Menu
Log in
Forgot password
Log in
Forgot password

    



 

Maine Alliance for Road Associations

negotiating in good faith

  • 09 Jun 2010 3:23 PM
    Quote
    Message # 356515
    Deleted user
    Some time ago I elicited some help with respect to a person an a standing committee to develop our RA whom I felt was not negotiating in good faith. As per some of the suggestions, I gave a presentation with this in mind, took a survey of my own, required all to made suggestions in specifics and in writing, step back from meeting process for a time and asked for and e-mail conversation from all, ask any to call meetings to make specific agendas on proposals including their suggestions.
     The individual in question has refused to comply on each issue. I have noted all conversations make in both public at meetings and in private of comments that are not made in good faith. He has steadfastly refused to comply, wants more representation from his end to balance the board, wants to call a meeting w/o a specific agenda. As chair of the standing committee, I have refused to attend W/O specifics, as his intentions of obviously incurring more power and control are obvious.

    After the good suggestions made before, I have a couple of ideas but would like some more of yours. I feel I have accumulated enough documentation in emails and personal notes to conclude he is not working in good faith and will not change.
    Last modified: 09 Jun 2010 3:23 PM | Deleted user
  • 10 Jun 2010 5:04 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 356775 on 356515
    Anonymous member
    Michael Connolly wrote:Some time ago I elicited some help with respect to a person an a standing committee to develop our RA whom I felt was not negotiating in good faith. As per some of the suggestions, I gave a presentation with this in mind, took a survey of my own, required all to made suggestions in specifics and in writing, step back from meeting process for a time and asked for and e-mail conversation from all, ask any to call meetings to make specific agendas on proposals including their suggestions.
     The individual in question has refused to comply on each issue. I have noted all conversations make in both public at meetings and in private of comments that are not made in good faith. He has steadfastly refused to comply, wants more representation from his end to balance the board, wants to call a meeting w/o a specific agenda. As chair of the standing committee, I have refused to attend W/O specifics, as his intentions of obviously incurring more power and control are obvious.

    After the good suggestions made before, I have a couple of ideas but would like some more of yours. I feel I have accumulated enough documentation in emails and personal notes to conclude he is not working in good faith and will not change.
    Without a better sense of exactly what you mean by "in good faith" and how the person intends to accumulate power and control by calling a meeting, I don't know exactly what to say. I do know that in the end it all comes down to the vote. It that going to be a problem? It does sound like you have made it your practice to accumulate evidence along the way to support the legitimacy of what you are doing, and that was a wise thing to do.
  • 10 Jun 2010 3:20 PM
    Quote
    Reply # 357047 on 356515
    Deleted user
    Here are some of my concerns.

    The general organizational plan of a Road association are not supported by him. At each meeting w/o specifics, he wants one end to pay a toll directly to another in the form of a fee or % of their fee, regardless of how many times I tell him this and others he promotes are illegal practices. He refuses to support equal services to all according. Desires to call meetings w/o specifics to disrupt previously settle upon issues. Most difficulty has arisen when he fails to live up to supporting issues (using the forming a road association manual as a guideline) and generally agreed upon procedure during and between meetings. He constantly makes light of our trying to follow these procedures as outlined and does what he can to subvert them. Most of our work was accomplished in the one meeting he did not attend; he now wants to hold a formal meeting to readdress the issue when he wasn't there. He has a friend board member (there are 5) who was a willing, contributing and unifying member at that meeting, who he has now swayed to ask for a redress of the meeting....even though everything was agreed upon unanimously at the time.

     His entire agenda and focus is to develop a  presentation that also allows him  to hold a position of authority including sometimes, two positions on the final formal board to "protect" one end from another. He has generally held the attitude that our goal is to prepare something at the formal meeting that will pass by the majority at one end (his) and not consider fairness as an issue to all.

    He runs his end of the voluntary road association presently with "friend" contractor and has made it known he will use him for the entire road w/o regard to pricing, bidding or volunteer resident labor. He refuses to consider, "lowering" fees and expenses if a road association can make overall management more efficient. He presently is trying to stock this informal standing committee with more members that he thinks share his views. I could go on...hope you get the point.

     A fellow board member wants to present him with an ultimatum of acceptance of fair minded practices we have already approved or inform him we'll move on w/o him. I'm sure he'll work underground to continue with his agenda, but the process should continue. That's where I'm at as I've informed he and his friend from the section with him, that all his practices and comments have been noted and if anything happens that require legal address sometime down the line, his conduct in the formation of this association will be included. After this this revelation, he now even refuses to respond in email to the group at large, and wishes only to argue his points at the closed meeting. As chair of the standing committee, I will consent to a meeting, only if he presents a specific agenda and we include the ultimatum I referred to, and we record the session. Otherwise, he can have his meeting w/o me and we will proceed without him
    Reasonable response ?
    Last modified: 10 Jun 2010 3:20 PM | Deleted user
  • 11 Jun 2010 9:49 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 357454 on 357047
    Anonymous member
    Michael Connolly wrote:Here are some of my concerns.

