Essentially, the Department of Recreation has given its Friends network
governmental authority, and calls these groups the link for community
involvement with the redesign of Clark park. The Clark Park Partnership
is completely closed and operating secretly.
When the Commissioner made this claim publicly, he said it's another
matter if a Friends group is not operating appropriately. I'm preparing
for a meeting with the Commissioner, and I am waiting for the specific
date next week. FOCP is what it is. It is the Department of Recreation
policy that is the unacceptable position.
Problem: Clark Park has been effectively privatized under this policy,
and FOCP is not a functioning link between the government and the people
of this community.
(I do believe that the Friends of Clark Park election will be covered by
the new PA Right To Know Law governing non profits. If not, the document
can be subpoen'd in a court action. But a refusal by FOCP will be just
another part of the data, which I present to the city.)
My primary goal is to help the city to avoid a lawsuit.
As far as the people rising up against the park redesign, they did! (It
was 2001-2002). That is precisely why the UCD and FOCP kept the lock on
the back room closely guarded since 2007. I think its important to
remember that the FOCP has not had a planning committee meeting for two
years!
The FOCP leadership has been misleading the community about a
non-existent committee. The "community" is being "represented" by some
unknown individual from the leadership of FOCP.
The request: The FOCP failed to have a quorum for their last election.
They can refuse all opportunities to disprove my assertion. But can the
Department of Recreation transfer its responsibilities under the US
Constitution to a dysfunctional organization like FOCP????
Thanks for the comments,
Glenn
On 4/21/2010 11:00 AM, Lalevic, Darco wrote:
Glenn,
I'm immensely curious as to your need for such a document. I mean, I understand and in
some ways agree with your criticism of the FOCP, but what's the plan there? Do you really
expect the neighborhood to "rise up" against FOCP, when nothing of the sort has
happened over the years?
In fact, the FOCP can (and probably will) deny your request. I would if I was
them. Just because it's a 501c3 doesn't mean they need to share all their
documents at request.
While your vocal style is often overwhelmingly annoying (and you are often
redundant), I do also enjoy your posts - and it's always good to hear an
opposing viewpoint. I'm just curious what you acquiring this document will
accomplish? Proof that an election was fraudulent because a quorum was not
reached (nor was it called for as I recall). Many community organizations
function regularly in that manner - simply put, membership does not vote if
they do not care. Yet, the organization still needs to continue. Kind of like
our local government.
So anyway, what's your plan here? Overthrow of the FOCP? What then? Will you
rule in their place?
And just so you know, personally I'm distrustful of every organization which
wields any amount of power - and in this case strongly disagree with many
things that FOCP does. Unfortunately, most of my available time is otherwise
occupied with other volunteer efforts to get involved.
Darco
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Glenn
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 9:14 AM
To: Fran Byers; [email protected]
Subject: [UC] Record request
Hi Fran,
First, I'd like to thank you for your long history of volunteerism in
local civic associations. As long as I can remember, I've seen you
serving as the registrar at Friends of Clark Park elections. As a
fellow community volunteer, I know that community service is vital.
Well done!
Today, I need a copy of a public record from the Friends of Clark Park
election from October 21, 2009. I need a copy of the hand written list
of members in good standing, who you checked in prior to that election.
(At approximately 8:30 PM that evening, you and I inspected that hand
written list of 9 names.)
Since this is an informal request for this important document (as
opposed to a request under the PA Right To Know Law), a redacted copy
will be fine. At this point, you can block the individual names from my
copy. I just need to see the first initial and the corresponding number
that recorded their check in.
It is important that I receive a copy of the original document, and only
the names of those physically present at approximately 8:30 PM, October
21, 2009 as the meeting adjourned.
I am not on the agenda for the Board meeting tonight, but I can pick it
up there. Otherwise, I'll give you a stamped self addressed envelope
and pay you for any photo-copy cost. Keep up the good work.
Thank you,
Glenn Moyer
cc University City Purple List
----
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>.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2826 - Release Date: 04/21/10
07:09:00
