I'm not questioning the legality of the S.H.C.A representing their membership. Thank you for the explanations of the non-profit classifications since I didn't include them in my post..
S. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sue McNamara Tancredi Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 8:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: [UC] SHCA Elections : Not to be a nit picker, but just to avoid legal confusion. a 501 (c)(3) is an non profit community organization who is permitted to only spend something a little less than 20% of its time and money on lobbying elected officials and/or lobbying for legislation. contributions to a 501(c)(3) are tax-deductible (though if you get something in return the value of that thing is not a tax deduction- i.e. the price of the tote bag you get when you give to public TV). a 501(c)(4) is a not-for-profit community organization that is permitted to lobby elected officials and for legislation to its hearts content. contributions to a 501(c)(4) are NOT tax deductible. i don't know why SHCA was set up as a 501(c)(4) - doesn't really seem necessary, especially since there is no paid staff, but I don't want to get into that debate. But whether they are a c4 or c3 has no bearing on the legality of representing their members vs. representing the community at large. sue ============================================================ From: "S. Sharrieff Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2002/06/13 Thu AM 07:38:26 EDT To: "U-City list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Elizabeth F. Campion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [UC] SHCA Elections : CJ CARD - Reality challenged or just flaming? I noticed a typing error in Liz's post : Liz wrote: 6. I consider a mere 75 votes (give or take a few) for the "winning" directors of SHCA to be a sad reflection of the current "inclusiveness" of an organization that purports to represent the owners of 15,600 properties. And, gird your loins... I'll continue to work for broader representation. Sharrieff writes: The error is in the statement 15,600 PROPERTIES, S.H.C.A. uses the term RESIDENTS. And the real issue here is that the Spruce Hill Community Association Inc. Civic Association 501 C-4, not 501 C-3, (The Trust is a 501 C-3) at BEST speaks for its MEMBERSHIP (appox. 500) and will NEVER speak for the combined resident base of what is known as Spruce Hill or any mapped geography within University City. This is the ongoing mis-representation that creates confusion, and conflict within our community. There are no documents or contracts filed by residents authorizing ANY community association to "speak for" their interest in this community. It is an honor and responsibility for associations to INFORM residents of issues of concern for our neighborhood. S. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Elizabeth F. Campion Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 6:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [UC] SHCA Elections : CJ CARD - Reality challenged or just flaming? Chris, If 103 (?) votes can be said to be inclusive representation of a neighborhood of 15,600 (=/-) properties than there may be something other than rash and inappropriate gloating to your post. Corrections, contradictions and even some explanation follow: 1. As most know, SHNA is a response to the Proposed Historic District. SHNA endorsed nobody! The nominations were offered by me, acting on behalf of an Ad Hoc Committee of SHCA Members who want to improve the association by adding some new faces to the board and by broadening overall membership in SHCA. I am also a member of SHNA, but the erroneous conclusion you presented was not derived from my presentation nor from any of the literature or statements presented at the meeting. SHNA MADE NO NOMINATIONS! 2. I heard no preelection rumors. And doubt you did (unless your own paranoid speculation counts as rumor). 3. I nominated names to a very few positions and not to the "virtually all positions" that you describe. I made only ONE officer nomination (for the SEVEN) Executive Positions available. In addition, our committee endorsed the SHCA nominations of Nancy Roth (unanimously) and Jim Lilly (strongly) because we think they are doing a good job. We did not oppose the other officers, but had sufficient reservations that we let them prevail on their own. Our committee did not see any reason to inform Jim or Nancy or any of the director candidates and I believe our compliment should be a welcome SURPRISE. I hope they let me know, off-list. Our intention was to prevent them from being "bumped" if any of our nominees had prevailed. There were TWENTY ONE available Director positions. I announced only SEVEN names and honoring the stated process, I made only FIVE Nominations. We also endorsed the Nomination Committee's recommendations of Greg, Diane, Jeff, Pauline, Jane, Jackie, Matt and Mamie because they were people who seem to bring integrity and diversity to the table. We felt the remaining nominees for directors would triumph or fail on their own perceived merit. Most are good people and active community volunteers, but SHCA seems to be overly absorbed in "appearances". My personal goal was to extend its reach into community issues. I NOMINATED PEOPLE FOR 6 OF 28 SPOTS. 