Upcoming Election

[DWoolley]

Dane,

You are 100% correct.

CLSA Civics

Chapters elect their Directors. The Board of Directors (“BoD”), seated by their individual chapters, is responsible for the governance of the association, period. The Executive Committee i.e. President, President-Elect (Vice-President), Treasurer, Secretary etc., like every other committee, is subordinate to the Board of Directors. The Orange County Directors, like most Directors, believe they have an obligation to the members that have elected them. However, the “will of the Board” as determined by majority vote (occasionally two-thirds) is the direction of CLSA. It’s really that simple. The idea Joe Padilla or any other candidate – especially from a seat on the Executive Committee – could singularly do ANYTHING of consequence is ludicrous. The Board of Directors has to ratify any actions taken. There was a time, not long ago, when Directors were not allowed to attend Executive Committee meetings, Conference Committee meetings or any other committee meeting without permission, imagine.

Bylaws

There is no reason to change the bylaws due to changes in the state law. Think about it, we’d be changing the bylaws regularly. It was clearly explained to the BoD, many times, we are always bound by state law. The bylaws do not have to be amended every time there is a change in state law. In fact, 99% of the changes in the CLSA bylaws had nothing to do with state law – any Director could tell you the same. The only change, that I recall, in state law that was inconsistent with our bylaws was the use of proxy voting.

Candidate Experience

As for the “experience” argument? Hogwash. Ron Nelms was elected Member at Large in 2012. In an unusual step, the Board of Directors voted him out the next year. I was there. In 2016 we have many new Directors that weren’t around in 2012. Nelms started this year, in February, as Member at Large. Vast experience? Nope. However, I would argue experience isn’t key to conducting a meeting – the primary role of the President. Especially now that the Board of Directors, representing their respective chapters, has assumed control of CLSA. Proof positive is the fact the last Executive Committee was over in less than 4 hours with a one hour lunch break included.

The “Orange County” Agenda - the boogieman?

Orange County’s agenda is set by the members – it is practice based to serve licensed professionals and the professional community at large. Everything, I mean everything, is run through the membership. We often have 15+ people at our Executive Committee meetings- we welcome our members to every meeting. We broadcast our chapter meetings live and put the video online when we're done. We are also the first to lend a hand to anyone that asks for it. Outside of practice based interest our primary interest is in transparency in governance. For years we had to fight, like dogs, to get contracts in place for our largest CLSA expenditures, financial records, answers to tax questions, accounting for expenditures, responsible succession planning. No Magee, you cannot lecture Orange County on “fiduciary duty”. Yes, Joe Padilla was on the front lines.

Keep in mind, Orange County has no authority without the majority vote of the balance of the Directors. If our agenda wasn’t in the best interest of land surveying and/or CLSA the other Directors wouldn’t support it. That has not been the case. In fact, as it stands in recent meetings, the “Orange County” agenda is usually shared by 35+ other Directors. It clearly is the CLSA agenda.

The Candidates

The reason we are having an election is due to the resignation of a former Treasurer after pointed questions couldn't be answered. There is no entitlement for the position. Arguably, it was this sense of entitlement that got us sideways in the first place. I rather enjoy an election among the membership, why not? I support Joe Padilla. Joe is about transparency, open governance. Simple as that. I don’t think Ron Nelms shares this mind set based on watching his voting over the course of 4-5 years. It is telling that a handful of recent Past Presidents, each having served as a Treasurer and on the Financial Committee, have chosen to endorse Ron Nelms. Yes, these are the same fellas that told the BoD in writing they had the taxes reviewed by “professionals” and there was nothing wrong, thanks fellas. Update, the Executive Committee and several Directors recently heard from the consultant CPA hired to fix our tax returns “there is only one way to explain your tax returns, incompetence” and she went on to say “incompetence” no less than 6 more times. Did I mention these were amended returns? Yes, we, Orange County Directors, pointed out errors by chapter and verse according to the tax code –which means the former CLSA CPA had another chance to do it right – and the AMENDED returns “had multiple errors on every page” or so we were told. How disconcerting is it when a PLS can identify errors the former CLSA CPA cannot recognize? The Accountancy Board probably thought the same thing at his July 7th hearing.

