What I remember from that thread is a poll that was faulty in its very construction, and whose outcome was clear after the first day. But the dude that created the poll insisted it was his prerogative to keep it open as long as he deemed fit. Which is odd, because poll dude clearly understands that it was a moderator’s responsibility in the first place, i.e. “AND THAT’S UP TO THEM TO DETERMINE.”
No harassment occurred that wasn’t called for, and it was a certainly a two way street. From what I remember. And what you are calling “harassment” was simply a daily snapshot to 1) keep poll at top of queue so more people would potentially participate and 2) demonstrate that the poll results weren’t changing enough to warrant dragging it out. The fact that poll results were summarily ignored, and that you don’t care about it, more or less proves the overall point.
“Some of DMS’ members are just inherently obnoxious and difficult to deal with.” = “Some people won’t agree with me or do things the way I want so I label them as inherently obnoxious and difficult to deal with.”
Since you’re going to call out your own behavior on it, I did what I said I was going to do: leave it up for a week to make sure all the votes came in.
That wasn’t good enough for you, so you whined about it every day.
“Some of DMS’ members are just inherently obnoxious and difficult to deal with.” = “Some people get super whiny when they don’t have control.”
Trust? Like trusting official things? I’ve never thought much about trusting the board. I always supposed they were largely figure heads.
Only thing I ever trusted the board with was keeping the lights on and the door unlocked.
I don’t know where the notion came from that they had any sort of “power” or a need to arbitrate interpersonal matters.
Times were, when someone pissed you off. You acknowledged it, and got back to work on your projects. Why involve the board? Is it really so hard to deal with things? Do we lack so much self confidence that we need some big “important” people to agree with us?
This is a community workshop. Not a dogma or a nation to die for. Give me a break.
You are correct…no one should be harassed, either by the definition you cite or any other reasonable definition. I don’t see how point #8 you call out (“Continued one-on-one contact or communication after requests to cease”) would apply in this case, though, or any other part of our AHP.
But of course that’s because no harassment actually occurred; it was just claimed. Two (or more) people debating their viewpoints and opinions, and generally disagreeing on an open forum is not harassment, although it is clear some would wish it were so, as it would then entitle them to claim victim status anytime they were told they were wrong. My post implied this, but in retrospect I should have put the term in quotes when I used it to make that point clearer. Thanks for pointing this out…it was an important point/clarification.
At no point have I EVER made such an accusation. To be clear, I have consistently focused on the violation of our by laws (which cover the simple appearance of conflict) by the fact that Robert voted on the selection of a vendor whose sales person he met through the Tinder dating app. At no point have I accused Robert of wrong doing in his actual business arrangements he has made with her (or anyone else).
And to be clear Robert has admitted publicly on Talk to the basic facts. He met this women through Tinder, discovered she worked for Cintas, a company that supplied items he was seeking to purchase for DMS and made the deal. To be clear, again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this part of the issue. Where I have kept repeating, the problem is that he then failed to recuse himself during the board meeting where the purchase was authorized. Since the were more then four votes, his vote was not needed to pass, but it showed a problem with adhering to our by laws and more importantly (since our conflict by law also mirrors state law) State law.
What I found even more disturbing, and why I have repeatedly brought this issue up, is that Robert still insists that he did nothing wrong. I suspect that he is referring to the thought that he didn’t do anything illicit in selecting this particular company, but the ‘wrong’ was related to our conflict of interest–which again only requires the appearance of conflict. It is clear that he misunderstands the crux of my concern here in his own post, where he claims I am complaining about some conspiracy. Which I have attempted repeatedly to make clear I am not.
The issue is a failure to comply with our by laws
which has caused me even more concern since this was not an isolated incident. The FACT is that Robert had voted on the approval of funds to PSK, our current accounting firm, on repeated occasions. He once worked for this firm, a prior relationship that clearly represents a conflict of interest. This includes the selection of PSK to be our accountant last summer (June board meeting), where for the first time he did recuse himself from the vote. But he had a further conflict in that he acted as a primary point of contact with the firm, without informing Ken, the chair of the finance committee of his prior relationship with the firm.
Again he focuses on WHO selected this firm and ignores that the conflict was in his voting on the allocation of funds to pay them to do our taxes several times in years past.
The impropriety that Robert has committee in any of these events, as far as I even have reason to suspect, is the simple and admitted violation of the conflict of interest by law and State law (of which our by law mirrors the language). These conflict of interest laws exist for very good reasons, and unless we develop a culture to follow them religiously, some potential future board member (or other officer of the corporation) will use our laxity in following to commit much more serious violations such as stealing or embezzling our funds.
