SSS Sailmonsters - Another interesting article of events that have transpired. My vote is my own but the current communication ability is very limited for members to share there thoughts and information. I am not posting to stir the pot but as a very dedicated member of the SSS both sides need to be heard. Sarasota Sailing Squadron; Is this the end of an era? For decades the SSS has been a club open to the public, subsidized by the City of SRQ to promote affordable and accessible sailing for the citizens of SRQ; Sailing for the little guy, not just for the yacht club set. The club Bylaws and lease with the city have historically provided an open atmosphere for the rich as well as the poor. The elite atmosphere of a yacht club environment has been historically absent at the SSS. There is a battle raging among the 700 or so members for the heart and soul of the club. It will culminate with the 2013 election which ends next weekend, November 17. There is a legitimate debate about the future direction of the Squadron which must occur, but the majority of the board and the election judge have taken numerous steps to prevent the members from having this debate. Members have been denied an opportunity for discussion of the issues that the members face. Many members have expressed their concern that the current Board majority has abused its power, exceeded its authority and has been over reaching and overbearing in its policies. Background; 1. Members who have stored their boats on moorings were asked to form a committee to present a plan to provide a safe and effective mooring field consistent with FL law. The committee presented its findings to the board. A price for annual storage was recommended with services including provision of mooring tackle and gear and including periodic diving inspections to insure safe and effective moorings. The Majority of the Board refused to accept the findings of the committee. Members were subsequently billed in 2013 at DOUBLE the recommended rate and the board has failed to provide the required mooring gear or the diving inspections. The effective rate of increase to these members for storage was in excess of 200%. Other member who stored boats on land received NO storage increase in the 2013 fees. 2. In April of 2013 the Majority Board took an unprecedented step and voted to remove a duly elected board member five months into her two year term. The Bylaws of the Squadron do not permit a sitting board member to be voted off of the board. A lawsuit has been filed against the Sailing Squadron for this unauthorized act and is pending. Several weeks ago, the annual ballot was published and distributed to the members. A ballot initiative asking the members to vote to remove this same board member appeared on the ballot with a multi-page prosecution as to the alleged offenses. There is no provision in the Bylaws for the Membership to vote a board member off the board. The Board voted to refuse a request for this Board member to publish a rebuttal of the allegations on the opposite page on the ballot. 3. The Board displayed gross mismanagement when it knowingly allowed construction of a classroom to take place on Squadron property without obtaining required legal permits. This act is under investigation by the City. The board failed in its obligation to uphold the law and its legal obligations under its lease with the City placing the lease in jeopardy and has cost the Squadron unspecified penalties and fines. Board remains silent. 4. The club has for years maintained a website. There is a “Feedback” section for members to post to. Without advice or notice to the members, member posts critical of the Board of Directors were removed. A letter to the Commodore and BOD was sent requesting details about who ordered the posts to be removed and on what authority. The Commodore and Board are silent. 5. Future postings to the Feedback section have been delayed and monitored, with many postings not being published. The Board has failed to respond to those wishing to post. 6. Without any notice the entire FEEDBACK section was eliminated and members no longer have a venue to post their views on the EVE OF THE ELECTION 7. An Election Judge has been appointed by the Commodore. He indicates by email he is in favor of members contacting other members by postal or phone calls, and by signage on the SSS premises. He does not favor the use of email communication during the campaign for election related issues. Email communication has never been banned before. The Member Roster is published on the website for use by the members and is available to any current member. 8. Without warning, the BOD posted a notice on its website and in the monthly email newsletter that 300 members regularly receive, indicating that the Board at a private, unscheduled meeting had imposed a BAN on members communicating with other members via email, postal, or phone calls. Shortly thereafter, the member Roster was removed from the website. Members under advice of legal counsel advised the BOD this was not legal. The Board has not responded. 9. Treasurer and candidate Michelle Lee has phoned new members to campaign. Members demand to know how she obtained this list of new members and their phone numbers, who authorized the production of this list and under whose authority she made the electioneering phone calls. BOD and Commodore remain silent. 