If Nelms were to win the election it isn’t the end of the free world as we know it. We’ll have some clunky meetings while he stares around the room wondering what the proper procedure is, no big deal. We had that two years ago, it couldn't be any worse, we survived. He’ll probably want to obscure information from the BoD again, but he is one person with a handful of past presidents behind him– so that won’t happen. He’ll probably scare the bejesus out of the management staff again with his irrational outburst, but they’ll likely adjust. No, it will be ok either way the election turns out. The BoD has rightfully assumed control of CLSA - after years of infighting for the right to do so - yes, I believe everything will be alright for CLSA.

The CLSA Conference

I am looking forward to seeing every member at next year’s conference which will be in Orange County. We were planning it at tonight's meeting.

I am a Padilla man, vote for Padilla.

For what it is worth, most folks never got to see or hear my "best ideas". Joe always served as a counter weight to me. In hindsight, I am grateful some of those "good ideas" never got out of our boardroom.

D. Woolley

Magee, you're always short on details, specifics - why is that? Lots of words, nothing said.

[DWoolley]

Fun fact:

When you look at the "Past President's Advisory Council" names on the letter posted previously. It must be noted there are approximately 40 of these past presidents alive - anyone else wonder why they could only rustle up about 15 signatures? Check out the years served - some holes in recent years and they went all the way back to 1969 for that one last signature. In fact, there are past presidents that serve as Directors at nearly every meeting, one dating back to 1978, their signatures are conspicuously missing from the documents. When this was pointed out to the handful of past presidents, by Joe Padilla, the Board of Directors quit getting any names or signatures on the PPAC "advisory" letters. Their most recent work comes in unsigned and undated - clearly not a majority among their own peer group.

I am just sayin'

DWoolley

[Mr. Smith]

Another Fun Fact DWoolley,

For some of us the worst part of our travels through California is the traverse of LA and OC Counties.


Just Sayin'

[coast]

Can't we all just get along?

[William Magee]

I don't know Brian, I don't mind traversing through that area. Not really my cup of tea but I do know a few good folks down there so it must not be all bad.

I do know that whatever is in the water or air or bright lights or noise or horrendous traffic that dulls persons sensitivities might have some part in some peoples attitudes. But who really knows.

Anyways, I'm guessing most people who are going to vote, have already voted. I'm also guessing that most are tired of listening to the back and forth going on here between me and those who most concern me. So at this point I'll tone it down and won't go into some of the retaliatory actions they've taken against certain individuals. The outcome of personal attacks and how it has driven people from speaking up for fear of being the next person who gets ...well I'll leave that alone. Instead I only caution those who choose to participate on the Board of Directors. Go along to get along or you might find yourself being the one targeted.

I would like to set the record straight. There have been a number of, um, incorrect statements presented by those with practiced tongue. I would like to point out that at the July, 2015 BOD meeting, the OC directors, as with all the directors of the BOD, confirmed they had reviewed the 2014 tax returns which had been made available 2 weeks prior to the meeting. They were then asked if they had any questions or concerns. Zero, nada. Not a question or concern. Immediately thereafter, the OC directors joined in on the unanimous approval to submit the 2014 tax forms to the IRS. Then, the OC directors joined in on the unanimous approval by the BOD to subsequently prepare the amended returns based on the form and content of the 2014 returns. Now they have the audacity to point fingers at others, trying to dupe others think they didn't review or approve the 2014 return. Amazing.

Don't believe me, take a look at the July 2015 BOD minutes.

Then take a look at what those write, those who would like you to believe history was written differently:

.........

..... Yes, we, Orange County Directors, pointed out errors by chapter and verse according to the tax code –which means the former CLSA CPA had another chance to do it right – and the AMENDED returns “had multiple errors on every page” or so we were told. How disconcerting is it when a PLS can identify errors the former CLSA CPA cannot recognize? The Accountancy Board probably thought the same thing at his July 7th hearing.
............

