No, the real question is, if someone had brownies and didn’t tell anyone or share, why are we finding out about it now!! That’s bullshit! I friggin’ lurve brownies 
3 Likes
He still hasn’t answered part of my question. Inspection usually means that people can check to see that you are doing what you say. Not get a copy for your own use. Those things are mutually exclusive.
2 Likes
Generally speaking, the right to inspect also means the right to copy or “make extracts”.
1 Like
Okay. I think we agree on the facts, there was just miscommunication. Mark had oil that had some unknown percent of THC. Mark had 1.5 kilos of weed. Mark was originally charged with possession of oil, possession of weed, and intent to distribute. Mark claims the oil and weed were for brownies for personal consumption.
It’s simpler, easier to demonize someone who disagrees with you than to recognize that they are pursuing the truth just like you. I don’t think you’re a troll. I don’t even care if you are are troll. If you have something interesting to say that adds to the conversation, that’s what I care about. The validity of what you say. “Raffi troll” is just not interesting in this context.
2 Likes
There are several real questions. Let’s not try to simplify this topic of 84 replies to a single question.
The answer to this particular question depends on if you agree with me on what the bylaws say and how important you think it is that the board facilitate communication about the business of the organization.
It’s hard to say personal use when Google says 1.5 kilos makes 3120 joints. And that’s where I see a big issue. He’s still not being honest about what happened. How can we expect honest behavior and ethical behavior from a person who isn’t being honest right out of the gate?
Mark hasn’t addressed the discrepancy between his story and the official court records.
Mark hasn’t addressed the issue of his fake charity and identity theft that occurred at the space.
Mark hasn’t addressed why he really wanted a list of everyone’s info after he was busted adding people involuntary to his fradulent charity.
Why on Earth should anyone vote for him based on his known and admitted history?
3 Likes
Mark probably doesn’t make it into my top 5. You, Julie, and Jim pretty much have my vote. But just because a recipe you found calls for 4 oz does not mean that Mark used that much. That’s an assumption.
1 Like
I’m not advising anyone to vote for him. I want a stable, reasonable, hard-working board. I think a board with Mark would be less peaceful and that is a huge factor in my vote.
2 Likes
Yeah, exactly! So either he was making far more than 210 brownies, or he was making his brownies stronger than one of the most popular weed websites recommends.
Honestly, the fact that he isn’t bothering to really defend any of his actions is what is the most worrying. Does he really think all of his actions are ok?
There were two cases. One for the oil and intent to deliver and another for the flower.
F1533155 is the case number for the 500g of oil and intent to deliver
F1533156 is the case number for the 1.5kg of flower
Just plug those in here:
http://courtecom.dallascounty.org/publicaccess/
I recommend looking at the plea deals. Looks like he plead guilty to possession in both cases. But I think the intent to deliver was dropped as part of the plea deal.
1 Like
You’re over simplifying here. Mark has a prior history with identity theft and falsifying information on documents to the state leading up to him making the request.
This history places the burden on showing good faith / proper business purpose on the Mark, not on the BoD to accept it at face value when they have a duty to protect the organization and its members.
1 Like
There may be other applicable laws that explicitly state that, for example, the board’s fiduciary duty takes precedence over the bylaws. I’m certainly open to that idea.
The purpose is stated in the request. That’s what the bylaws state. You can argue that the purpose is not proper. You can present something that suggests that someone other than Mark would be liable if the board gave him access to the info and he used it for purposes other than the one stated in the request. I think the latter is the only reasonable way to justify the board’s decision since I think the purpose is proper.
Mark’s history only matters if it was up to the board to determine what the real purpose was.
as the members with fiduciary duty in the org, not sending information to a known scammer and identity thief would fall under that
1 Like
I think we’re going around in circles. I don’t see how anything other than a law that contradicts/overrides our bylaws or an argument for why the purpose was improper will change anything in my mind.
