First Board Meeting – Part II Consent Items and Two Oddities

NYWD Board meetings average 27 minutes in duration. One of the ways they have achieved short meetings is by lumping together “routine” items that need Board approval. The items that are routinely lumped together for a mass Board approval under the Approval of Consent Items are the bills, payroll, and minutes for the previous meetings. The actual items and the details of those items are not reviewed during the meeting – the assumption being that all of those details should have been reviewed by all concerned parties prior to coming to the meeting.

The sequence of events literally follows this pattern: Board President: “Can I have a motion to approve Consent Items 1 – 4 (or however many items there are)?” A Board member will then make that motion, another will second it, and the Board President calls for a vote. As long as three of the board vote “Yay” all items are concurrently approved. Done.

On January 31, 2019, the public was sent from the room at approximately 4:15 pm due to the closed session the GM had scheduled smack in the middle of the meeting.

One oddity, I would like to note here: as the public was leaving the room and before the Closed Session was called to order, the GM demanded each board member’s cell phone citing them as possible “recording devices”. This has never been done previously and To my knowledge, there is no written, codified policy requiring board members to hand over cell phone devices prior to closed sessions.

The public was allowed back into the board room following the Closed Session. Next on the agenda was the Approval of Consent Items. One of the Board members requested that approval of the minutes of the previous meeting be held out separate as he had to abstain on voting due to his absence at the previous meeting. So there was a separate vote for that one item.

I voted nay on approving the minutes because the meeting minutes relative to the seven-minute harangue against me delivered by former President Ferguson was simply reported as ” Director Forguson addressed the Board with his fairwell comments” (typo is not mine).

The Financial Reports were briefly reviewed and then came the second oddity on the agenda: Resolution 19-729. For a Resolution to even be placed on an agenda, the Board must have previously met and discussed such a Resolution and the public would have to be given an opportunity for input. The Board would then make the motions and approve the writing of a resolution which would be reviewed at a later date and placed on an agenda for a vote.

The results of the election were not certified until November 28th; therefore, there would have been no reason to “express appreciation” to Former Director Forguson prior to Nov. 28th. I attended the Board meeting of Nov 30th. (see

There was no discussion of a possible resolution at the Nov. 30th meeting and there was no board meeting in December. Therefore – who wrote this Resolution and who ensured that it was placed on the agenda?

Donna Corson spoke up when the resolution was brought up. She stated that this resolution had not been introduced in accordance with the Brown Act. Before any further discussion occurred, VP Brown spoke. The gist of his message was that he felt all previous directors should be shown appreciation and that any expressions of such appreciation should be made retroactive to past Board members. The resolution on the agenda was tabled. The Board passed a motion to create a Resolution to express appreciation to all previously serving Directors which I wholeheartedly supported.

Stay tuned for Part III!

Feedback is always welcome!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: