Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Why hasn't the minutes of the March board meeting been posted?


pappabee

Recommended Posts

The March board meeting was held on March 6th. According to the website: The minutes are revised and submitted to the board at the subsequent month's meeting for approval. Within a few days of that, the minutes are posted to the LCS website.

That means that the minutes should have been posted no later than March 11th. What happened to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, speaking of involved, Senor Google will take you directly to the LCS site. Just type it in your search function. The audit committee report on the Gillespie fund was there. It even showed how fast and loose the Powers That Be thought they were entitled to use the money; building fund included.

It's also interesting that it took you directly to the January and February minutes. I agree: where's March?

Why would anyone suggest anyone going to the LCS "persons directly involved" for information unless they enjoy having the result of doing so as part of their day? We older adults are experienced with how that sort of thing is likely to go.. Let's be real. The minutes will probably show up.........eventually. And the beat goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, speaking of involved, Senor Google will take you directly to the LCS site. Just type it in your search function. The audit committee report on the Gillespie fund was there. It even showed how fast and loose the Powers That Be thought they were entitled to use the money; building fund included.

It's also interesting that it took you directly to the January and February minutes. I agree: where's March?

Why would anyone suggest anyone going to the LCS "persons directly involved" for information unless they enjoy having the result of doing so as part of their day? We older adults are experienced with how that sort of thing is likely to go.. Let's be real. The minutes will probably show up.........eventually. And the beat goes on.

Read the OP. The minutes of the March meeting aren't posted because they are first accepted at the SUBSEQUENT meeting, which is April, which hasn't occurred yet. Because of this, the posting of the officially accepted minutes occurs a little more than a month after the meeting that they are for.

As for the rest of the complaint, I have the same solution for you. Get elected and then you can be a Power That Be. Or just start going to the Board meetings and see what is going on first hand rather than getting second hand information from people who may have an agenda against LCS. They are held right across the street from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are correct, I jumpted the gun. FYI I did attempt to contact LCS but I got the same response that I've had in the past. I was ignored.

one of the changes that needs to be done is that the minutes need to be posted much sooner than the next month. they can be draft minutes until they are approved but why should members have to wait over a month to see what their board has done? since the board will not publish the agenda nor the actual date of the next meeting it seems that the "transparency" that has been spoken of reallly doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was quite simple: I object to the way the LCS has handled the library donation. That doesn't mean I have any desire to go beyond a dues paying member's right to give my opinion. The last thing I want to add to my already full plate is involvement with the LCS BOD and their meetings.

As I said in my post, the March minutes will appear eventually. I was unaware that it took over month to get them approved before they are published.

The Gillespie fund report already is posted, and frankly, I'm appalled at the way LCS has handled this generous donation, intended for improvement in the English Library, and I will continue to be until I see some kind of positive action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've seen one side of the Gilespie issue. I suggest you wait for the rebuttal.

I am waiting. However, since you've given us so much information, as have others, perhaps we could have a "preview" of what possible reasons there may be for treating this donation as they have....since 2009. I'm not particularly interested in the shifting of the interest back and forth, since there could be some rationalizations for that which could, with a little sugar on it, pass the logic test.

What I and others would like to know is..........why it's been sitting in a bank instead of being put to use to improve the library functions for the members; like getting more and better books in English, as a start.

My suspicious mind has, from the beginning of this kerfuffle, been wondering if this fund has been intended to slide into the general fund somewhere along the way and be used for other purposes.

Statements have been made and recorded that that is exactly what was intended by some. Senor Google has shared those statements, so there's no question about that.

I am eagerly awaiting "the rest of the story".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone, please understand that it's not just the interest that concerned the AAC it's how the board handled the entire thing and the fact that the AAC was not allowed to contact the board face-to-face.

The big concern happeded when the board took a donation with restrictions and accepted it in 2009. Then in 2013 they decided to change the fact that they had accepted the restrictions. Therefore changing the rules under which they truly accepted the donation. They gave a whole bunch of reasons and excuses, none of which were really valid.

By changing how the donation was accepted they opened the door for all those who were thinking about making a donation to question how that donation would be handled by the LCS board. The board then passed a policy (without a procedure to implement it) on how to handle donations. This sounds great but if the board can change how it accepted the 2009 donation it can change how it handles ALL donations in the future.