10. During this same week, incumbent board member Michelle Lee who is up for re-election ordered the club manager to extract the other 400 or more additional email addresses from the general ledger and to mail merge it with the existing mailing list of 300 or so members. Only roughly 300 had requested to receive a monthly email message from the SSS. This act enabled these incumbents up for re-election to reach the entire membership base by email blast and they subsequently posted political statements supporting their candidacies and positions in the email newsletter. Members demanded in writing a reply to questions of who authorized the Treasurer and candidate Michelle Lee to order the mail merge and under whose authority was this step taken. The board has not responded. 11. Members of the SSS with no other vehicle to express views started an independent website, SaveOurSquadron and have posted opposing viewpoints freely. The ban on communication by postal, email or phone call to other members has made it difficult to alert the membership of the existence of this site and to views different from the majority of the board view. 12. Non-members wishing to stay clear of the illegal communication ban imposed by the Board, mailed a letter to the membership presenting a list of recommended candidates, and recommendations on the ballot initiatives with an invitation to visit SOS website. 13. Board sent a letter to members to advise membership that the letter sent by SOS was unauthorized and not an official document from the SSS. 14. Board posted the same message on its website 15. Board sent an email blast to membership with same message. 16. Incumbent Candidates continue to publish political posts on website and email blast which are now being paid for by members. Opposition candidates and members demand equal access but are denied. Commodore and Board remain silent. Election Judge says this issue is beyond his scope. Election judge has sent email responses to members clearly indicating he is no longer impartial in the election. 17. Election Judge grants all candidates three separate posts on an obscure page of the club website to promote their campaign. They are under tightly controlled guidelines and subject to censorship and are not permitted to mention the record or actions of their incumbent opponents. The incumbents continue to freely post electioneering posts on the front or HOME page of the website in addition to their 3 allocated posts. 18. Election Judge and the BOD have prevented members from posting opposing statements in support of their candidates on either the website, in the e-newsletter or in a club financed postal mailing effort. 19. Opposition posts of printed campaign posters are posted at the club. Post are removed by unknown persons. Candidate Michelle Lee publishes a position paper, which is a rebuttal to a document posted on the SOS website. This document is a campaign piece and is posted on the OFFICIAL SSS BOARD bulletin board, creating the appearance of a BOD approved document. Members cry foul and request it be removed to a non-official location or that the challengers be permitted to post the document that was originally posted on the SOS website, which is being rebutted. Election Judge denies either request and sends email indicating the SOS group has had enough opportunity to post its message and indicates he believes those responsible for posting to the SOS website should be ashamed of themselves. 20. Ballots are made available to members who request them at the SSS office by office staff. A ballot box is located in the office. Members have discovered that literature supporting the incumbent candidates and their recommendations for voting on ballot initiatives is on display and available to take from the office to read and is NEXT TO THE BALLOT BOX. (See photos taken Friday 11/8.) 21. Members have requested these be moved or that the opposition be permitted to place opposing campaign literature for distribution in the same location. The opposition complaints have been ignored and these members’ request is denied. 22. Sitting BOD Secretary Linda Tiffan sent an email to the Board and Election Judge making extreme and disparaging comments about members who oppose the view of the incumbents. This is consistent with a pattern which has been utilized throughout the year to marginalize and discredit any members who oppose their view in an effort to influence other members to disregard opposing viewpoints and to try to influence the Election Judge to favor the incumbents. Is there a level playing field for the members during an election at the SSS? Have the members had an opportunity to hear the issues in a fair, open and uncensored way? How can the members make an assessment as to the future direction of the SSS if they are prevented from learning any views other than the views of those who hold office and power and wish to cling to it? The past actions and policies of the majority of the BOD and their newly proposed policies if adopted will have the effect of making the SSS a more elitist club which is not consistent with the mission statement of the club or its obligations as leaseholder with the City of Sarasota. Without an equal opportunity for opposing points of view to be heard, most of the 700 members will be asked to vote without understanding any of the real issues that the membership faces. The end of an era?
Posted on: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 17:58:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015