Our commissioners are saying they've ratified this? Which part? What? When?
By Ronnie Herne
How do you start a letter that deals with going through Alice’s rabbit hole backwards, and darkly? I’m going to throw some pebbles in the murky water and just follow a couple ripples.
In the middle of this morass are our three commissioners. They clearly told us on May 6th, 2014 (filmed) that their 2-commissioner vote in a workshop session to ratify the South Coast Community Foundation, its by-laws, and its three directors wasn’t actually a vote and would have to be ratified when all three commissioners are present at a regularly scheduled board meeting.
Then on June 17th (filmed) they said, well yes, they had checked with County Counsel and it was a real vote afterall and they really had ratified membership in the SCCF, and accepted its by-laws, and its three directors. And Commissioner Cribbins said Commissioner Bob Main can say what he wants at the July 1st meeting starting at 9:30am.
Now. The three directors the commissioners ratified have since resigned en masse. Prior to leaving, these directors rewrote the by-laws. The previous two or three by-laws (these have been rewritten some 29 times) said only foundation Members could rewrite the by-laws, not directors. But these late directors did it anyway, and rewrote the very structure of the foundation.
Were they allowed to do that? And now the foundation is materially changed, the by-laws are changed (or are they?), the originating directors are gone. But our commissioners are saying they’ve ratified this? Which part? What? When?
And a loose foursome of Members is going to create 7 directors (is it 7?) and the 7 will hire/appoint a CEO with power to invest for the Foundation, sell for the Foundation, and indebt the Foundation. Hello?
And the voter fits in here where? And if the invested foundation gets money, who gets the profit? And if the indebted Foundation fails, who gets the bill?