Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jakeburdett OP t1_je35aop wrote

Reply to comment by emleh in Former Columbia Association President Lakey Boyd EXPOSED for Questionable, Seemingly Corrupt Decisions in Office by jakeburdett

Steven Keller did not write this post, I did, he merely allowed it to be posted on his blog. Could you please point to what is inaccurate/obscured in this blog post?

I am currently the Vice Chair of a grassroots progressive organization dedicated to getting money out of politics, called Our Revolution HoCo. Until last September, I was President of the Progressive Democrats of Howard County. The only agenda I have is to support accountable and transparent local government, and to shine a light on corporate influence and money in politics. Which is exactly what was going on with Lakey Boyd

I encourage you to read with an open mind before jumping to any reactionary conclusions.

−8

blorbschploble t1_je37gvn wrote

The all caps “EXPOSED” begs to differ

13

jakeburdett OP t1_je37q54 wrote

?

−1

blorbschploble t1_je38x4q wrote

I’d like you to entertain the idea that you may be well intentioned, perhaps even 100% right, but the style and form of your writing exemplifies the lawyer adage of “when you have the facts, pounds the facts. When you have the law, pound the law, if neither, pound the table”

It’s quite unsubtle, paints people in extremes, and leans heavily on manipulating the emotions of your readers. Like just rhetorically. I am not even accusing you of doing this on purpose or meanly.

Nearly no one here particularly cares about Boyd or the CA board except for “are they doing their jobs transparently?” We already know one entity hasn’t (doesn’t matter which). You are just demonstrating the other didn’t too.

Assuming you are doing this in good faith, hire an editor. Make sure you aren’t being used to get around confidentiality rules others are held to.

Trust that if the facts are on your side, that a dispassionate accounting is sufficient.

14

jakeburdett OP t1_je39yag wrote

I appreciate the feedback. I feel strongly about the issue, hence the strong and unsubtle language. Maybe if you knew everything I knew about the situation, you’d feel just as strongly. Regardless, I encourage you to tune in to the follow up pieces to see if you think my level of outrage is justified.

None of the things I’ve posted come from any sort of confidential information, and is instead all available upon request through the MD HOA Act.

You say no one cares about Lakey or the CA Board. Perhaps you don’t, but many do care about this conflict a lot. And it’s hard to determine who’s doing a good job if the public has only been exposed to a one-sided, false and manipulated narrative

I did have a few folks read after I wrote, and suggest edits, many of which were incorporated. But let’s face it: it’s a 22 page piece, so even an editor can only do so much to change the original tone. I do appreciate the feedback, though

−3

blorbschploble t1_je3afh4 wrote

No what I mean is no one cares about them personally

Public servants are necessarily expendable. Sounds like all these people kinda suck in their public capacities. Because waves hands around

6

jakeburdett OP t1_je3az4j wrote

Sadly, a cult of personality was invented around Lakey, so some DO care about her personally!

But even for those who just cared about her professional performance, how could folks properly evaluate that without these facts? Without these facts, people had a much more positive idea of Lakey’s performance than was due, and so many viewed the CA Board pushing her out as irresponsible, rather than responsible. Many people may vote in April based on that faulty logic. That, to me, is why this story was still important to get out there

0

emleh t1_je59obc wrote

If you are coordinating with him, I don’t trust the information. What other groups did you reach out to share the information? I’d like to see who else supports this analysis.

7

jakeburdett OP t1_je5a93c wrote

Are you suggesting these documents are falsified, or the math calculations are incorrect?

2

emleh t1_je5ak0q wrote

I’m suggesting the Board has not been transparent. I also think it’s garbage that the Board used our CPRA fees to fund outside counsel to address their ethical issues.

10

jakeburdett OP t1_je5cis7 wrote

But again, the Board was legally not allowed to talk about this stuff, due to it being a personnel issue. The CA attorney works for CA STAFF, like Lakey Boyd, and so it is not uncommon for Boards to get outside legal counsel. Bottom line is Lakey likely would’ve cost the CA millions in the long run, so getting an Attorney to help put an end to the chaos was the harm reduction approach IMO

−4

emleh t1_je5crlw wrote

The Board also demonstrated they didn’t understand their roles. The point is CA is a nightmare that provides little value for the fees we pay.

4

jakeburdett OP t1_je5depi wrote

I agree CA residents should get more for their fees, which is why Lakey Boyd pissing away millions of dollars of potential revenue doesn’t help much. But I disagree with your assessment, and think it was much of the local media narrative that misunderstands the Board’s role. It is absolutely the Board’s role to provide oversight over the hired President, yet this was unfairly characterized as “Micro-management”

−4

emleh t1_je5dmo9 wrote

She resigned so who cares at this point?

4

jakeburdett OP t1_je5eh10 wrote

This point was addressed in an Author’s Note at the end of the post:

“The title of this blog may beg the question “Didn’t Lakey Boyd resign as CA President months ago? Why does any of this matter still?”

While Lakey Boyd may no longer be CA President, she is still very much active in public life in the Howard County community. Unfortunately, many of the facts and evidence presented in this blog post have not been shared widely, leaving most Howard County residents gravely misinformed about Boyd’s tenure and abrupt resignation and believing a carefully-crafted false narrative that Lakey Boyd was an innocent martyr who was unfairly pushed by the CA Board.

Additionally, the elections for CA Board and Village Boards are on April 22, 2023, and without the record being set straight on this concerning, high-visibility situation, many CA Residents may otherwise vote for candidates solely based on their stances about Lakey Boyd and the CA Board, without knowing that these stances are misguided and that some of these candidates may be beholden to special interest entities that do not have Columbia’s longterm wellbeing as a priority.

Thus, before the upcoming 2023 CA elections, this series of blog posts will inform Howard County residents of exactly what Lakey Boyd was truly doing as CA President and will vindicate the CA Board members who wrongly had to endure months of character assassination simply for trying to provide oversight of a CA President/CEO who was suspected of catering to special interests at the expense of CA residents.

Even though Ms. Boyd is no longer CA President, the very same special interests and co-opted community members, groups, and media outlets/blogs that fought hard to keep her are continuing to grasp for control of the CA for completely self-interested reasons in new ways with the upcoming election and beyond, and CA residents need to be hyper-vigilant to watch out for that.

It is this Author’s opinion that any CA candidates who have overtly and enthusiastically expressed support for The Rouse Project and/or Lakey Boyd, and who have villainized community members for trying to shine a light on Lakey Boyd’s potentially unethical actions as CA President, should be considered with extreme skepticism.”

−1

emleh t1_je5eq1l wrote

Sounds like you just hate Boyd and are writing up a complaint, trying to get others to join in the hate. Ridiculous.

8

jakeburdett OP t1_je5euus wrote

I hate the things she did, and the smear campaign she contributed to. Not sure why you’re not also bugged by it, but to each their own, I guess

−1

jakeburdett OP t1_je5a5da wrote

I’ve shared here, everywhere on Facebook, to several community groups, and I think it may get published in a more “legitimate” outlet soon

−2