as forthright?

We sponsored  previous Petitions, including one for Direct Vote along with Bob McCarthy, Greg North and others.

Regarding communicating with the press, that is your right - but as a group, it is foolhardy, nay, just plain stupid communications to invite the news media to an event without having discussed a plan for what message is hoped to be communicated - nevermind poisonous to building relationships with people you are hoping will support your cause.

You claimed I was involved with inviting the news media to your event--FALSE. I had nothing to do with it.  However a public meeting in a public place is a public meeting--what are you trying to hide? Who benefits when you control information? Ask Daniel Ellsburg how well governance secrecy works for a constituency. See 8/3/14 Post

Geri, you have lost touch with the people you allegedly are championing, and you have lost me. I beg you to stop and thing about what you we doing, and consider stopping. You are causing more damage than you know, and playing right into the hands of those who oppose what you say you support. Please stop!!!

I know I've lost you and it is too bad. If people can tolerate differences they can leverage their points of agreement. Every Eastman reform effort since 2002 has failed because of intolerance and inability to accept political differences. If you want to blame us for our political point of view then you've got your scapegoat.  You have talent. I don't think you know what you are up against and as it pertains to me you have consistently demonstrated you are not open to other points of view other than your own. (You could say that about me, but I will listen, I will communicate or I wouldn't bother writing).  In the vast majority of cases I/we have made an effort to communicate directly with those who disagree with our point of view.

We tried your current approach to fix the governance for more than 10 years so we know what you are up against. You say your petition was successful--how do you measure success? By the number of signatures to an explicitly worded petition signed by parties that you and we encouraged people to sign, or by getting that explicit wording in the referendum sent back to the petitioners and owners to vote on?  We still got the $4.5 M building that nobody can justify the need for, or feels they need to have justified (for that matter) unless one of the community's core purposes is to have a high end restaurant and subsidize its owner.

Your group dropped the ball on Question #6--if anyone should have known what that question was going to do, it was Larry and Paul Hoffman. They did nothing--why? Now you have all these people that thought they voted against the building but are getting it anyway and now they are pissed. You are trying to round them up again but people have a short attention span. This is how it goes. Getting critical mass is nearly impossible--people would rather move even if they give up $100K or the entire house. People are fleeing Eastman and you want to play the blame game and point the finger at people who didn't make the decisions that got us here.

You claim you are going to cause governance change by working within. Hopefully you will be more successful than the last governance committee's proposal for equal districts. 

I am surprised and disappointed that people would fabricate false allegations like this. Are we to understand that the current Eastman governance idea of member respect includes maligning any citizens who disagree with the governance approach and decisions? Why do we tolerate the actions of this governance?