Sitting at the board table, I never heard a single person. So if you did say something it was not loud enough for us to hear it.
I’m happy acceding the technical point on what constitutes a unanimous vote or decision, although not recognizing the abstention for what it was is a bit disingenuous. But to pretend that there was unanimity on this topic in that meeting is certainly a misrepresentation.
I don’t remember those 10 seconds explicitly, but I do remember concluding relatively early on in the discussion that whatever decision the board was going to make had already been made, and so didn’t really see much of a point in making much further vocal comment.
I’ll note that several comments and points that were made during the meeting did not make it into the minutes – I understand why – but that’s a good argument for making at least a voice, if not video, recording of such future proceedings.
3 Likes
And are these not the people who would most likely be affected by Walter’s posts on Talk? Since the poll is anonymous, there is no reason for those in favor of his ban not to speak up, so it should pretty accurately reflect the ones who want the ban continued. Even in the face of this, 3/4 still say “bring him back”.
Those people either had an axe to grind, or didn’t know that Walter was the subject of the complaint. Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
(edit: This post has been redacted. The final quote and response was a personal insult, which was unnecessary and shouldn’t have been typed in the first place. My apologies to slinkygn for the outburst. See the edit log for details.)
1 Like
Posted on Walter’s behalf:
Alex Rhodes wrote:
Again Walter will present alternative facts and will hide behind
hearsay. In that meeting I said that I wish more people used flags as
my guess is that it’s mainly Brandon, Brooks myself and a few others
that did most of the flagging. I never mentioned my wife. It was in
relation to all of talk not just you.
Mellisa Rhodes wrote:
And I guess Walter did say that he heard from “witnesses” but that’s
his M.O.-
Since the minutes failed to record your statement, I only had the
statement of witness,
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/discourse-flag-counts/19506/11
There were others, despite Mrs. Rhodes assertion. People frequently
share such things with me, but ask that I not name them, since they are
afraid the board (at least a few of its current members) will choose to
find some excuse to punish them. Something that some board members have
shown a pattern of doing.
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/got-banned-getting-banned-trying-to-get-banned-with-your-help-change-is-coming/8648/16
Also, I have been waiting for nearly a month for the data that would
directly address this particular issue. A month where the board has
FAILED to properly respond to a legal request for the data. And before
YOU misrepresent that request, the only NAMED flaggers I requested were
those on the board (or accounts linked to theirs). The latter naming is
needed to address yet more possible violations of conflict by law…
You ask what rule you’re breaking, I will say
https://dallasmakerspace.org
/wiki/Rules_and_Policies#Code_of_Conduct12 specifically number 4.
Frankly, I am amazed that you can write that with a straight face. If
you ignore all of the allegations (for which no complaints were filed
and therefore I had no opportunity to defend myself) as YOU SHOULD HAVE,
and restrict yourself to the actual text of the PM for which I was
banned from Talk you have to be kidding if you think that rises to a
justification for my banning from Talk. If it does a few on the current
board should have been banned from Talk quite a while ago, as well as
MANY other posters on Talk… So lets drop the pretense that your acted
properly on this. This is particularly when you essentially ignored the
threat of phsyical violence I received from the gentleman who complained
about me…
Mellisa Rhodes wrote:
… like how he heard that a board member had inappropriate romantic
contact with a vendor.
Well, its funny you would choose that particular tidbit. The FACTS are
that a member, Allen, told me that Robert bragged about his Tinder
‘date’ and how it led to the current Cintas contract. I raised the
issue as a conflict, without naming Robert. It was Robert himself who
responded that Yes, he met the Cintas saleswomen through the Tinder
dating site, but that it wasn’t a conflict. I then went on to document
that conflict. One of several such conflicts. Here is the thread which
PROVES my assertions concerning that failure to follow our conflict by
laws…
The enforcement of our conflict by laws is vital to the space. They
exist to prevent real and significant issues. The FACT is that prior to
my raising this issue, prior boards rarely had any board member recuse
themself for conflict. The current board had more such recussals in
their first 3-4 months then ALL board in DMS history… I commend you
Alex, since MOST of the prior board recusals were yours.
As to the other items in your list, yes, there were members (including
current board members) who told me exactly what I wrote. And there were
witnesses for those statement beyond me. The difference is that I am
willing to publically call out our board when they do such things in a
manner that isn’t transparent… Someone needs to.
Surprisingly, if I was continually spreading the lies you’ll claim, one
of you would have been able to successfully prosecute a formal
complaint against me about it… Or even more significantly a libel
suit… The fact is that things such as Roberts Tinder relationship
with the CIntas saleswomen were common knowledge long before I became a
member. BUT no one bothered to risk the ire of board members to raise
the concerns and get them dealt with, so that we actually followed our
by laws. If there is a rumour of misconduct by a board member, it
should be dealt with openly and without rancor. If its false, then it
gets dismissed and we move on. BUT the same is true if it is true. It
needs to be dealt with…
And yet the witness right below it in that thread, @merissa is dismissed?
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/discourse-flag-counts/19506/12?u=mellissarhodes
Yes please do call out board members, committee chairs, or other members when you see something is wrong. The problem is, you state things as fact, you put all of your trust in second hand accounts and spread gossip in a way I think is damaging.
After I posted that list of gossip spread I thought of another. A smaller scale but just as inflammatory. When you asserted that the Lemons car was stored at Brandon and Merrisa’s house and was basically a personal project that we(the makerspace) were funding for Brandon.
Your gossip spreading is especially a problem for us because we as an organization don’t have the best memory–we have members here that don’t see the pattern because they’re new or they’re not on Talk regularly and they’ll assume you’re telling the truth.
