PNB Snark-O-Matic Rankings 3-27-2014 I’ve reviewed this PNB meetings with my Snark-O-Meter, and I’ve come up with completely scientific and objective rankings of each of the members conduct on a scale of 0 (pleasant) to 5 (over-the-top-snarky). See image attached for detailed rankings. As shown below Luzette takes the cake by telling Adriana Casenave to shut up! because she was pressing Luzette to vote (yes, no, abstain). Other snarktastic moments occurred when Margy was trying to explain why the agenda only had two items on it. In this sequence, Janet Coleman and Carolyn Birden garner top super-snark ratings. --- Janis: My question is to Margy and it is how do members of the board provide input to the agenda before it is considered before the whole, is there an element in the by-laws that I am unaware of that indicates how this input from others besides the chair... Margy: as soon as we are able to establish a regular schedule of meetings, then we will go back to what we did before, where there is a notice that is sent out, theres gonna be a meeting, and members will be invited to put agenda items on the record. Carolyn: OBJECTION! POINT OF ORDER! CAROLYN BIRDEN ON THE STACK! [extremely snarky tone of voice] Margy: Im sorry, Im taking now. Carolyn: [under her breath] Talking nonsense... Margy: Well, you know what, we have a very difficult time functioning and I am trying to streamline that process.. Janet Coleman: ha-ha! [very high-pitched] Tony: Please be respectful and let them finish. Janet Coleman: Apologies, it was really spontaneous [dripping with sarcasm] Margy: Well, mute yourself when youre not talking, I do. --- Another notable point came when Janet Coleman (who apparently is very full of herself and also fancies herself as a master of parliamentary tactics) had the bright idea to make an argument in *favor* of the opposing side (PNB procedures require two arguments for and two arguments against each motion). The issue was whether discussions regarding changing bank signatures should occur in executive session. In what appears in retrospect to be a misguided attempt at fairness by vice-chair Tony Norman, Janet C was permitted to do this, and here is what she had to say all of which was delivered in an ironic tone of voice. --- Janet C: Oh, OK, well,can you hear me? I think it is *obvious* why we want to consider this motion of changing bank signatories in executive session where no one will hear them [exaggerated irony]. Why do we want anybody to hear what is going on here, we dont want our own board to have access to a lawyer, so great, I think *everything* should be in executive session and Im like [unintelligible] members of this years board who raved and raved about, um, what is that word, transparency we better talk about all these issues in public session now when it comes to really a controversial and a fiduciary issue of controversy, does not want to have this aired in front of the public. I mean, shall we, when do we bring up the issue of how we dont have a lawyer here? Is it now or is it right away? And thats my case for supporting [ironic smug self-congratulatory tone] the Fuentes motion. --- Later, they needed to complete the two arguments for and against because ostensibly, Janets argument was against the motion. Here is what happened. --- Janet C: I will [make an argument against the motion]! Brian: Point of order! Tony: Brian, what is your point of order. Brian: Weve already had two speakers against, we cannot have any more. Tony: No, Janet [C] was speaking in favor of it, well need one more. Brian: No, Janet was speaking *against* it. Janet C: [smugly] no I wasnt. I was speaking from your side [someone else on board: Oh Please...]. You can contest it, but [smugly] you know, youre wasting your time. I made the choice to be on the other side and I stand by it. --- One more. Tony was trying to explain why he felt that the bank signatures should be discussed in executive session, and Luzette threw another hissy fit. --- Tony: I would simply respond that because of the sensitive nature of who is on the bank account and who might be added that that could be considered dealing with personnel ... Luzette: WHO IS ANSWERING!? WHO IS ANSWERING!? Tony: and if Jose wants to respond he can respond also. Luzette: YES BUT WHO JUST ANSWERED!? WHO JUST MADE THAT POINT!? Tony: that was the chair, Mister Norman. Luzette: OF COURSE IT WOULD BE YOU, IM OUT AGAIN, GOOD NIGHT [hangs up] Unknown: [under their breath:] oh Jesus... --- I wish I could say that Im making this up. If you doubt this is what happened, how your hard-earned Pacifica contributions are being spent, listen to the audio archive yourself.
Posted on: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 21:18:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015