Here we go again. ______________________________________ Ben Howard, Senior Advocate 404-209-0517 1840 Campbellton RD SW CC8 Atlanta GA 30311-4166 [email protected] Thursday, January 22, 2015 Leanne Patterson Secretary, Atlanta Planning Advisory Board [APAB] sailing2thelimit@yahoo MS Patterson: The Georgia Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A -50-14, 1-6, states in part: (2)(A) A summary of the subjects acted on and those members present at a meeting of any agency shall be written and made available to the public for inspection within two business days of the adjournment of a meeting. Please provide me a copy of the Summary of the meeting of the Atlanta Planning Advisory Board, held in the Atlanta City Council Chambers onSaturday January 17, 2015. Please ensure that the Summary of subjects acted on includes any discussion or vote with the following implications: > Implication - The 2015 NPU-R Bylaws were accepted as being in accordance with the Atlanta Office of Planning’s publication [A Guide for 2014 NPU Bylaws] which suggested preferred procedures for elections and for the adoption of NPU [Neighborhood Planning Unit] Bylaws; > Implication - The 2015 NPU-R Bylaws were accepted as being in accordance with the 2014 NPU-R Bylaws relative to Bylaws Committee, Bylaws-related meetings, and Bylaws-adoption procedures; > Implication -Bylaws Review and Bylaws vote are clearly delineated on one or more Agendas of NPU-R; > Implication – Only one vote, that for “APAB Designee” [the term used in the NPU-R 2015 Bylaws], took place; > Implication – The “9-2 Vote” election was the final vote in NPU-R elections for NPU-R representation on APAB; > Implication – Elections took place for NPU-R Delegate and NPU-R Alternate Delegate pitting Ben Howard against Ricardo Jacobs for the Delegate position and pitting Harold Hardnett against Ron Shakir for the Alternate Delegate position; > Implication – NPU-R 2015 Bylaws establishes a “backup” APAB position such as APAB Alternate Delegate; > Implication – A vote took place in NPU-R to remove Ron Shakir as the Alternate APAB Delegate; > Implication – All votes relating to the NPU-R delegation to APAB at NPU-R meetings took place prior to the 8:45 pm closing of the YMCA where NPU-R meets; > Implication – No person residing in another NPU was allowed to vote in any NPU-R meeting where APAB was a subject of discussion; > Implication – All persons voting in any NPU-R meeting relating to NPU-R representation at APAB were confirmed as being qualified to vote as a consequence of their primary residence or other stakeholder qualification as stated in City-Law references to qualifications to vote at NPU meetings; > Implication – The list of APAB Delegates and Alternates printed in the “Neighborhoods Matter” publication distributed during and after theDecember 20, 2014 Meeting of APAB was not the list to be authenticated as the current list to be used for Roll Call at the January 17, 2015 meeting of APAB; > Implication - The list of APAB Delegates and Alternates presented by the incoming APAB President to the APAB Secretary, and modified throughout the course of the meeting, was the official roster of the 2015 APAB Delegation to be referenced for Roll Call; > Implication – The APAB practice of the past five years of “waiving” the Bylaws requirement for simple background data [Article IV. Members] negates enforcement by any APAB President, past or present relative to credentials checking at the Annual APAB Organizational Meeting [Article VI. Meetings – Section 2]; > Implication – Prior to the APAB meeting of January 17, 2015, conversation or conversations had taken place between Cathy Richards, the incoming APAB President and/or Ricardo Jacobs, Chair of NPU-R; > Implication – Prior to the APAB meeting of January 17, 2015, conversation or conversations had taken place between Cathy Richards, the incoming APAB President and Eric Toomer, 2014 Chair of NPU-Q relative to Eric Toomer replacing Ben Howard as Second Vice-President of APAB; > Implication – Eric Toomer was selected to be one of the members of the APAB 2015 Credentials Committee; > Implication - An APAB Credentials Checking Committee, recommended by Roberts Rules of Order, was not necessary for the Annual Organizational Meeting; > Implication – NPU Chairs who had not responded to the request to submit data in accordance with the time frame specified in Article IV of the Bylaws could submit said data belatedly; > Implication – NPU Chairs were not obligated to place on record all of the data required by the Bylaws in reference to the NPU-elected 2015 APAB Delegation [name, address, home telephone number and business telephone number] but could simply submit the name of each member of its Delegation; > Implication – Persons who wereappointed – as opposed to beingelected by NPU Membership - to serve on APAB were seated as members of the 2015 Board; > Implication – The results of the NPU-R vote to remove Ron Shakir as the NPU-R Alternate Delegate to APAB; > Implication – Result of the vote on the motion by Ron Shakir at the NPU-R January 7, 2015 meeting to have Ben Howard become the Alternate Delegate from NPU-R to APAB; > Implication – Rationale for removing Ron Shakir as Chair of the APAB Utilities Committee; > Implication – Ben Howard’s appeal of the incoming APAB President’s decision relative to the authentication of the 2015 APAB Delegation; > Implication – Delegate Jack Gruendler’s statement about the number of persons actually authorized to vote at the APAB meeting ofJanuary 17, 2015; > Implication – All decisions made by APAB members are null and void; > Implication – When the system of validating the credentials of those eligible to vote was rejected by a majority vote of those whose credentials had been challenged the system was undermined; > Implication – All members whose credentials had been challenged should have been subject to the procedures spelled out in Roberts Rules of Order [the default authority for matters not spelled out in detail in the APAB Bylaws; > Implication – Since no valid quorum which was in concert with APAB Bylaws could be established, the meeting should have been adjourned; > Implication – Whether to honor as the only Chairs authorized to make appointments to APAB those Chairs who respond in a timely manner to the Bylaws-Required call for “Section IV data”; > Implication – Assertion by Ben Howard that NPUs have the option of modifying their Bylaws [just as APAB did when it moved elections forward one month] to accommodate the timeline of that umbrella organization known as APAB; > implication – Adherence to Bylaws provisions help to establish the Integrity of an organization, particularly since APAB is charged with advising members of City Council, one of whom has referred to APAB as a ‘group of people who meet on any given Saturday…” > Chair’s right to make self-appointments to both APAB positions. > Implication – Avenues of appeal of APAB Membership decisions; Respectfully Submitted, Ben Howard Senior Advocate C: Ethics Officer, Interested parties, Parties-in-Interest
Posted on: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:48:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015