Katy’s plea…

In a recent letter sent out to all the shareholders at WVH concerning the lawsuit over the election process, Katy Bordonaro states ” I would have gladly met with the complainants in the lawsuit to discuss their concerns face-to-face if they had asked.” 

Seriously!!!!? In a recent lawsuit settled and won by another shareholder against the board not once in a over a year and a half  did Katy make the same offer to meet with the respective parties of the other case and attempt to settle the issue out of court or discuss its issues and merits before lawyers were involved. It would seem that offers to meet and settle issues and discuss concerns will only happen when ones own head is on the chopping block. Anyone can “talk the talk” about the value of  building  a strong community and being a leader but its too little and too late when someone who is supposed to lead ends up blaming the complainants that they should have “asked”.

Advertisements

One thought on “Katy’s plea…

  1. Re letter “In solidarity” from Ms. Bordonaro dated January 2011 and received today — the day of the court hearing in the election lawsuit:

    Note right up front that the first letter slamming the election lawsuit plaintiffs and defense costs, while signed “the board,” in fact NEVER CAME BEFORE THE BOARD. Wasn’t that ALREADY Ms. Bordonaro “on the record?”

    Crying victim after personally naming and directly victimizing the plaintiffs, and indirectly the Election Inspectors, in the election lawsuit?

    “Protect WVH?” From what? A FAIR ELECTION? That’s the ONLY thing at issue here.

    Re “I would gladly have met with the complainants in the lawsuit to discuss…” But no offer for a recount in the light of day.

    Re “…if they had asked…” Many of us have asked, and “face-to-face” for open board meetings. And done so openly. So pardon me if I wonder whether change comes so easily, or without a well-prepared — and well-earned (so to speak) — lawsuit.

    If the “board” continues to fight to prevent being forced to show the election was NOT tainted, then every individual board member voting to fight the case should be asked to stand and announce their position (e.g., “I voted against a recount and full accounting”), and PERSONALLY bear the costs of the defense; the shareholders should NOT have to bear the cost of the threatened insurance rate hike, even if such threat should prove real.

    Simply put, we shareholders are ALL entitled to a fair election, regardless of which candidate(s) we supported.

    Whose interests are being served by fighting this lawsuit? Certainly NOT those of “the community” as a whole.

    As to the costs:

    Crying cost over the election lawsuit… after blowing a greater sum OF OUR MONEY on WestVillageWatchdog’s above referenced lawsuit?

    Crying cost over the election lawsuit… rather than allowing election inspectors to inspect the election and resolve “dangling chads” — as had been the practice all prior years?

    And what of the costs should Katy (and nominally the full board) LOSE this fight to avoid a fair recount and accounting? Won’t they have to reimburse the plaintiffs — who do NOT have an insurance company paying their bills?

    It’s too late — and too hypocritical — for “the board” to cite “privacy.” Not after the vindictive “outing” and personalization of the election lawsuit plaintiffs.

    This may come as a shocking allegation to most readers, but the above referenced individual lawsuit — won by the tenant-shareholder at CONSIDERABLE cost to the rest of us — is NOT the only one.

    How many other lawsuits — and threats of eviction and loss of home and investment — in addition to the one referenced by the WestVillageWatchdog, have been brought against fellow tenant-shareholders by WVHHDFC?

    Not even all the current and former board members know. Don’t take my word for it. ASK them.

    Better still, ask Ms. Bordonaro why this information is kept secret from duly elected directors of the corporation.

    Which means… some of these lawsuits have been brought WITHOUT the decision to file them coming before the full board whatsoever. It’s not like the board decided by some vote, even 4-3, to file (or fight). The board members were not even aware.

    What is Ms. Ule’s opinion on the matter? Are some directors of a New York corporation so much more equal than others? If so, I’d love to see it in writing, either in law or in the black book.

    It is stunning that this ever happened once. Presumably “on advice of counsel.” And yet it has happened MORE than once, over more than one term. It is a pattern of secret intimidation. All in the abused name of “privacy.”

    The questions then are many:
    * How many?
    * How often?
    * Over what issues?
    * At what cost to the corporation?
    * To what end?
    * Were these suits — or the decisions to fight them — legally authorized?

    And where do these director(s) — and their advisors — get the NERVE?

    It’s time for a full public disclosure of the full catalog of all such legal and court actions, both initiated by WVHHDFC as well as by tenant-shareholders.

    Those that were initiated without a vote of the full board deserve special attention.

    Back to the election — and therefore the legitimacy of the current board:

    If Ms. Bordonaro doesn’t want the election lawsuit to be seen as a reflection on her integrity, a good start would be to immediately authorize an independent review and recount of the election, and drop the defense of a closed-door ballot-counting — and ballot rejecting — process in which the duly appointed Election Inspectors were PREVENTED from inspecting.

    Re “…as a volunteer.” We darn sure hope so. NO ONE should expect perks or personal advantage, let alone personal profit, from service to this community. No one questions the incredible amount of time, energy, and dedication Ms. Bordonaro has put into WVH for the good of WVH — as she sees it. Obviously, that’s pretty evenly debatable — contributed votes from the Investor(s) notwithstanding — as election results consistently show. But the kind of volunteership now called for is of a different sort: voluntary term limits.

    “…for the good of our community.” Indeed.

    Truth and Transparency Matter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s