VFC BoD Mtg 8aug08
Rory Bowman
night's board meeting, which was dominated by the dispiriting nonsense
associated with the board's failure to properly publicize the special
meeting called for owners on August 27. The meeting itself has been
previously discussed at http://www.vfcbizplan.com/vfcmasterplan but
most of the meeting was taken up by board actions to terminate one
director and expel me personally as a petitioner for this meeting.
A number of owners spoke up to voice their displeasure at the way the
board has treated Anja Larson, including myself, Betty Esthelle,
Glenna Rose Bowman and Lori Loranger. From the board's description of
what happened, it sounds as if she was badgered during a conference
call to Stuart Reid of the Food Co-Op 500 and was never given an
opportunity to respond to their charges against her, which basically
amounted to complicity in the petitioner mailing about the August
special meeting.
My memory is that Rustin said we had just over $28,000 in owner equity
from 165 owners (which is two less than was previously the case, if I
heard right). I know personally of at least two owners who have
requested a full refund of their share, and I suspect there are more
to come, since this is certainly allowed under RCW 24.06.
Rustin also asserted that they have trademarked "Vancouver Food
Cooperative" and "VFC." There has been no progress whatsoever on the
business or marketing plans, and finance committee elected not to meet.
Outreach committee has their second harvest dinner planned for this
month, printed some brochures and has decided to suspend the yard sign
campaign at sixty signs, with many still in reserve.
The interesting part of the meeting was their motion to terminate me,
Rory Bowman, "for cause." As was reported on page C1 of The Columbian,
they were advised by their lawyer that I had committed computer
trespass and filed a police report to that effect. I explained that
no, they had failed in their duty to properly publicize an owner
meeting under RCW 24.06.105 and that I had exercised my legal rights
as a petitioner to do so by sending out a single mailing with data
Sharon Kulish-Bayles provided me and sending a single email address to
a California computer system owned by Google corporation from an
Oregon IP as allowed under Washington law. They conceded that they had
probably not met their obligations under law, but asserted good faith
in the attempt, claiming that my actions were still wrong and
confusing to the ownership. They voted to terminate and I opted to
appeal, even providing them with a single-page statement and offering
to print mailing labels if they would like. They said they would
review my statement for truth and slander (not appreciating that truth
is an absolute defense against slander) and perhaps get back to me.
Whatever.
Various visitors in attendance were not impressed by what they saw and
the meeting adjourned with pretty much everyone discouraged.
Glenna VFC 25
If you are willing, please post your statement to the files section
here so we are all free to read your statement rather than an edited
statement sent to owners.
Personally, I will find it interesting to see what they send to the
owners for vote as compared to what you gave to them at last evening's
meeting as well as their commentary.
The board indicated last evening they might edit your statement. The
statement as presented contains only facts and needs no edits.
An ethical board would simply forward the statement, as written, with
an announcement of an owner vote and their original announcement to
the owners with no further commentary. We shall see what they do.
They stated two conflicting things last evening: they are required by
law to mail to all owners and that they are going to do this by email.
Well, folks, we all know that email, over which they have control, is
not a trackable vote, especially considering they often say, "I didn't
get that" referring to emails sent.
Thank you.
Glenna
===========
--
---<-@ Glenna Rose @->---
I cannot change the world, but I can make my little corner better.