Finally, I applaud Robert’s several recusals this year, including do so for this years authorization of hiring PSK as our accountant, despite his apparent belief that he was doing nothing wrong before. We need to establish a culture of strict adherence to the law and our bylaws in order to protect DMS from potential unscrupulous persons who may be attracted to our ever growing revenue stream.
I understand the point you are making old pard, but I think it’s a distinction without a difference. Although I respect your intentions, the reality is that it was perceived as an accusation, and ultimately percption is reality in politics (as you well know).
Like you, I understand how critical it is for a Board to remain completely ethical, and to obey the law. But I also think your interpretation is overstated - a Board member need not recuse himself by virtue of a pre-existing relationship - so long as he or she discloses this relationship to the rest of the Board - who are then charged with determining whether that relationship may interfere with the reporting members vote. In this case, Robert has said he did disclose this, and to date no other Board member has refuted that statement - and therefore absent some more compelling evidence, I see nothing I would call wrong-doing. Should the Board be more transparent about these things? Yes. And that is a valid concern going forward. But its not sufficient to cast the discussion in the manner you have framed it.
On the other hand, I do think the larger issue of trust and transparency are important needs moving forward, and if the members of DMS are crazy enough to elect me, that’s going to be a point of view I ruthlessly follow, and work to implement, on a going forward basis. But I feel no purpose is served by demeaning the hard work of those who have already served. Instead, I feel it is an evolutionary improvement the 2017 Board can bring to the members.
And may I say, that its good to see you back, you argumentative old SOB. I sure missed you, and your lets-get-real point of view.
The distinction, is as you are well aware, quite important. None of us can be held responsible for another persons perceptions of what we say or write. We can only be held responsible for what we actually say.
Now to your other point, you are correct, if the remaining board are aware of the potential conflict and dismiss it, then the issue is reduced (by spreading the responsibility for any actual legal violation do to the relationship to all of the board). However, as I mentioned above Ken was NOT aware of the prior employment relationship so had no opportunity to dismiss it. Further there is no indication of such awareness in ANY of the minutes for which prior conflicts occurred. That lax attitude to the issue is what I originally raised with board members before I heard such exuberant responses that nothing was wrong with Robert’s actions.
To be clear, I am only back until next Sunday’s election. After that I will be returned to being blocked. While I appreciate the boards action to allow me to communicate with potential voters, I am very disappointed that they chose not to correct their clear abuse of authority in blocking me in the first place. As you, yourself, have pointed out the specific private messages for which they justified my block were hardly worthy of comment amid the communication of most of the posters on Talk, and were in fact an attempt to defuse a argument started by another and escalated to a threat of violence by that same person.
“A conflict of interest occurs where individuals’ obligation to further the organization’s charitable purposes is at odds with their own financial interests. For example, a conflict of interest would occur where an officer, director or trustee votes on a contract between the organization and a business that is owned by the officer, director or trustee. Conflicts of interest frequently arise when setting compensation or benefits for officers, directors or trustees. A conflict of interest policy is intended to help ensure that when actual or potential conflicts of interest arise, the organization has a process in place under which the affected individual will advise the governing body about all the relevant facts concerning the situation. A conflict of interest policy is also intended to establish procedures under which individuals who have a conflict of interest will be excused from voting on such matters.”
Pulled from the IRS site on conflict of interest.
So Walter I would ask you what is my financial interest in selecting any vendor that I have met with?
Because as far as I see it the only side I have been playing on is DMS as many people know I go out of my way and sacrifice my time and money on seeing DMS succeed. If you have even a situation where I financially benefited from something DMS did I would love to be made aware of it.
I will leave you with a quote from Theodore Roosevelt maybe you could reflect upon your actions.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
You are again ignoring the language in our by law and State law which refers to the ‘appearance of conflict’. And again, we are talking about our by laws and State Law, not IRS regulations which are much more focused on specific aspects of conflict.
The language we used in our bylaws (copied from State Law) exists because it is extremely difficult for shareholders and members to have any evidence of actual impropriety. It is intended to prevent such illegal and difficult to prove acts by making the simple appearance of such conflict as a violation, in an of itself. Once again, I have no reason to believe you have committed any other illegal act beyond failing to comply with conflict law.
