I look forward to hearing Jamie’s thoughts.

On the topic of governance, I wanted to mention that, given the apparent lack of written unanimous consent, the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Act (the Act) required the board’s action to cancel Steve’s membership to be taken within a properly noticed and constituted board meeting where minutes would have been taken. Additionally, under the Act and our bylaws, the membership had a right to attend such a board meeting.

I also still contend the board’s action to terminate without a hearing violates both the Act and our bylaws. Additionally, as long as he is not squatting on the CSS property or the our neighbors property, Steve poses no long term danger or determent to the club and that the board’s actions here have been too heavy handed.

Jana,

Your words;

“Apparently Luke tampered with the LZ cameras without the camera owner’s permission, so that he could surveil the BBQ area from the comfort of his home! He has gathered evidence of pilot members collecting water from the sink into jugs, to possibly hand to Steve. He then accused a pilot member of “stealing” water for the purpose of aiding and abetting this homeless criminal. Mimi should call the non-emergency PD line to file a complaint! We need to keep a record of all the pilot members stealing the LZ’s resources! Luke is making a list and checking it twice.”

“Good news everyone, Luke’s access to the cameras has been suspended by the owner. We can now feel a little safer. Did I mention Luke was entertaining the idea of removing the refrigerator and BBQ from the LZ in order to give Steve less incentive to come on the property? I guess he forgot about the other 300 members who might want to keep their drinks and food cold during their visit, who pay club dues for the privilege. He must have forgotten that we have events which involve cooking food and storing it during 100 degree temperatures.”

You are either a liar, or you are getting bad information, or you are manipulating what you have ‘heard’ for your own benefit. Which is it?

I know who owns the cameras.  I do not have, nor have I ever had, access to any of them nor have I ‘tampered’ with any of them. So, no, my access to them hasn’t been revoked by the owners because I never asked for access to them.  Do you want to correct your claims?

Luke said:

The BOD is not ignoring the by-laws.  Steve is not a member, so he is not entitled to the disciplinary process afforded to members in the by-laws.  Purchasing a membership does not absolve an individual from a long history of abusing club resources and automatically afford them the rights of a member in good standing

This is incorrect. As statutory members (under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Act), all members have specific rights. The termination of a membership must be consistent with the requirements of the Act and the bylaws. The board’s action did not comply with those requirements. While I do not anticipate Steve seeking relief from a civil court, that does not mean the actions of the board were legal.

The board wishes there was a provision of the bylaws that allowed them to review membership applications, but, until the bylaws contain such a provision, the board does not have such an authority. The society accepted the consideration for his membership and published his name as a member. He was a member.

This would have been so much simpler if the board had just followed the requirements of the Act and the bylaws for a hearing.

Luke, I completely understand that the membership is automatically accepted on the website. But, absent a legal, bylaw authority to further review memberships, or even a routine practice of reviewing memberships, that automatic acceptance is an acceptance of the membership. Has the board ever reviewed a membership application before?

Additionally, this does not address the substantive point that the bylaws do not empower the board to review applications or terminate them without a hearing. The board could still have this hearing. Is there an application process that the membership is not aware of? What authority is the board relying on to terminate his membership? Did the board take this action during a properly noticed board meeting? Were members allowed to attend this board meeting?

Finally, this is the second time you have been unreasonably abrasive in responding to my comments requesting the board to be more in line with both the bylaws and California law. I have tried to remain cordial in my comments on this issues and the minutes.  If you are this way with club members, it really makes me concerned if you have the right temperament to negoate with Encore on behalf of the club.

Well said Thomas

Luke, you wrote:

You are either a liar, or you are getting bad information, or you are manipulating what you have ‘heard’ for your own benefit. Which is it?

I know who owns the cameras.  I do not have, nor have I ever had, access to any of them nor have I ‘tampered’ with any of them. So, no, my access to them hasn’t been revoked by the owners because I never asked for access to them.  Do you want to correct your claims

Luke I think you better correct your claims
I know for a FACT you as President was given the link to the cameras along with a few other BOD members that now do not have access due to YOUR actions.
When we ran electricity to the OLD shade structure, cameras were installed for security, and weather. There was a camera pointed at the storage containers. They went away when the old structure blew away.
The cameras that are there now were put up by a member at his cost for the same reasons since the club did not install any after the new shade structure was built. The main concern was the storage bins since they’re housing thousands of dollars of gear. There was 3 total. 1 pointed to the north of the shade structure looking at the training hill and Marshall (which someone redirected recentley). The 2nd looked out towards the LZ which had recenently failed and not replaced. The 3rd is pointed at the storage containers.
These were never intended to spy on members.
You recently called a member to accuse him of stealing water to give to Steve after you watched him on the camera walking with a pot of water. That to me looked like he was cleaning up the pot from whatever was cooked in it and dumping it out in the bushes. You weren’t even there so how would you know without looking at the camera recorded events video or watching real time? Who would ACCUSE A MEMBER OF STEALING WATER???? YOU!
So then there’s Steve at the LZ and as Mimi said it was “Documented” but she never said how it was documented. She’s never had access to the cameras so who documented it and how? You Luke? I guess we will never know?
For you to say you never had access is BS and calling Yana a LIAR is BS!
Like I said before it’s  a personal vendetta for not only you but now Mimi as well!

Not aggressive at all just calling out BS when I see it.

You say I don’t  know the owners which is another lie and you know it.

“Pictures were provided to me” Prove it Luke!

Prove to me there’s more cameras that I dont know about.

1. I’m waiting

So show me and all members where’s Owens cameras?

I’ll wait

Do you think that I think either one of the camera owners would send you pics of Steve or the member you accused of stealing water?

Just more BS