1 Like
I’ve already given you the argument why it was improper. He is a known identity thief, who at the time was harassing members, who last time he had information for members did exactly that: identity theft.
BoD has duty to protect the org. Identity thieves and those using information for harassment do not have legitimate business purpose for that information.
2 Likes
Why is Mark Havens still a member? Was he at least tempBanned for this?
1 Like
Behavior of Two Members - Mark Havens - Luke Olson moved to pass the motion as "Mark Havens is banned from the Maker Space for 9 months effective 4/24/2016, further infractions will warrant consideration for a lifetime ban" - Motion passed with 3 in favor, Erik Smith and Alex Rhodes abstaining - Tom Cook - Erik moved to pass the motion as "Tom Cook's ban ends immediately", seconded by Alex Rhodes - Unanimous Approval by the Board
EDIT: Apologies - had to switch machines to pull this from the archives - my notes from the meeting. I would like to preface this with the observations that this was my very first Board meeting, that my notes are shorthand, and that they represent a single point of view of the points presented and are not a transcript:
- Behavior of 2 members
- Mark Havens
- Andrew
- Don’t like being the bad guy, but thinks Mark’s actions over past few years have shown a pattern of behavior that is bad for the space warranting permanent explusion
- Threatened to sue 2 members for deformation over an argument – Haley (approx. 5 years ago)
- Tried to force allowing a dog at previous space claiming it as a service animal when it was not, knowing that members were allergic, forcing cleaning. Assented at the time because h did not want to deal with lawsuit
- In June 2014 started a nonprofit listing members as directors without their knowledge or permission. Also listed Makerspace as a registered agent, forcing the Makerspace to file paperwork contesting this action. This is not legal.
- Expulsion was threatened then, but dropped membership
- Put face of member on campaign buttons when they were not running for board
- Posted large number of posters trolling logo vote
- Admitted on forums that was trying to cause drama
- Failed to pay for posters
- Asked to agree not to troll issues, agreed, then rules-layered and went back on agreement
- Damaged member art on public display
- Mark
- Listed nonprofit w/ DMS as registered agent because did not have an address
- Claims to have received permission from other members to be directors
- Have no intentions of suing anyone
- Did file lawsuit against Haley ~5 years ago, regrets it, did not follow through
- Recall discussion with Paul Brown
- Wished to discuss this more at the time
- Talked to Max about costume, found it funny
- Can do negative things, also do positive things
- Have not made recent positive contributions
- Have some regrets, still have good intentions
- Do not intend to sue anyone regardless of outcomes of today
- Feel like acted out of self-interest in the past, want space to thrive
- Apologize for singling out Alex, did not realize how personal that Alex took it
- Maye have been projecting a thick skin onto others, have not accounted for others’ sensitivity
- Alex
- Max did not find jokes about costume funny
- Axy
- Costume has been irreparably damaged by button
- Alex is upset about the shirt
- Stan: Bringing prior bad acts out that were not acted upon is a bit odd, possibly disingenuous, feel like it if wasn’t handled 5 years ago for a present interpersonal conflict is improper
- David K: Question about trolling. Logo was a hot issue at the time. Mark put up posters, Brandon also trolled w/ stencils. Why wasn’t Brandon brought up?
- Andrew: Approached people directly, believe that Brandon stopped.
- Alex: Brandon’s actions were not directed at anyone
- Luke: Appearance of personal attacks
- Sainz: Question along the line of Stan’s question … big difference between permanent expulsion and temporary ban
- Chuck Baber: Concerned about limitations of free speech (Luke: does not apply to private associations). Also bothered past issues not being addressed, being cumulative punishment on some future infraction. Thought badge was funny, acceptable politicking. In favor of a probation, but perm banning not called for.
- Motion
- Luke: Mark Havens is banned from the Maker Space for 9 months effective 4/24/2016, further infractions will warrant consideration for a lifetime ban
- Robert: Second
- Passes 3-0, 2 abstain (Erik, Ken)
2 Likes
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