Why do they do this? Why do they want to change the facts? Why do they attack and harass those who speak out against their ideas or point out their dirty deeds. What is their ultimate goal in misleading others as to the real history and facts?
I would like to add that past discussion on CLSA's taxes has been misleading. At least those discussions presented by some.
I don't know. I don't know if it is what in the water. Or perhaps those bright Hollywood lights. ??

[mpallamary]

“Chirp of coward shouted in crowd,
dare to speak but not to be known.”

― Toba Beta

[Mr. Smith]

Sorry, did not intend to say the big city is bad, it's just not my cup of tea.

Myself would not purposefully go to Frisco or LA to attend a 4 day conference.

Bri

[mpallamary]

Years ago when I was on the board, we did a detailed economic analysis of the cost to fly. We got the prices for every chapter and ran it through the airlines and hands down, the cheapest cost for the entire association was Las Vegas! I have not checked to see what it costs to fly to Vegas these days but I am sure they have a lot of offers. I think we even negotiated so that the hotels would throw in a meeting room for free.

Something to consider.

[Peter Ehlert]

Sorry, did not intend to say the big city is bad, it's just not my cup of tea.

Myself would not purposefully go to Frisco or LA to attend a 4 day conference.

Bri

Frisco = those are black pants
San Francisco = the City/County in Northern California
:-)

Tip: to travel North/South take I-15 and cross the Tehachapi Pass, much more pleasant for us country boys.
(also use the Tecate crossing, it is preferred over Otay or San Ysidro... no San Diego or Tijuana)

Cities ain't bad, but I avoid them when I can.

[mpallamary]

When I discovered all of the financial problems with CLSA, including the falsified tax returns, I contacted Ron Nelms to seek his assistance. I did this because I was told that he was the intermediary between members and the Board of Directors.
Sadly, this was a futile effort as Ron did nothing. Instead, he joined the other past presidents and questioned me and my motives, as if I had other motives. He adopted the same goal of obfuscation.

Regardless of one’s so-called motives, as if I have any, my concerns have been independently validated; CLSA’s taxes are a shambles and the entire financial health of the association is at risk. And, the second shoe has yet to fall.

It is for this that I cannot sit idly by and support Ron Nelms when he made no effort to assist me in seeking the truth. Instead, like the select cadre of past presidents, Ron Nelms is more interested in shuffling these problems under the carpet. He is not interested in finding out what happened nor is he interested in helping us rebuild the association. It is not surprising that Mr. Nelm’s most vocal supporters are those responsible for this crisis; the men who are responsible for these problems by failing the association. They and they alone allowed this problem to happen. They were in charge of the association and they should have asked the same questions I asked. Instead, their names show up on an endless list of falsely filed tax returns, all of which were signed under the penalty of perjury. These men were supposed to be looking out for the association and they did not; they failed us.

Ron Nelms was given the chance to address this problem and he did nothing.

This cycle on incompetency must end. We need competent people running the association. We need people who are not afraid to ask important questions. We need people who understand business.

Please join me in saving our association. Ron Nelms has had his chance and he failed us all.

Join me in voting for Joe Padilla.

[E_Page]

William Magee,

I have no idea who you are. By your posts, you seem to be thoughtful and intelligent, but at least on this topic, you have also tried to be misleading. I was at the Board of Directors meeting where you claim that Joe Padilla said that he would continue to represent the OC chapter's views regardless of the views of the rest of the CLSA may be if he were elected President. What he said was that as a representative of the OC Chapter, he sees it as his role to represent that chapter's interests. The rest of your claim is extrapolation. I believe that Joe would view and perform the duty as President of CLSA in the same manner as he views his duty now to his home chapter. That is, he would represent the interests of the association as a whole. I've heard nor read nothing from him to indicate otherwise.

You keep alluding to inappropriate attacks by someone in the OC leadership without ever saying the name. Everyone knows who you are referring to. Stop beating around the bush and just have the courage to say it. DAVE WOOLLEY. There, I said it for you. Not so difficult. Stop being oblique about it.