4 Likes
Walter again you are basing your information of third party accounts which are not true you act like this was some conspiracy. Correct me if I am wrong but we are talking about 2014 now? I don’t even believe you were a member at the time. It was no secret that I met a Cintas fire rep on tinder and asked if she could get me a quote on fire extinguishers as at the time it was need because we had just moved in and only got the bare minimum to get us through the CO. I then shared the quote with the board of directors at the time and it was a decent deal to get us fire extinguishers and it was unanimously passed at that BOD meeting.
I would like some clarification on this point: Is the Lemons car a personal project of Brandon, or is it owned by DMS and administered by the Automotive group?
2 Likes
It is absolutely a DMS project.
1 Like
This is citing a situation that you caused as evidence that it was justified. Attacking a particular director about their personal dealings inherently causes them to need to recuse themselves.
You’re using the situation you caused as evidence for your cause!
4 Likes
The world isn’t out to get you Walter. But people do not like arsonists. Pick a battle. ONE.
Tilting at every windmill is not a battle, and it’s not noble.
4 Likes
Wait, so what happens if someone makes baseless accusations (i.e. character assassination) of all the board members, does that mean they can’t be removed from the organization? Since all the board members would have a conflict of interest.
4 Likes
Walter believes that he can prove them to be true. Is there harm in sitting down and putting the (provable) facts on the table to settle this, once and for all?
2 Likes
I’m not talking about Walter’s accusations, I’m talking about his logic for conflict of interest. He believes people that have been the target of abuse by a member, shouldn’t be allowed to vote on the discipline of that member. So logically, what happens if a member attacked all 5 board members, there’s no one left to vote!
Unrelated, but all the board of directors, committee chairs, any officers and all of the members are giant nerds! Now I’m off to break a bunch of rules, since literally everyone has a conflict of interest and can’t vote on anything concerning me.
5 Likes
all the board of directors, committee chairs, any officers and all of the members are giant nerds!
And here I thought I was doing good losing weight…
2 Likes
Me too, I have lost 75+ pounds while I have been on the board.
4 Likes
75 lbs?! That’s awesome!
Boards should practice delegation in these cases. Decisions can be made by others without creating an appearance of a conflict of interest. Hiring a 3rd party mediator to make a decision that is binding is a good example practiced by many other boards. They often have the mediation fee charged to whoever loses.
1 Like
On 04/10/17 12:51, Walter Anderson wrote:
Andrew,
A board member who is involved in the actions surrounding the formal
complaint is of course one with a conflict of interest. This is why I
have always posted that the board should not involve itself in
‘mediation’ for those conflicts.As an example. The first board meeting I attended there was a formal
complaint between Stan and Ralph. During the hearing for that
complaint, Alex served a ‘defendent’ (he involved himself in the actual
conflict, a witness, and also as a judge. None of the other board
members appears to see any conflict in him serving those multiple roles.
I can assure you that a court almost certainly would have. That was my
first exposure to the boards flouting of our conflict by laws (which I
hadn’t even read at that point). Further reading of the minutes and
observation of future meetings revealed more.Most of those conflicts were minor, but the real point is that they
weren’t even acknowledged. And in at least one case @Lampy wasn’t even
aware of the potential conflict, when it came to the FACT that Robert
used to work for the accounting firm we have used for a few years.
Until I brought that fact to the attention of the members and the board,
Robert had not recused himself from votes on the hiring of that firm.A more recent example is that Candidate Robert was allowed to be the
primary contact with our selected company for administering the online
vote. After I raised a concern, apparently that was changed to Ken (who
is not running)… All of this is documented on Talk (Simply Voting
Thread)… But the FACT is that the board should have handled this
themselves.Conflict is not a major problem if it is handled properly. Indeed the
Board can act to allow one of its members to vote on a potential
conflict situation IF they KNOW about it and vote (on the record) to
allow it. But ignoring it is not the proper way to deal with it.Walter
Edit to unhide, as this is on-topic.
2 Likes
Response from Walter:
Mel wrote:
And yet the witness right below it in that thread, @merissa is
dismissed?
Not in the least, hence why I requested the DATA to determine the FACTS
over a month ago… And I am still awaiting on even the most basic
response of whether the board intend to to provide that data… Barring
actual data, witness testimony does nothing more than provide a reason
to request that data…
Mel wrote:
The problem is, you state things as fact, you put all of your trust
in second hand accounts and spread gossip in a way I think is
damaging.
As you should be aware these ‘second hand accounts’ and ‘gossip’ have
been around for long before I was a member. That is damaging. Bringing
them out into the open and therefore having them determined to be
factual or not does the exact opposite of damage…
Also, unlike many of the board, I have a great awareness of my personal
liability… So I think you would find, I don’t state something as a
fact (at least I try not too) if I am not aware that I can proove it…
It is certainly possible, that in the vast number of posts I have
responded to, I failed to be clear about that; however, I believe you
would find I always corrected what was fact versus opinion versus
‘gossip’ when challenged…
2 Likes
Walter since you seem to be have nothing better to do than to attack my character let’s deal in facts.
PSK was not selected by me it was selected by Paul Brown the former treasurer in 2014 and if you ask Paul he will absolutely tell you that I told him I worked there as an intern at PSK in 2009 for approx 1 year. PSK has predated @Lampy so again you are spreading misrepresentation of fact.
Walter again you have no idea what your talking about DMS does not even have a voting system all I did was create a proof of concept on a simplyvoting.com that is specifically designed around voting. If your going to make accusations at least get your facts straight.
1 Like