I’ve had four hysterical (as in laughter) calls from fellow residents relating your Board’s most recent attempts at following policy. The stories go like this: They interviewed Wijthoff at the office. Candidate John Walton was in a pool swimming with his grandchildren and wouldn’t leave it. So your Nominating Committee went to the pool side to interview him. Like Roosevelt, they tried to bring things into the home and family. Some how it doesn’t have the same impact. Now, no one knows whether your Nominating Committee even attempted to schedule a meeting in advance with him, or just called him after Wijthoff’s interview. Rumor is they interviewed Anderson at his business. DeMarchi is on vacation. Did they drive there? If you heard haunting, hysterical laughter, it was probably Roosevelt.
Your Board voted to approve the new policy manual, including the requirements for the Nominating Committee. Interviewing the Board candidates is required in the new policy. Secretary DeMarchi had reported that there weren’t significant changes in the Policy Manual. There were significant changes to the duties of the Nominating Committee. As I reviewed the old policy versus the new, I, too felt some changes were necessary.
Below, you’ll have the opportunity to review the old policy. HERE IT IS:
It was used during a different time in Wedgefield. When I moved here in 2004 potential candidates were identified and contacted by the Nominating Committee. Often, when they called a resident, they were told that the resident wasn’t interested. Some years, if there were three seats to be filled, they were fortunate to find three or four residents to run for Board. The election process, starting with the work of the Nominating Committee was changing.
The majority Board group (later calling themselves Concerned Citizens) of 2004 through 2008, were subject to recall, without regard to policy or by-law - straw voted fellow board members off the Board, and filled slots with their own. If you attended meetings regularly, the President changed several times in one year because of fighting amongst the Board. I was personally told by one of the Board members that the President changed three times in a one month period. One of the major changes was the the THOUGHT there might be canal dredging. The permit process went on for years and was nearing positive outcome. Sides begin to form and each side wanted representation. I believe by 2008, that residents who wanted to run for Board, simply submitted their resumes and "good standing" was verified.
I understand revamping the policy. It was needed. HERE IS THE NEW POLICY:
I don’t understand the interview. What is the purpose? Were all candidates scheduled in advance, asked the same questions and rated? If they were, and I doubt it, what were they going to do with the information if the candidate was in “good standing”?
As a resident, during this process in 2009, I questioned whether individuals who were currently suing the Board should be allowed to run for office. My major concern was the potential chaos at the Board table - Board member suing Board member. I was told that our attorney said we could not discriminate against any resident in good standing.
If you were going to modernize the policy, why the interview? All that they have created is a circus.