Dave certainly isn't the most diplomatic person in the CLSA. In fact, he barely understands diplomacy, and what little he does understand, he's not interested in. Oh well. But the fact remains, as has been shown by the recent look at the past few years of tax returns, that he and others have been right to question the accounting and finances of the organization. There have been times when I don't like the way in which he argues a matter, when I feel he is not arguing with all of the relevant facts. But in the matters discussed in this thread of which I am informed, he has laid it out pretty straight.

Dane is correct that the changes to the bylaws has resulted in the organization shutting out the individual member. I've heard the reasoning that they had to be done to conform to State law. To a certain extent perhaps, but not to the point of mirroring the management authority structure of a private company. Not to the point that the Directors should ever be directed to keep secrets from their chapters and not consider their roles as representing the interests of their chapters. The intent of the law is that a director not put the interests of their chapter ahead of those of the organization as a whole when the local interests would work to undermine the broader interests of the organization.

There are those who would, and who have characterized the OC chapter's push for financial transparency as undermining the interests of the CLSA as a whole, but that has proven to be untrue. In fact, even though they were the minority voice in that contentious issue, they were representing a view that was in fact very much in the interests of the organization as a whole, and those fighting against it, knowingly or unknowingly, were actually the ones working against the better interests of the CLSA.

I know full well that Dave can be brash, irritating, aggravating, and downright rude when advancing an argument or a cause. That does not make him automatically wrong. And I would never accuse him of doing anything that undermines the best interests of the profession to benefit himself. I may at times disagree with him on what is best, but I don't doubt his motives.

Dave happens to be the most vocal of the OC contingent, but ascribing his mannerisms, and crediting the entire OC chapter delegation with unfounded "attacks" is unwarranted and inaccurate. In fact, I've attended 4 of the last 5 BoD meetings, and in each one, there has been at least one unprofessional vague attack on the character of the individuals comprising the OC contingent. In 2 of those meetings, many of those attacks came in the form of red-faced, all out yelling (and sometimes laced with profanity). Some of those were directed right to Joe Padilla. As abusive and utterly unprofessional as those attacks were, not once did Joe or any of the OC directors respond in kind. Not once. I was somewhat surprised by that, but even more, I was impressed with their self control and composure.

In light of the fact of our new accountants finding many indications of incompetence in the preparation of past tax returns, of what I witnessed on the past few BoD meetings, of what I know of many of the actions by BPELSG staff in legislative and enforcement matters, and in light of the arguments presented in this thread, Dave's hold a lot more credibility than what you've presented.

You've further damaged your credibility in your more recent response to Ryan Veersteg. If this were a verbal forum rather than one where we could actually read what each of us says, you might have gotten away with your misrepresentation. Ryan already called you on it, but I'll point it out again. He plainly was referring to the ELECTION as being the choice of the collective full membership. That he also mentioned the nomination in the same post does not give you the license to distort the point he made. Those paying attention see right through it.

I've worked with Ron for several years on the Legislative Committee. He has and continues to give a lot to the CLSA. I've only known Joe for a few months, but have been impressed with his demeanor at the BoD meetings and with what he has done for his home chapter. From my perspective, both are fine men who care deeply about our profession. I respect the choice of either one by any member of the CLSA.

I don't condone personal attacks in this forum except perhaps when they are limited to pointing out the weakness of statements made to attack another. In that regard, I think some of those aimed toward you have been bordering on, or on occasion have been outright adolescent. But that does not make your arguments correct.

I don't know or care if your username is your real name. I do care about whether facts and arguments are being honestly presented for a decision each of us will make. When you play fast & loose with the facts, and when you misrepresent the gist of others' statements, it doesn't reflect poorly on you alone. It also reflects poorly on the candidate you are supporting. If you want to help Ron, try more direct and honest discussion.

[William Magee]

Evan , I respectfully disagree with several of your observations and interpretations of the facts. I have to add these above listed items are not the first times I have been of the belief you have given an accounting of your observations that have been off target.
Without going into a point-counterpoint dissertation, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on our understanding of the facts.
I will add that I have not intentionally mislead anyone. Everything I have stated are what I believe to be true and correct. And I have only scratched the surface reporting on those actions by certain individuals who are influential in the OC leadership. I have purposefully stayed away from reporting on some of the more malicious and retaliatory actions they have employed, I'm beginning to think perhaps it is an arena that needs to be further explored as apparently there are a number of persons who are unconvinced of the realities of those actions.

