Why did you abstain?
It was my first board meeting and there was surprisingly little information transferred about the Havens complaint during the ten days between the election, thus despite the agenda item taking something like an hour to play out I didn’t feel like I could make a considered decision.
5 Likes
Who has access to that?
My understanding is a previous board was going to ban him but he moved away so they didn’t. Then some time later he moved back.
with the exception of mailing addresses, all member information including name, phone, email, and whether they are in the voting group are in AD
It’s readable by all members.
Given prior transgressions addresses were removed to make a for a formal request; since the space is closed we were finally able to test if anything breaks and it seems nothing has (they were left due to tribal lore muttering something breaks if it’s not there).
The 2017 Board requested guidance on the matter from their Council-of-Record who advised that the law did not permit the disclosure. Criminal statute trumps bylaws. Under Texas law, so long as the Board follows the advice of Counsel, they are exempt from suit/prosecution on the matter in question. Likewise, if a Board receives a legal opinion and does not follow the advice given, they are considered willfully negligent, and subject to enhanced penalties.
The result was the privacy policy adopted to protect the membership. I recognize, that allowing the Board to control 100% the access to communications with the membership is a problem, however, have yet to hear an option that protects members, while also allowing access to them. Sometimes, problems just don’t have good solutions.
First, considering I departed and haven’t been back, your claim that I discussed the matter with you is a bald-faced lie. I have done no such thing, nor have I discussed any matter with you in several years.
Second, I was fired for several reasons. Nominally, the Board claimed that a post I made was inappropriate (despite being liked by many members, including at least one of the Board member who voted to whack me).
The truth is, I pissed Julie off by refusing to allow her to water down the Treasurer report and whitewash the truth, and subsequently refused her edit demands. 2 of the Board members later told me they were just sick of her relentlessly demanding I be fired, and acceded. I’ll point out, that I provided three Treasurer reports to the Board, but after the first one, the Board refused to publish them to the minutes (in violation of law), and further refused my attempts to present it. All these reports were 100% prepared by our CPA firm, and signed by them. This was done to ensure no one could claim I was jiggering the truth the numbers clearly showed.
Second, I asked for and received a legal opinion on the topic of excess benefit transactions from our Tax Attorney at PureTax, and duly delivered it to the Board. Three hours later, they fired me. They have continued to pretend they never saw it, and consequently each of them are now in a very dangerous place if the IRS audits us, Which they will do at some point, whether routine audit, or windup audit in the event we don’t survive the covid effects. I had little choice in the matter, because I am in no way willing to become guilty of a Federal Felony. By delivering the opinion and providing the warning, I protected myself from future prosecution. This is something every person running for the Board needs to understand - you are legally liable to the State for your actions (or lack thereof) while serving on the Board. And they are strict where non-profits are concerned, because the 501c3 statutes are often used to perpetuate tax fraud or theft from good-hearted people. Typically a criminal act involving a non-profit gets an automatic mitigating factor when charged (meaning it bumps up to the next level felony/misdemeanor.)
It amazes me that grownups can believe that being elected to DMS means they are free to ignore the law, because it might cause a kerfluffle on Talk. But that’s what happens here, over and over. Ego trumps common sense.
With respect to the release of members private data, State law trumps the by-laws. If you want to understand the 2017 Board’s action, you’d need to review the legal opinion from our Attorney at the time. We did not release the email list, because it was a violation of law. Period.
I have nothing to say about the people running, but I’ll state my own belief, that Board members who hide DMS’ financial status from the membership, act in ways clearly endangering the long-term viability of the Space, and expose the membership to excise tax penalties, are unworthy to serve. Wrecking peoples lives to avoid looking bad on Talk, is just sad.
2 Likes
Since you were on the board then, do you have any comments on Mark with this other non profit? Do you know any details that are pertinent?
1 Like
That statement was referring to his 2014 actions when he falsely listed DMS and multiple members on his personal non-profit, which formed his prior history leading to the debacle in 2017. I never said the state was involved in 2017.
I do not, as I am not personally aware of the details beyond space gossip. It was never before the 2017 Board. We did, however, vote to reinstate him, since the only charges on record against him did not relate to the issue you reference.
Apologies, I think I grabbed the wrong quote. My mistake. I think the point still applies to this conversation however. I have corrected it.
1 Like
Except it was handled by the 2014 board when they filed with the state that the appointment was done in bad faith: https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors_Meeting_20140618 9
Note the date correction in the post you quoted. I guess being a shut-in has effected my typing somehow.
“it” here refers to what you think his “real” intent was. The bylaws state that the purpose is stated in the request. You’re not referring to the stated purpose.
The board followed our former lawyer’s instruction. That’s reasonable. I don’t think the board should go against the advice of our lawyer.
To vaguely state that I can’t understand the bylaws because I’m not a lawyer without giving any specifics as to what part is confusing or uses terms of art is fallacious.
That makes sense
Except we had evidence the stated purpose was just BS. If someone walks up and says they want to come inside your home and use the phone for a tow truck, but it’s 10 at night and has three people all holding knives covered in blood, you’re not going to take that at face value.
This would likely fall under that “ordinary care” requirement for our board members.
Criminal law supercedes bylaws; I’ve stated repeatedly there are tons of overlapping sections of law, some of which supercedes others, and court precedent on top of that. There isn’t anything to call out specifically because between CFR, texas penal code, civil procedures, and mounds of court precedents can fill a library.
I’d love to be educated about the law. And of course state law trumps the bylaws. I assume the legal opinion is in the minutes. I’ll check it out and come back.
You do realize you are putting more effort into defending marks actions than he is, right?
This seems a lot of effort to defend a point that isn’t being defended by the perpetrator of the point in question.
It would be a better use of your time if you asked mark to explain:
- how enough weed for more than 3000 joints is personal consumption.
- Why he added people to his charity without their knowledge and refused to remove them, forcing the people in question to have to file with the state for dissolution of the charity.
- Why he felt it was right to threaten legal action after the board refused to expose member data to him after the events of #2.
- Why, knowing all of the points above, he thinks his presence on the board would benefit anyone other than him?
5 Likes
Yes
extracharacters
To be honest, I don’t really trust Mark. He’s admitted that he’s been manipulative in the past. Which is a red flag for me since I think changing habits is difficult and that work can be lost easily. He talks about that kind of thing with some regret, but I’m not sure it’s genuine. And part of me wonders if he’s proud of his ability to manipulate people.
I’ve never said that, but that’s how I really feel.
4 Likes
At the same time, it’s hard for me to see fallacious arguments made, even if the people making the arguments have good intentions, which I do believe to be the case.
“Because the severity of marijuana possession penalties in North Carolina increases depending on the amount possessed, with threshold levels at 0.5 and 1.5 ounces, knowing exactly how many marijuana cigarettes equal 1 ounce can be important. An ounce (28.35 grams) typically makes about 60 marijuana cigarettes, or “joints.” But this will, of course, vary depending on the potency of the joint: an ounce could produce as many as 100 joints or as few as 30. On the other hand, a marijuana cigar, or “blunt,” often holds significantly more marijuana than a joint (usually multiple grams per blunt), so an ounce of marijuana used in blunts won’t go nearly as far – probably fewer than 30 blunts.”
I just Google “how many joints in an ounce” and this is from the first result - https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/marijuana-law/how-many-marijuana-cigarettes-can-be-made-from-one-ounce.htm