The other concern was when the President stated in an open meeting that LCS already had 10% of the 1.5 million building fund. At that point if you looked at the financial statement for the month you would see that the only way to reach that 10% was to include ALL the restricted funds, including the 2009 fund. Also a statement from someone on the Library Committee was that they were told not to spend much of the 2009 donation because it was being held for the building fund.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The board can do what they did legally since the original lump sump bequest was turned into an endowment fund by the 2009 board, not the bequestor. No amount of rewriting history is going to change that fact.

Your recourse is to get your point of view elected to the board and change direction. Your other recourse is to call a special meeting of the membership and get them to over rule the board. At the regular AGM you had zero support so good luck with that one.

Constantly posting your one-sided interpretation on a public message board accomplishes nothing. If you aren't willing to do the heavy lifting required here, maybe you should direct your energies in a direction where you can accomplish something other than beating a dead horse to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am waiting. However, since you've given us so much information, as have others, perhaps we could have a "preview" of what possible reasons there may be for treating this donation as they have....since 2009. I'm not particularly interested in the shifting of the interest back and forth, since there could be some rationalizations for that which could, with a little sugar on it, pass the logic test.

What I and others would like to know is..........why it's been sitting in a bank instead of being put to use to improve the library functions for the members; like getting more and better books in English, as a start.

My suspicious mind has, from the beginning of this kerfuffle, been wondering if this fund has been intended to slide into the general fund somewhere along the way and be used for other purposes.

Statements have been made and recorded that that is exactly what was intended by some. Senor Google has shared those statements, so there's no question about that.

I am eagerly awaiting "the rest of the story".

No, I'm not offering any previews because I don't have any and it is not my place to do so. You can submit a request to address the board at its April meeting and raise your questions there. Just write a simple one paragraph request, sign it and take it across the street. You will be heard.

You are not going to get your answers here. You may get a belly full of half truths and allegations from a couple of people who have an agenda but you won't get the story anywhere but the duly elected Board and officers. That may or may not satisfy you but that is where you need to go with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The board can do what they did legally since the original lump sump bequest was turned into an endowment fund by the 2009 board, not the bequestor. No amount of rewriting history is going to change that fact.

Your recourse is to get your point of view elected to the board and change direction. Your other recourse is to call a special meeting of the membership and get them to over rule the board. At the regular AGM you had zero support so good luck with that one.

Constantly posting your one-sided interpretation on a public message board accomplishes nothing. If you aren't willing to do the heavy lifting required here, maybe you should direct your energies in a direction where you can accomplish something other than beating a dead horse to death.

Please show me where the 2009 board turned the donation into an endowment. That word doesn't show on ANY of the notes or minutes of that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that any complaints against the LCS Board are against previous Boards, not the current one, as it has new membership/president. The way to change Board policy is to go before the Board and convince them that they need to change their policy. If that fails. then get people elected who agree with you and it will get changed.There is always a way for the majority to get what they want, sometimes the minority can convince the majority to change things (not always). That's the way life is. Openly complaining serves no purpose for positive change. Answers to all of your questions can be found at a Board meeting, when you get on the agenda to ask. Warning: you may not like the answer you get, but if you proceed correctly, you will get one. So do things right and you will not need to ask here, or complain here. Problems are created by people who resist following procedures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please show me where the 2009 board turned the donation into an endowment. That word doesn't show on ANY of the notes or minutes of that time.

just to make sure that MC sees this request

By setting it up as an investment fund, and using the interest, as opposed to simply spending the money, the Board in effect made it operate like an endowment as opposed to a lump sum grant. They didn't call it that but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Feel free to call it whatever you like, it is still a creation of the 2009 Board, not the donor.

They could have just as easily elected to spend it all at once.

The duck that one Board creates can be modified or undone by another unless the rules of governance of either the organization or outside law prohibit it. If you have knowledge of either in this case, please share it with us. There is nothing in the LCS Constitution, past or present, which prohibits this sort of change in the actions of a previous Board. I can't speak to Mexican law but I am told by those who have some knowledge of it that it is very loose in matters of this sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these wonderful suggestions. It is so kind of all you folks to tell us how to fix everything. How about volunteering to do some of these suggestions? OH yea I forgot most of you are here to complain about LCS. Wow what a sad purpose for life. Folks the election is over and the AAC does not exist anymore. Contrary to what is being said other legal opinions exist other than the AAC opinion and the board has followed other legal opinions. Accounting/Law and Taxes all have many different opinions from various folks. I have sat with two Technical auditors and had them argue in front of me about rules and guidelines and completely disagree with each other. We elect people to lead and just had an election so let em lead. Still want to talk to them by all means do so. They listen.