    The general organizational plan of a Road association are not supported by him. At each meeting w/o specifics, he wants one end to pay a toll directly to another in the form of a fee or % of their fee, regardless of how many times I tell him this and others he promotes are illegal practices. He refuses to support equal services to all according. Desires to call meetings w/o specifics to disrupt previously settle upon issues. Most difficulty has arisen when he fails to live up to supporting issues (using the forming a road association manual as a guideline) and generally agreed upon procedure during and between meetings. He constantly makes light of our trying to follow these procedures as outlined and does what he can to subvert them. Most of our work was accomplished in the one meeting he did not attend; he now wants to hold a formal meeting to readdress the issue when he wasn't there. He has a friend board member (there are 5) who was a willing, contributing and unifying member at that meeting, who he has now swayed to ask for a redress of the meeting....even though everything was agreed upon unanimously at the time.

     His entire agenda and focus is to develop a  presentation that also allows him  to hold a position of authority including sometimes, two positions on the final formal board to "protect" one end from another. He has generally held the attitude that our goal is to prepare something at the formal meeting that will pass by the majority at one end (his) and not consider fairness as an issue to all.

    He runs his end of the voluntary road association presently with "friend" contractor and has made it known he will use him for the entire road w/o regard to pricing, bidding or volunteer resident labor. He refuses to consider, "lowering" fees and expenses if a road association can make overall management more efficient. He presently is trying to stock this informal standing committee with more members that he thinks share his views. I could go on...hope you get the point.

     A fellow board member wants to present him with an ultimatum of acceptance of fair minded practices we have already approved or inform him we'll move on w/o him. I'm sure he'll work underground to continue with his agenda, but the process should continue. That's where I'm at as I've informed he and his friend from the section with him, that all his practices and comments have been noted and if anything happens that require legal address sometime down the line, his conduct in the formation of this association will be included. After this this revelation, he now even refuses to respond in email to the group at large, and wishes only to argue his points at the closed meeting. As chair of the standing committee, I will consent to a meeting, only if he presents a specific agenda and we include the ultimatum I referred to, and we record the session. Otherwise, he can have his meeting w/o me and we will proceed without him
    Reasonable response ?
    Sometimes it is necessary simply to move on with the legal process and if an individual chooses to object at a later time, let the chips fall where they may. I am not saying I am aware of all the facts here. It would seem to me if you follow the process and keep records, you are doing the right thing. That does not mean it is easy.
  • 11 Jun 2010 1:15 PM
    Quote
    Reply # 357580 on 357454
    Deleted user
    Betsy Connor Bowen wrote:
    Michael Connolly wrote:Here are some of my concerns.

    The general organizational plan of a Road association are not supported by him. At each meeting w/o specifics, he wants one end to pay a toll directly to another in the form of a fee or % of their fee, regardless of how many times I tell him this and others he promotes are illegal practices. He refuses to support equal services to all according. Desires to call meetings w/o specifics to disrupt previously settle upon issues. Most difficulty has arisen when he fails to live up to supporting issues (using the forming a road association manual as a guideline) and generally agreed upon procedure during and between meetings. He constantly makes light of our trying to follow these procedures as outlined and does what he can to subvert them. Most of our work was accomplished in the one meeting he did not attend; he now wants to hold a formal meeting to readdress the issue when he wasn't there. He has a friend board member (there are 5) who was a willing, contributing and unifying member at that meeting, who he has now swayed to ask for a redress of the meeting....even though everything was agreed upon unanimously at the time.

     His entire agenda and focus is to develop a  presentation that also allows him  to hold a position of authority including sometimes, two positions on the final formal board to "protect" one end from another. He has generally held the attitude that our goal is to prepare something at the formal meeting that will pass by the majority at one end (his) and not consider fairness as an issue to all.

    He runs his end of the voluntary road association presently with "friend" contractor and has made it known he will use him for the entire road w/o regard to pricing, bidding or volunteer resident labor. He refuses to consider, "lowering" fees and expenses if a road association can make overall management more efficient. He presently is trying to stock this informal standing committee with more members that he thinks share his views. I could go on...hope you get the point.

     A fellow board member wants to present him with an ultimatum of acceptance of fair minded practices we have already approved or inform him we'll move on w/o him. I'm sure he'll work underground to continue with his agenda, but the process should continue. That's where I'm at as I've informed he and his friend from the section with him, that all his practices and comments have been noted and if anything happens that require legal address sometime down the line, his conduct in the formation of this association will be included. After this this revelation, he now even refuses to respond in email to the group at large, and wishes only to argue his points at the closed meeting. As chair of the standing committee, I will consent to a meeting, only if he presents a specific agenda and we include the ultimatum I referred to, and we record the session. Otherwise, he can have his meeting w/o me and we will proceed without him
    Reasonable response ?
    Sometimes it is necessary simply to move on with the legal process and if an individual chooses to object at a later time, let the chips fall where they may. I am not saying I am aware of all the facts here. It would seem to me if you follow the process and keep records, you are doing the right thing. That does not mean it is easy.
    Thank you,
    I do have faith that regardless of this individuals ultimate roll in the RA once formed, the yearly vote of the majority will tend to be favorable over time to all. The getting to even a formal meeting will be a messy process with this person. We have an agreed upon model to recommend. Our stance will be that model as a  presentation and he can make suggestions from the floor. He'll have to then accept the results as well.

                            The Maine Alliance for Road Associations


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software