So you’re telling me that “in order to facilitate communication with them regarding the organization’s business” is not a proper purpose?
1 Like
Yeah, I think the person running should answer this.
1 Like
Section 8.2.2: “The request shall state the purpose for which the inspection is requested.”
I don’t think this leaves room for the board to tell people what their purposes are.
They did, in a written letter, as per the requirement in the bylaws.
The only way out of this is to say that “in order to facilitate communication with them regarding the organization’s business” is not a proper purpose.
Except the state agreed with us he was falsely using members’ names for his personal non-profits fraudulently.
It could be considered a breach of fiduciary duty to hand over those records at that time. The state requires such records requests be made in good faith, and his history shows that was likely not the case.
1 Like
Can you provide an actual legal document to back this up?
And who determines whether or not it was in good faith? Sounds to me like he just wanted to criticize the board with a communication sent to members.
1 Like
Without implied commentary on the candidate at hand:
If the determination of “valid purpose” is solely limited to taking the supplicant’s statement at face value that effectively leaves the organization with zero ability to decline a request.
1 Like
Mark refuses to speak for himself and has committed fraud before. I dont know about you, but in my opinion, having a person like this with access to all of our information seems pretty risky. But maybe you would be cool with someone signing your name up as a member of a bogus non profit without your permission? Cool cool.
Deferred can later be dismissed if all of the conditions are met like not getting in trouble for doing it again or other stuff like community service. Given the length of time this is probably what has happened.
I don’t care about the record and status with the county at this point. I care about how it has been portrayed and responded to. Rather than owning up to the actions and condemning them in retrospect it’s more like “someone else ratted me out and it wasn’t a big deal” which is unbecoming of someone vying to be a director.
8 Likes
You read what he did above right?
Page 6 part two; there are too many intertwined statutes and relevant sections for this for me to pull through right now, so this is from a bar books service. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.texasbarcle.com/Materials/Events/9378/123581_01.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiXjZz57L3oAhWDKM0KHYkLAsIQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0f2BiOjQ0ubR2MR3QGCH6h
Unless you’re a lawyer, I would advise that trying to sort it for yourself will just be a hassle. There are so many superseding cases, intertwined legal theories, and for things like this where fraud and malicious intent are involved it’s more than just the text for non-profits. You can almost never look at a statute piecemeal to get a proper opinion.
So I checked with a friend who works in the cannabis industry in Colorado, his response to the amount of oil and weed was:
That guy would have been making enough brownies for a small town
To say he’d been arrested for “making some brownies” is very disingenuous. The dollar amount was estimated by my friend at over $10k on the very low end.
3 Likes
The bylaws state that the purpose is stated in the request. If you think that needs to change, go for it. I’m not sure if it’s too late to include in your proposed changes.
In my opinion, the bylaws should continue to require the board to take the stated purpose as the actual purpose. Giving boards the ability to make decisions based on their ability to read people’s minds is not a good idea because they may not be good at reading minds. Their ability may be affected by a host of factors, some of which have to tie to reality. Obviously, if people don’t want to receive emails, they should be able to opt out. But that decision should be left to the member. Communication among members should not be stifled by the board. It should be encouraged.
2 Likes
Yes, but it doesn’t meet the definition of Books and Records provided in the bylaws. That definition includes email addresses.
1 Like
I meant for “addresses” to refer to both physical and email (since pretty much everyone has both nowadays). The email address are out there as well.
BTW, your points are well taken. Clarity and fair application are important. Lawsuits are money well spent when they make organizations, or people trying to take advantage of them, clarify unintended lapses, gaps and/or loopholes.
@ESmith’s point is also well taken…you can’t leave it up to the average ne’er-do-well to define the terms and conditions or interpetation of a law (or rule or policy or whatever).
1 Like
This is getting extremely off topic and I will make one post in response; if additional discussion is wished for, please start another topic. I have no problems with this post being relocated as such.
Bit late for that this go-round.
The Bylaws are high-level policy documents; granular processes are defined at the level of the Standing Rules and below.
I would not wish to hamstring the Board - charged with fiduciary duty (a standard that even the IRS describes as aspirational) to be hemmed in by overly strict bylaws crafted in an attempt to remove judgement from the equation when good judgement is a key characteristic of a good nonprofit Director.
One can certainly set up a new email account with relative ease and for nothing these days. However avoiding disclosure of certain other contact information that the organization maintains involves cost and inconvenience. The basis for much of this mandatory disclosure of contact information dates back centuries when mail was the sole effective means of communication and shareholders had a legitimate and compelling interest in being able to communicate with one another regarding their equity in a corporation. In the context of a membership-based nonprofit charity in the 21st century, the overwhelming majority of us are in this for all of $50-$60 a month with no equity whatsoever, no reasonable expectation of earnings, and we all communicate electronically anyway via other means.
1 Like
What % THC did he use to calculate this? And where did that number come from? I think the number should go back where it came from.
Not an actual legal document.
It’s course material. May be a good course. May not be. These questions don’t have to be asked with an actual legal document.
What exactly are you trying to accomplish? The police said they found over a kilo of marijuana plus other shit. Nobody gives a fuck what the THC content of the brownies was. Time to step away from the keyboard for a bit.