Michael. Please read the July 2015 BOD minutes. You will notice that the BOD reviewed and approved both the 2014 taxes and approved amending several prior year tax forms to be patterned after those approved 2014 forms. The OC directors were part of those unanimous approvals. I personally find it curious that you continually blame others for errors on the tax forms. I find it disheartening when I also see an OC director who was present and voted at that July meeting, also tries to blame others for those errors. Errors that he reviewed and approved. He then attempts to rewrite history by mistating it. Fortunately it is captured in the association's formal minutes. I repeat again, he nor any of the OC chapter raised any questions about those forms when it was a noticed agenda item before the BOD.
Those are the facts.
.

[Mr. Smith]

I am one of the biggest stick pokers around but when I see past presidents maligned by others it strikes a nerve, some on that list are friends’ even mentors.
It is about time to stop running down past history and focus on the future a future that is for the Land Surveyor not any special interest group of said surveyors.

.02

[mpallamary]

I agree with the notion of moving forward. In order to do that, we must find out where we are financially and we must determine our what our operating expenses are and what our assets and liabilities are. As a business owner for nearly 40 years, I understand the importance of proper books and understanding my financial status. It is an essential component of business.

That is why CLSA must undertake this necessary but tedious process.

It is well know that our taxes are in disarray and that we have trouble with the IRS. That being said, I have no interest in dredging up the past. Unfortunately, the only way we are going to figure out what is going on is to deal with some of these past issues.

As everyone knows, a group of past presidents have allegedly gone through our finances and they have assured the association that there are no problems with our finances. It is clear they were wrong and that is unfortunate. I will not dwell on their motivation. As to the other discrepancies, we need these men to explain what is going on. If they are unable to do that, they need to tell us why or we need to hire someone who can do that. As it is, the problems with the so-called "past" issues, exist because the past presidents are unwilling to let the association know what is going on. If they would come forward and tell us what they know, we can move forward. Until that happens, these questions will continue; they are not going away. What is unfortunate about this is that in spite of the best efforts of many of us, those wanting to keep these conversations discreet and internal, these questions are being asked by others, some of whom are in a role of overseeing the operations of CLSA. Many people take the position that we should simply move on.

As attractive as that may seem, it is not going to happen. There are going to be more questions and as long as there are going to be obstructionists, we are unable to keep these inquiries discreet.

The reason the upcoming election is so important is because we need the financial doings of the association to be open and transparent. We have a positive momentum and we have an excellent management company to assist us in working our way through these problems. What we don't need is anonymous people like William Magee adding fuel to the fire, inciting people for what I believe is devised as a distraction. It is clear he has some insider insights and if his concerns are to be taken seriously, he has to reveal himself. I, for one, disregard anything he posts as he has no credibility or substance. We went through this before with Stan Myron who many of believe is related to Magee, if not being the same person.

Regardless of who he is, we don't need the association undermined by people like this. We need people who are willing to work and who are not afraid to identify themselves by standing up, identifying themselves, and being brave enough to help us. It is wasteful for a Stan Myron like person to take potshots from behind a veil.

I remain devoted to rebuilding the association and I am appealing to others with a sense of righteousness to help me. There are a lot of problems and these are not going to go away by attacking people and sweeping them under the carpet. There are a lot of unanswered questions and they can only be answered if our members rise up and do the right thing. The California Land Surveyors Association is an organization worthy of saving. Please help me rebuild. Let us break the chain of secrecy. The way that starts is by electing Joe Padilla.

This is your association and each of us has a duty to each other and to the profession. I am hopeful that whomever replies makes a positive comment and does not attack me or anyone else trying to do the right thing. That is not progress.

[mpallamary]

In 1991, Paul Cuomo and I began asking questions about the association's finances. In 1993, we held a joint meeting in Orange County to discuss these issues.