Frankly, Robert, I do not understand your refusal to accept the basic and clear meaning of our by laws. When I first raised these issue, privately with board members, I expected a response of “Oh, yeh, we didn’t really pay much attention, we will fix in the future.” It was in fact your vociferous and passionate claims that you had committees no acts (that I never accused you of) that has caused me to spend as much time and money as I have on this issue.
No one expects perfection from volunteer board members, but the failure to own up to the basic mistake and state clearly you will not do so again is all I ever (and still do) expect. As soon as you do so, I will let the issue drop. Until then I believe it is vital for the organization to recognize the danger of ignoring the conflict of interest law.
Can you two stop fighting? I really hope you both get elected and forced to work together and hug it out.
I would have liked a total unblock but the room was pretty full of people against it, so once again, it’s hard for the Board to go against the most vocal members who show up. We just had a bunch of formal complaints against a committee chair who did just that.
We are not fighting. We are disagreeing over basic understanding of our rules and by laws. That is something that is healthy for the organization.
Actually, since the basic charge for which I was blocked was unfounded, they should have followed proper procedure and never blocked me based upon unsubstantiated allegations from members with personal grudges.
If simple numbers of antagonists/protagonists dictated guilt/innocence then the dozens of members who have publically and repeatedly indicated they oppose my block far outweigh the small number that were in the tiny conference room yesterday. Indeed I told multiple people who supported me and asked about attending that I believed the boards ‘special meeting’ was closed to members as they have been in the past and that no ‘additional’ testimony was needed or warranted.
I am sorry but I will not sit by and let Walter make constant attacks on my character and my integrity.
I am absolutely proud of my work at DMS. Walter disagrees and that’s fine with me but I have a right to defend myself.
So Walter I would ask you this can you provide a single situation where I acted outside of the best interest of Dallas Makerspace and I benefited personally?
I do not recall a large contingent that were opposed to Walter being unblocked.
In fact, the original motion was for a total unblocking without conditions.
Alex Rhodes was the one who required the unblocking be only until the next board meeting.
( He did abstain from voting as well. )
There was a great deal of talk also about the upcoming moderation standards. That in itself is a great idea. That this blocking has taken place without such a standard is much more problematic.
It also appears to me that the block was much more due to personal conflicts between Walter and some of the board rather than the actual message about which a complaint was filed. Had the latter actually figured in, the other party would be the one blocked.
The meeting yesterday was very informative. I have voted accordingly.
Looking at the minutes, and from my own experience, it seemed as though some people wanted the ban to be permanent and some wanted to wait until moderation was ironed out, and one person suggested three months.
Robert, Again I am NOT attacking your character or your integrity or anything any about you personally. I am focusing on our disagreement over an interpretation of conflict of interest law. Further, I am doing this knowing that most members don’t care about this issue and it is harming my chances of being elected to the board.
As you should be. You have done many wonderful things for DMS, including most recently finding SimplyVoting to provide us an unimpeachable online voting method. But frankly, obtaining the fire extinguishers and other safety equipment from Cintas was a great thing as well. The only issue I have with it was your refusal to understand that all you needed to do was not be one of the board members who voted to approve the contract.
Yes, your refusal to understand the importance of our conflict laws places DMS at risk of some future unscrupulous board member attracted by our growing revenue stream. And to be clear, I do not think you are such a person, I just think you are letting you ego refuse to accept that you made a simple and fairly minor mistake. But that refusal is making the issue a much more serious one.
People may not understand why I am so shrill on this subject, so I am going to explain. I have spent a career working for the governent at many levels as a consultant. I have witnessed government corruption many times, and recently was involved in identifying and testifying againt officials who were defrauding a state government relating to providing transit ridership as a contract with that state. Those individuals are now residents of state accomodation. One of the initial clues that led to that investigation were violations of that states conflict law that appeared quite minor.
And to state again, no I don’t believe you committed any crime (beyond not following our conflict law), but your insistence that you did nothing wrong creates and atmosphere among members where they may not understand the importance of conflict laws in actually preventing malfeasance.
Robert, you can reply or not as you chose, but this is my last post on the subject. I have made the case as clear as I can for our members and it will be up to them whether they will concern themselves with insisting that the little things get followed to prevent the big problems.
What wouldn’t you do to help DMS?
Would you leverage any connection to help DMS?
Would you take advantage of any seemingly good opportunity to help DMS?
How much of your personal life do you spend trying to arrange things to sustain and help DMS?
You are also fully employed and have been for the last few years, correct? So your personal time is limited to non-work hours?
