Submitted by GingerMan027 t3_z6va62 in ColumbiaMD
Comments
goliebs t1_iy3qg3e wrote
I was a little concerned that line might be misunderstood (I’m the author of the article). I totally agree with you that there are hypothetically possible ethics violations that would warrant dismissal. But I was trying to point out - as you did - that based on what we know it’s not reasonable and likely (I.e. plausible) that one of those hypotheticals exists in this case.
I included it because, in talking to several board members, they would have you believe that there is some super secret and awful thing that Lakey has done that they can’t talk about. It’s a bogus excuse they use because they know they can’t actually justify what they are doing. I was trying to highlight how silly it is.
TinyHorseHands t1_iy4w9ei wrote
Definitely get that and I totally agree. I think the way you have it written now is great. I generally don't expect a differentiation between implausible and impossible in like 99% of writing, so that threw me off.
goliebs t1_iy57x2k wrote
Thanks for highlighting it. I’m sure if it confused you it confused other people.
obidamnkenobi t1_iy4fi4v wrote
Yikes, that quoted part is an awful phrase! Can be used to justify any type of corrupt official, a real banana-republic mentality.
"sure our leader is corrupt and does terrible things, but I personally benefit, so how bad is it really...?"
goliebs t1_iy4k9re wrote
Haha. Relax guys. Not a “banana-republic mentality.”
Anyways, I agree that line was poorly worded and updated it to avoid confusion.
piranhas_really t1_iy3cxei wrote
Are Andy Stack (Owen Brown) and Bill Santos (Wilde Lake) the only two Board members who have supported Boyd?
GingerMan027 OP t1_iy3eokf wrote
Good question. I live in Kings Contrivance and I think I'm going to email my rep and ask about this.
Rashaverik t1_iy450qy wrote
Email each of the KC Village Board members. You could also attend the next board meeting and ask why your Village doesn't support Ms. Boyd. It's a interesting thing that everyone should be doing if their Village has kept quiet.
I believe in the case of the Villages that have officially supported Ms. Boyd, there were votes taken by the Village Boards. It isn't just the position of the Village Rep to CA that decides. Harper's Choice (rep. Alan Klein) has also added their support for Ms. Boyd, but Mr. Klein is part of the anti-Boyd movement.
veryfirst t1_iy6c3fe wrote
The letter of support sent from Harpers Choice was presented to CA before the question of Boyds dismissal had ever materialized. I'm sure you would find that village board supports Lakey though. They could have chosen to send Alan Klein back to the board after his ethics removal but chose instead to appoint another council rep.
goliebs t1_iy3qxsr wrote
My sense is that Janet Evans in Long Reach also supports Lakey but I’m not aware that she has explicitly said so.
The table in this earlier article tries to describe the positions of the various board members as best as I know it. https://www.themerriweatherpost.org/post/how-poor-judgement-ego-and-miscommunication-have-led-the-ca-board-to-consider-firing-ca-president
Rashaverik t1_iy43w29 wrote
I intend to ask this question at the next Long Reach Board meeting in a little over a week. Janet seems to support Ms. Boyd, but I think there's a certain element in the Long Reach Village Board that doesn't. You can easily connect the dots if you do a little browsing.
GingerMan027 OP t1_iy7rpwv wrote
I did email my rep, Shari Zarat, and will see if she replies. Not confrontational at all, just can you shed your POV on this?
chairmanm30w t1_iy3li03 wrote
Any ideas for increasing awareness of this issue beyond Reddit and just word of mouth?
Rashaverik t1_iy45gl7 wrote
Get all your neighbors who support Ms. Boyd to/on the next meeting for your Village Board. Ask questions.
LonoXIII t1_iy5rce7 wrote
Maybe this could be shared on NextDoor? Seems a lot more local political opinion and activism there.
Golferguy49 t1_iy6tfo9 wrote
I find it surprising that no one has researched the history of this Board’s behavior. Ms. Boyd is just the current target of this Board’s anger. My understanding is that this behavior was present with previous CA leaders but they moved on quietly or their contracts were not renewed. Ms. Boyd is clearly a strong leader and wanted to confront the rumors head on, to shine some light on the disfunction. I’m certain the Board corruption is known within the local leadership circles. I’m sure with a little digging one could shine a brighter light on the history of this Board’s behavior. That is the bigger story in my opinion, and will prevent this from happening again with the next CA President.
goliebs t1_iy73tm4 wrote
You are correct that this is a recurring problem with the Board and not unique to Lakey's tenure. Her predecessor (Milton Mathews) seemed to accept Board dysfunction as an inherent part of CA and just roll with it while Lakey is assertively trying to make a positive change in the community and keep the Board's BS from rolling down hill to the rest of the staff.
I don't have a history beyond ~2018 but unfortunately, the problem definitely isn't limited to this Board. Even with different Board members there have been issues with micromanagement, lack of understanding of the Board's proper role, and lack of strategic vision. The problem perpetuates itself because most residents take incorrectly assume that CA functions effectively, the often toxic nature of the Board discourages people from volunteering to serve, and because the Board has a self perpetuating culture of dysfunction. Unless you change those things, this will continue to happen.
I don't think its fair to call the Board corrupt though. Its not like they are embezzling money or getting any substantial material benefit (they do get free CA memberships) from their current course of action. They are mostly just old people looking to get "credit" for serving the community that they legit love and are upset with a person that is more interested in making changes for the better than stroking their ego.
TinyHorseHands t1_iy3i5m4 wrote
I am 100% in agreement that the Board of Directors is really far out of line here (especially Alan Klein trying to sneak alterations into his contract, and it seems trying to make to CA's conflict of interest policy). He's my representative on the Board, and I will absolutely be casting my vote to get him out. Got removed for ethical violations, and then tries to changes the rules to make it okay going forward. That's repulsive.
That said, this line from the article didn't sit well with me:
>"Finally, even if there is an ethics violation committed by Ms. Boyd, it is implausible that the hypothetical violation was so egregious that it outweighs all the value Ms. Boyd is providing the community and justifies the board’s current course of action."
Why include that? Of course there are ethics violations that would justify using legal action to get her off the board. There is no evidence of any violations that I'm aware of, but to say it's implausible is ingenuine.