For those who state they were not aware of the financial issues, that is a false statement. many of us knew about this and the past presidents, who were aware of our concerns, did nothing. Ever since we revealed these problems, we were ostensibly banished and every effort we made to share our concerns was censored. As you can see, we wanted to get an independent audit and instead we were threatened by a Past President. He told us CLSA was going to sue us for asking for an audit.

The Past Presidents who have continued to advance this posture continue to obfuscate this issue. They are responsible for the current state of affairs. Take a look at the attached document. It is the agenda we discussed. I have more material related to this matter and the historical context in which the tax issues were made known to the then reigning Presidents. Sadly, these individuals continue in their efforts to impede a healthy discussion on this topic.

End the madness. Vote for Joe Padilla.

[pls7809]

You guys actually held a meeting to discuss relative topics and to develop questions to ask the powers that be? Oh...the horror.

[mpallamary]

Indeed. And as then as now, we were threatened.

[mpallamary]

Help us end the madness. Vote for Joe Padilla. We need to make progress and fix this stuff. It is that simple!

[TTaylor]

I am not a member - at present; however, I am watching and waiting for a time to rejoin the organization that best represents our interests as professional land surveyors (CLSA) and to contribute towards our collective cause in any way that my skills can help.

Just not now.

I, for one, think transparency in our organization at all levels should be paramount, including using your real name when expressing an opinion that can affect the organization. That's what professionals do. People that have nothing to hide don't hide things.

Change can be very tumultuous. Particularly with a passionate, independent thinking bunch like us. I prefer the idea of keeping your eye on the doughnut and not the hole. And to leave emotion out of decisions each of the members make with respect to CLSA.

I personally know both Ron and Joe and like and respect each of them as land surveyors and decent men. Both have contributed their time and energies to CLSA for a long time. I know that if I were voting and had to make a decision between these two fine men that I would have to do a lot of soul searching and thinking.

The questions I would ask myself?
1.) Who is best to guide CLSA with all that is STILL going on,
2.) Who is best at creating a consensus that benefits the Association,
3.) Who has the best temperament and leadership qualities to guide passionate discussions to a resolution by remaining dispassionate, fair, and impartial,
4.) Who has the best vision for the future of CLSA, And, of course
5.) Who is the most transparent.

Good luck!!

Now, off to France next week for a tour. Hopefully, I'll find some fellow surveyors there and some nice monuments to photograph.

Cheers.

[mpallamary]

Great comments Tom. Take lots of pictures and have fun. I hope the weather is accommodating!

[TTaylor]

Thanks, Mike.

[Ian Wilson]

Excellent comments, Thomas! Please call me or email me next week. I would love to chat with you...

Number and email sent as PM...

[Ian Wilson]

Hmmm...

I saw a post from Tom last night while I was at the San Francisco Chapter CLSA Meeting. I wanted to respond this morning, but it looks as though the post has been deleted.

Tom, I wanted to talk to you about coming back to CLSA. You were an active member until...the event. I highly valued your input and change my opinion more than once based on points you made. I've learned a lot from you over the years.

We, as an Association, could certainly benefit from your participation, experience and knowledge.

That's what I wanted to chat with you about. Nothing untoward or nefarious. I just wanted a conversation with you about reaching out to you and coming back to CLSA for our betterment and what we have to offer you.

Enjoy your trip to the South of France, my friend. Stay safe. Take lots of pictures to post on Facebook. I'm looking forward to seeing your photos what you're up to.

BTW - I still love the photo of the Toucan. That photo rivals any I've seen for an artistic glimpse at such a colorful bird. That photo belongs on a canvas print on a wall.

Cheers, Tom!

Ian

[TTaylor]

Thanks, Ian,

The tour actually travels all the way around France including the south. Also, I extended the stay for a few more days on my own in Paris. Below is the itinerary. I'm hoping for good weather and good photo opportunities. Tuocan photo attached.

http://www.cosmos.com/tour/grand-tour-o ... tyear=true

[LS_8750]

What was "the event"?

Oh, and don't forget:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BEJFWoAVJz4