ARBITRARY ACTION
One of the major accomplishments of the Marshall Administration was the generation of written “Standard Operating Procedures” (SOP) for many UCO functions and also for the operation of certain key Committees. The use of SOP is the mark of any Professional organization, and results in a uniform process, thus eliminating variable and arbitrary practice. This work was unfinished, and subsequently abandoned by Loewenstein & Co. The result of this lack of guidance has had particularly Dictatorial effect in the Nominating Committee! Lacking a Mission and Function statement, this Committee makes its Candidate Selections based on Ouija Board logic and Party loyalty! Worse yet; they craft their rejection decisions based on zero formal criteria. It is difficult enough to recruit the best talent in the Village to volunteer, without a layer of Mustache Petes making arbitrary decisions in camera. Should we allow this arbitrary autocracy to continue? Should Loewenstein and Co. be re-elected??
LoT
1 comment:
Finally, someone proposed the criteria for the “selection” of those to be
“Declined their rights” to offer their names into UCO candidacy.
Wow, and all it took was a OUIJA board. I am so please at this extraordinary explanation, and I thought it was “political” only. Shame on me!
It is interesting to note the By-laws express the Committee’s responsibility as to gather names. In the early days of UCO that was extremely important, since filling seats at UCO was like our attempts to get Unit Owners to “run for the Board” or even attend meetings.
NOT until this administration, has UCO broken with tradition or precedent and permitted the fiasco, which incidentally eliminates names from candidacy so you the VOTERS cannot vote for all the candidates, unless they become nominated from the floor. Just another example of poor leadership! After 24 years, this team had to limit your ability to vote for those THEY did not want.
Post a Comment