21% IS NOT A "VIRTUALLY ALL"! We think nomination is an honor. There are no losers, just 6 good people who are not "obligated" to attend SHCA meetings. I am confident our nominees will continue to work toward those projects that interest them. It may be that you are offended because we couldn't endorse you. But, your attack on "Rx", followed by your ongoing pattern of deception through confusion (whether intended or just a reflection of a lack of care and / or intelligence) led us to hope that thinking members of SHCA would replace you and a few others with any of the more deserving candidates that were nominated last night. You can only imagine my distress that 62 members of SHCA choose to check a box that endorsed the entire SHCA slate. I had hoped more of my neighbors had matured beyond just voting a straight party ticket. 4. The SHCA Bylaws are a little fuzzy on what constitutes timely payment. Certainly, because the issue of Mr. Rainey's current dues came up during nomination, it was clearly PRIOR TO the election. Further, the Bylaws could be construed to say all nominees must be present to accept nominations, and I noticed a few from the SHCA slate were not present, but... our committee chose not to "Nit Pick". I will go on the record as saying that I believe that the refusal to accept dues from Mr. Rainey, in the public meeting, was an appalling (and sadly predictable) gesture by SHCA. Our Ad Hoc Committee of SHCA members gave his name to all directors and officers prior to the election. Instead of extending courtesy to a former SHCA Board Member and current community volunteer, some directors preferred a stance of ambush and public humiliation. This stands as an example of the type of gesture we are trying to remove from the face of SHCA. Alfonso has courage and heart and will rise above the petty assault. Alfonso may be "loose" on expiration dates but he is a generous and considerate man who gives a lot of time to our community and has a better rapport with a broader segment of the neighborhood than some more rigid bureaucratic types. What was done to Alfonso was wrong. But it was done by SHCA, not our committee. Alfonso made an accounting error but the Election Committee choose to compound it with a social error; and in a way that reminds me that evil flourishes when good people do nothing to stop it. 5. If Eli Masser and / or you don't know that "Point of Order" is different than "Out of Order" or that "Robert's Rules of Order" is designed to aid courtesy not stifle it, than a general meeting should not be structured to accommodate your deficiencies. 6. I consider a mere 75 votes (give or take a few) for the "winning" directors of SHCA to be a sad reflection of the current "inclusiveness" of an organization that purports to represent the owners of 15,600 properties. And, gird your loins... I'll continue to work for broader representation. In CONCLUSION,your first sentence may contain the only bit of truth to be found in your florid and bizarre post. I hope SHCA has the social sense to disavow itself from your error filled, contentious and totally attitudinal post. Sincerely and speaking only for myself and with only a fragment of the attitude that I am feeling. Liz Campion On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:52:02 -0700 (PDT) C J Card <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Last night, Spruce Hill Community Association (SHCA) held its annual > election. This particular election rumored to be hotly contested by > Spruce Hill Neighborhood Alliance (SHNA). SHNA position has been > that SHCA does not represent the neighborhood and basically, it was > time for new ideas. The group ran an opposing slate for virtually > all positions up for election including a name of someone they used > without first asking that individual (Nancy Roth for 3rd Vice > President). The way the bylaws read in SHCA, someone could, at the > very last minute, become a member in good standing to either vote or > get elected. James and I found this interesting because we were use > to the Cedar Park Neighbors way of things: You must be a member in > good standing a month before the election, which is announced two > months before the actual date. > When the elections started, Mr. Masser gave the room notice that the > election was about to start and if you were not in good standing, it > was time to pay your dues RIGHT NOW to be able to participate in the > election process. Starting the election, SHNA announced their > candidates. One candidate was not present and not eligible. Another > candidate was not in good standing giving SHNA an opportunity to > challenge the process in particular and SHCA board members > specifically. SHNA had not prepared this candidate. Calling point > of order to read the bylaws, they momentarily stopped the election > process. It was clear that this candidate was extremely embarrassed > but SHNA was oblivious to this and insisted that SHCA was out of > order. SHNA offered to pay their candidate's dues further drawing > attention. The candidate lashed out on the group and the SHCA board. > > > SHNA should be ashamed for what they did to this person. > > SHNA is about change, new ideas, new leadership and new blood. Yes, > change is a good thing. But the group really doesn't stand for > anything other than being against SHCA. Their insistence that SHCA > does not represent the entire neighborhood may be true to some > extent. But they hardly offer the alternative of "making Spruce > Hill a livable community for all residents" as their website says. > Spruce Hill is livable for all residents. It is why we all live > here. > > CJ Card > > > C J Card > 42nd Street and Osage Ave > Philadelphia Pa 19104 > cell: 215.681.3732 ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ============================================================ ********************************** Sue McNamara Tancredi Philadelphia Coordinator Tri-State Transportation Campaign 327 South 43rd Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 215.243.2026 phone 215.243.2029 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
