You continue to use information that you know is incorrect. Your continuous use of false information can no longer be seen as your misinterpretation of the facts. You MUST respect the community and present the truth, all of the truth. As many mothers tell their children, omission of all the facts is they same as a lie.

Below is Donalds email to me:
The next post in this thread contains the FACTS from Mr. Gammon.
------------------------------------
Sal

Let?’s talk disrespect. In the settlement agreement that moderated last nights meeting, Mr. Gammons created an environment that limited to those who wanted to speak. So your statement that everyone had a right to be heard is patently false. Additionally, as per Mr. Gammons, there was no opportunity for any alterations to the proposed by-laws amendments from the floor. How could this not be considered an abridgement of free speech for every member of the association?

In fact there was one gentleman who asked could he make a motion from the floor and unfortunately the answer had to be no. Why? In my mind this was needed by the minority to control the meeting. It was clear that Mr. Gammons negotiated away the free speech of the membership at large.

Please remember that last year, anyone who wanted to speak was extended the courtesy of the floor. Not so this year. I have always stated that the CCHOA was emerging and undergoing a metamorphosis and change is needed and is good. However, to promote a division, an us versus them mentality does not help the organization or the property values of the members. I find it interesting that you find time to revel in the partial victories noted, but you do nothing to marshal any support for a middle school that we so desperately need.

One last point, while consistent with your anemic personality, when I spoke with new Board member Fennessy this morning, he did not gloat. I think that a proper response would be to accept your victory with dignity. The reality is that the vote was only 21 homes different. This is not the landslide that you allege. Perhaps a more gentlemanly approach would be to extend you hand and advance the organization in lieu of pontification.

Looking forward to working with the new Board,

Donald Abrams

THE TRUTH - Learn it Donald

Donald

Sal did as he promised you he would. I have received your e-mail and marvel at it.

You obviously have a complete misunderstanding of the process and have wrongly accused me of stifling free speech. For the record, despite my continued efforts to take part, I had NOTHING to do with the format for last night's meeting, which was determined by Clark Jobe, the parliamentarian hired by your pals on the board who gave him a free reign to conduct the meeting as he determined.

The proposed bylaw amendments were worded not by me, but by your pals on the board (did you fail to notice that when you received your proxy and ballot in the mail?) and I vehemently protested that such was not in accordance with the agreement or Robert's Rules of Order. There are witnesses to this including Clark Jobe, John Jacks, and Rick Gray, all of whom are honorable men and will confirm the truth of these assertions.

Your pals on the board are the ones to blame (or take credit) for the conduct of the meeting of which you complain. Had I gotten what I wanted, not only would amendments to the proposed language have been permitted, but the entire process would have been one in which the language of the amendments was actually crafted from the floor during the meeting. The only thing that I did was extract from the board the agreement that the topics which were voted upon would be on the agenda. Those topics were the topics that were already circulated throughout the neighborhood by Carol DeSolla and others by way of a petition signed by over 350 members months before the election. The amendment language that I proposed was the exact language that was in the petition. That proposal was specifically rejected by the board and they crafted their own, which you got in the mail. They even changed the order of business to which we had specifically agreed (take a look at the original ''agenda'' which came with your ballot and proxy if you need to refresh your memory).

Further, the agenda which I proposed had a specific time allotted for public input, which was listed on the original agenda as ''other business.'' That was to have been taken up during the hour remaining after the voting on the amendments and election of a director. There was ample time and opportunity for the very thing that you complain was lacking from the meeting. Unfortunately, that was the portion of the meeting that Jim O'Reilly took over when Clark Jobe sat down. At that point, rather than ask for input from the membership, your pal O'Reilly did what he is accustomed to doing and shut discussion, and the meeting, down. Don't blame me for stifling of free speech at the meeting. The only kind of speech that I am going to stifle is that which is libelous and defamatory.

Don, you owe me an apology. You should also learn to spell my name correctly.

Bill Gammon

p.s. We do share one sentiment: victory should be accepted with dignity. We all owe each other respect and the offer of a hand extended, not clenched as a fist. In that spirit I copy you on a message I sent to Ken Rigsbee earlier today.

Just curious...

How many 'homes different' would it have been w/o the developer lot votes?

builder lots

The builder lots votes equaled about 110 average size homes. That block vote went directly to O'Reilly so he can vote for the developer. O'Reilly and Rigsbee are part of the developers board. I have asked for full discloser.

Through their lawyers, that we pay for, a letter was sent to me stating O'Reilly and Rigsbee don't have to give us full discloser. email me and I'll fax it to anyone.