Igor Yeliseyev makes a number of good points that are a heartfelt position on the current issues and are certainly are worthy of an attempt to respond. I continue to relish these interchanges and hope that they will provide a better understanding of what Radburn is all about so that changes, if they do come, will hopefully preserve the unique aspects of our community. It is in this spirit that I feel called upon to respond once again and I hope we can get this dialog on to a more reasonable path than it has been to date.

The first statement is that nobody supports the existing order of things except the board and the Radburn association. I myself am not averse to changes in some of our procedures but to say I do not support the proven effectiveness of Radburn governance would be a misstatement of my position.

Now let’s first look at support for the existing order based on the results of the recent election. A total of 665 ballots were mailed. Of these a total of 239 were returned that could be categorized with another 9 that were either incorrectly filled out or otherwise not able to be categorized. Of these 239, 133 were returned with candidates chosen from the 4 listed and 106 with write-ins.

This means that 63% did not vote, 20% voted as per existing procedures, and another 16% chose to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the existing procedures by voting write-in. That write-ins may have individually exceeded any one candidate is a result of there being 2 dissident candidates rather than 4 legitimate ones. By any calculation, there is clear majority for the current process, contrary to the claims that it is not supported. This, despite an enormous effort on the part of a vocal dissident minority that the Board has chosen not to oppose by political means.

Perhaps a more open process is a good idea and I am personally in favor of seeking an approach that is both fair and can preserve Radburn for future generations. However, there is certainly no clear mandate from the citizenry to pursue this difficult task at this time.

I believe the trustees trust the public – they have once again spoken, or chosen not to speak and their will is noted and taken into account. The vocal minority agitating for rapid change have so far shown no responsibility either in their methods which resort to calumny and deception rather than fact, nor in their objectives which provide negatives but no clear plans for the disposition of the three properties at the edge of Radburn.

The third paragraph is once again in the eye of the beholder. What to some people is unrewarded public service for the common good is interpreted by others as a “power” grab. I would like to know what advantage accrues to those who are characterized as a power grabbing clique.

With respect to public attendance, I also favor public sessions in accordance with whatever law applies. Be aware that even with our municipality, it is only a limited number of sessions that require public meetings – most are not open to the public. Those that are mandated should be public or, even if we are not bound to do so, I am happy to work toward making this come to pass.

This is not a license to immediately seek redress from outside agencies whose attentions are the occasion of all those legal fees you disparage. Also, I am not aware that we get any better accounting for legal fees from our publicly elected governments. Sure, we get to know how much their line item for legal expenditures (including in-house counsel) may be but I have rarely if ever seen a detailed breakdown.

I believe the latest budget statement delineates the fees to attorneys as well as anything else. I look forward to seeing you at the annual budget meeting so that we can discuss these with the board. Of two things I am certain.

1. The unwarranted complaints to the state by several of our citizens have cost us all dearly.

2. With 2 attorneys on the board, the fees charged by outside counsel are proper and have been reviewed as such.

My concern for renters is genuine. If we are deemed to be a condominium, there will be voting based on interest in the common property which is determined by parameters attached to the properties that are its units. Since they amount to relative worth, there may well be an inequitable distribution of voting rights with the wealthiest having a disproportionate say. If we do broaden the methods of nomination, I would prefer that it not be under the dictates of PREDFA but under our own more people oriented approach.

I would also note that despite your disparaging rental voters, it is said that much CCRF support for petitions and the like has come from this quarter. It is strange that the beneficiaries of this support are so willing to glibly deny them their voting rights as reward.

With respect to the observation about publicity, you are absolutely correct. While the need for secrecy may have been genuine, the subsequent handling of the announcement and all that has ensued by the board has been abysmal.

However, this is not to say that their intentions were anything but honorable and in what they perceived to be the best interests of the community. In the end, I believe their actions to have been wise and I do believe that if any of us had been there facing the same set of conditions the outcome would not have been much different.

They have achieved the objective of protecting the fiduciary interests of Radburn so no matter what the outcome we will not have to suffer. I wish I could say the same about those who insist on bringing in officialdom to incur great expense rather than to look for solutions within the community first.

To suggest the board resign based on this is downright nonsense - there is not even a mechanism to legitimately replace them (although I suppose the association could manage it) should they choose to do so, and in any event there is certainly no justification for them to even consider it.

The last paragraph refers to losing elections and Churchill’s response. By the above numbers there doesn’t seem to be any basis by which one could claim that the election was lost, even allowing for consideration of ballots for write-in candidates for which there is no provision in the bylaws. To provide a fair playing field, either the board would have had to put forth only two candidates or the write-ins four.

If we wish to follow historical examples, then they should reflect the reality of our situation – I submit that the one cited does not. Rather let us review the results of the last conclave on the same subject held some 20 years ago by the CA committee formed for that purpose. I believe they found the system to be fair and no significant changes were made. However, their deliberations could be a starting point for a new group dedicated to coming up with suggested changes. Once there has been some guidance from the state, a committee of respected fair-minded citizens could be convened to discuss options and make recommendations.

With kind regards,

Mark Wall