In the light and spirit of the disreputable non-profit lawyer that I apparently am distilled to be, I offer the following amendment for consideration by all neighborhood groups wrestling with citizen participation issues:
Section 1.09. Disreputable Non-Profit Lawyers. There shall be a membership class known as Disreputable Non-Profit Lawyers. Membership in this class is open to an attorney who is admitted, disbarred, or suspended from or to the practice of law in any state, including territories of the United States (but excluding American Samoa), and who offers at any time an interpretation of, comment toward, or disagrement with the 'prevailing sentiment' of the organization. 'Prevailing sentiment' shall mean any action, feeling, or thought, expressed or unexpressed, by up to two members of the Executive Committe, and shall include any formal action that may or may not appear of record in the organization. A Disreputable Non-Profit Lawyer shall have voice but no vote in all organizational issues, and shall further display prominently a sign endorsed with the term"whiner," or some such appropriate language indicating that the member is a Disreputable Non-Profit Lawyer who should be pitied. Members who do not meet the requirements of this section may otherwise be considered a Disreputable Non-Profit Lawyer by majority vote at a properly or improperly noticed meeting of the Executive Committee. Any member's claim of due process, conflict of interest, or mention of "legal authority," "law" or "Judge Judy" shall automatically qualify that member as a Disreputable Non-Profit Lawyer. Now, a caveat for those already tired of the intricacies of Ventura Village decision-making: the remaining portion of the post responds to some concerns rasied by Jim Graham. > Mr. Luce offers information about what Bob Miller said. Funny, Ventura > Village has the entire correspondence with Bob Miller, and we can't find > that. As I stated in my "correction," it was Robert Cooper of MCDA--not Robert Miller--who decided that the Ventura Village membership change requirement was inappropriate and voided the vote on the particular housing project under consideration. Funny that this fact is not admitted. > Mr. Luce seems to be upset because Ventura > Village successfully used the 6th Ward DFL Convention procedure as a model > for how to validate and insure legitimate voters. Uh, it's not the procedure that you followed (signing in, checking ID, etc.) but the last-minute change in membership requirements that disenfranchised legitimate members who would have been able to vote just the day before. >With his being part of the State Bar and knowledgeable in the law, I > would suspect (and hope), that he was merely attending the meeting and not > part of such a conspiracy. At the meeting Mr. Luce did give an interpretation of the existing law that > was contrary to what he should have known was the actual law. I think my new membership category proposed above responds to this, though I'm vicariously thrilled to be considered part of a conspiracy. > Mr. Luce has fortunately revealed his true motivation with his suggestion of > a North Phillips Neighborhood Association. Mr. Luce has been trying to beat > this dead horse for sometime. Perhaps Mr. Luce would like to have a > neighborhood association he controlled and which would give him access to > their NRP dollars? Hey, I like this idea. Like, could I have absolute control? Could I build my own company or organization maybe and use NRP subsidies to support that company's endeavors? I hadn't thought of this. The possibilities are endless. > Sorry Mr. Luce, it just will not work. I know Luce > resents the fact that no one will vote for his proposals. The funny thing is, I've only proposed one thing: creating an Ethical Review and Grievance Committee to deal independently with concerns over ethics and to deal effectively with grievances. Unfortunately, the executive committee would not even put it on the agenda for consideration. Come to think of it, Ventura Village passed a resolution that states that it will not support or consider any proposals that are supported by Project 504, effectively banning us from participating a while ago. Why? Because we brought a successful housing discrimination suit against a landlord who was in the process of cleansing a building of its Somali residents. Normally, official action from a group like Ventura Village in retaliating for the suit would also constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act, but, alas, you pick your battles. > Why Luce believes residents would vote differently if he started another > "organization" is beyond me. Could it be he intends to exclude residents > from voting? Yessiree--again a great idea. I think I'll use membership changes to do it. Maybe fiddle with the membership requirements so that residents are excluded from voting. Anyone have a way or idea to do that? Gregory Luce St. Paul _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