I do not represent LCS in any way form or manner just a volunteer who wants to go forward!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to watch, strictly as an observer, whether any of that money gets spent on improving library services, in my lifetime. My question is simple: why hasn't the Gilespie gift to LCS ("endowment"/ "bequest") been spent as intended by the giver.......on improving English library facilities for the benefit of the members?

If someone else wants to "go before the board" with that question".......they can feel free. I know better. The new board that was elected is, essentially, the old board if one noticed the slate of candidates. You could accurately say the choices were very limited.

Now, I understand very well why more people aren't volunteering to run for the BOD. I belong to a much smaller organization and a very few people do most of the work. Hardly anyone wants to be on the BOD, since that entails even more actual work. I should know, as a BOD member who does plenty of the work. Yet, members complain as well as ask questions. Human nature. There is an essential difference, however, between "complaining" and asking legitimate questions.

I'm not complaining, but I am asking a question. Nowhere in all this back and forth between the former oversight committee members and the board or its supporters, has anyone answered that simple question in plain English. (See above). In other words, there is as much transparency on that issue as a brick wall. Why?

Suggesting that somehow, one would learn those answers by volunteering or "going before the BOD" is beside the point. By this time, if there was an answer from someone in the know, it would have been stated in plain English. Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By setting it up as an investment fund, and using the interest, as opposed to simply spending the money, the Board in effect made it operate like an endowment as opposed to a lump sum grant. They didn't call it that but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Feel free to call it whatever you like, it is still a creation of the 2009 Board, not the donor.

They could have just as easily elected to spend it all at once.

The duck that one Board creates can be modified or undone by another unless the rules of governance of either the organization or outside law prohibit it. If you have knowledge of either in this case, please share it with us. There is nothing in the LCS Constitution, past or present, which prohibits this sort of change in the actions of a previous Board. I can't speak to Mexican law but I am told by those who have some knowledge of it that it is very loose in matters of this sort.

I love how you back off the answer. In other words you're just parroting what someone else said and you have no idea how correct it is. Yet your comment was made as a statement. You and Howard have the same speech writer. You both make comments as if they were statements of fact and when you're called on it you either back off, ignore or bail.

The AAC asked for a copy of the actual beneficiary page of the insurance policy and Howard said that the board didn't have it and if they felt it was needed, they'd get it.

This is the idea of the board that was (other than a few) re-elected for another year. I only hope that Ben is strong enough to make the board members do their jobs and that he can control the ED (who runs the society as he sees fit).

I'm through========MC continues to make damming charges (Constantly posting your one-sided interpretation on a public message board accomplishes nothing.) And when called on his "one sided" junk he just strikes back with more junk.

Oh BTW, the reason for posting on public boards is because there is no way to post to on the LCS board. The AAC tried to have a communication with the board and was told by Howard that we were "out of order". Both the AAC and some board members worked very hard to draft a "fast track" process were the AAC could notify the board of a serious concern without going through the President (where many things were filtered). When that Fast Track was put before the board Howard got up and basically stated that if it were passed he would quite. His own suggestion, set up by three of his own board members, why? Because it removed his ability to filter what was sent to the board.

As I have said before. The LCS membership has chosen what it wants and it will get exactly what it deserves. I only hope that it can survive the experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well now the March minutes have been posted (just as they should be and within the expected time frame--my compliments to the new Secty) But there is a problem (why should this be any different that before). The attachments to the minutes can not be opened as they were in the past. We are now asked to change our premissions in order to read them. This is not acceptable. Someone is putting another level of something on reading the minutes. We never had to have special permissions to read the attachments before. So why now. I have emailed the Secty and asked for this to be changed. Let's see what response we get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had no problem clicking on and opening the attachments. It works like always. There was no request for special "permissions."

Perhaps you need to check your computer settings.

Also glad that you now understand the schedule for approval of Board minutes and their posting, which has been the same schedule for quite some time, even before the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so you know, a lot of the problem is based on the fact that the current attchments are on Google Drive and not directly on the web site. That is a change from how they used to be posted. Now we have to follow a link to get to the attachments rather than opening them directly on the web site. For those of us who want extra protection as we surf the web we might use the “trust” setting on our PDF viewer. i use Firefox and Foxit and therefor have to adjust my Trust settings. Once done it does work fine. My real concern was if you change something, you need to advise the rest of us what might happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...