Upcoming Election

[marois]

I have known Joe Padilla and Ron Nelms for quite a while and considered them both professional surveyors, who care strongly about CLSA and the profession. However I feel Ron is the better choice for the President-Elect position at this time. There is no doubt that Joe has always been very active at the chapter level. While Ron, over the past few years, has been more involved statewide, chairing the monumentation conservation committee, serving as director at large to the executive committee twice and currently secretary.

The person who takes on the role of president elect, which will require visiting chapters next year and subsequently becoming president the following year, needs as much experience as possible on the executive committee of CLSA, to become knowledgeable in the each office. During my time on executive committee, I found moving up thru each officer position was extremely helpful and educational of the workings of CLSA and I believe helped prepare me for serving as president. In fact at the end of my term, I wished I had more time before taking on the responsibilities of the president, a sentiment that has been expressed by other past presidents.

Ron Nelms is better prepared for becoming CLSA next President-Elect.

And I’m sure next year’s nominating committee would welcome inviting Joe for the 2018 slate.

Armand Marois
CLSA President 2005

[mpallamary]

I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past.
- Thomas Jefferson

Vote for Joe Padilla.

[Lee Hixson]

OK. I don't know either candidate. I vote for a teleconferenced debate.

[Mr. Smith]

In this case I think I will have a good look at who is endorsing who.

Vote for Ron Nelms

[Lee Hixson]

It becomes pretty tricky to pick someone you've never met and all you have to go by are some unsolicited recommendations and a couple of position papers.

[marois]

It should be noted that Ron Nelms did want to have a webinar debate, but this request was refused by the Executive Committee.

[mpallamary]

It seems pretty undemocratic for the Executive Committee to have a say in any debates. There is something fundamentally wrong with this. The goal of an election is to reach out to the membership and educate. This is not democracy; it is an Oligarchy.

[mpallamary]

Every now and then, if an association is lucky, a member rises and gets involved in the workings of his or her organization and they effectuate much-needed change. These individuals are rare and always welcomed. They work quietly and efficiently, often late at night, or early in the morning when others are sleeping. When they fulfill a goal, they share in its success; they do not hoard good blessings. They are natural borne leaders.

To people like this, there is not an "us" versus "them." There is only an "us" and that is the members. These folks rise naturally above the fray of petty arguments and senseless distractions, things that tend to both discourage and weaken an organization. Fortunately these people have no time for things like that.

Folks like this are inspirational and impressive to behold. They lead by example and not argument and, as history has taught us, they always surface when they are most needed. It is clear our association is in need of an individual like this now - at this time - and, if we are to succeed, we must join arms in rebuilding our association.

I have been an active member of CLSA for nearly 40 years and I am excited about the direction the association is headed. A clear path has been lit and it is a bright one. In order for us to take this path, we need someone who is willing to lead us on a road of solid footing and solid foundation. Thankfully, such a person is amongst us and his name is Joe Padilla.

Joe has already played a vital role in bringing a number of important issues forward. We need to give him a hand in his efforts and we must let him know we have been listening and watching. We have work to do and it starts as soon as we elect Joe Padilla as President Elect. He is one of the most honest and trustworthy individuals I know and he has my undying support. Please join me in electing an able leader, Mr. Joe Padilla.

"This I hope will be the age of experiments in government, and
that their basis will be founded in principles of honesty, not of
mere force." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1796.


http://oc-surveyors.org/joepadilla-for-presidentelect/

[mpallamary]

Definition of shenanigan

1 : a devious trick used especially for an underhand purpose
2 a : tricky or questionable practices or conduct —usually used in plural
b : high-spirited or mischievous activity —usually used in plural

********************************************************************************

Yes, I think shenanigans is an apt description.

[William Magee]

Sort of ironic isn't it. I comment on how I'm turned off by a candidate due to his support of the use personal attacks by his chapter's leadership. So what kind of response does that elicit? Ad hominem attacks from some of the main players of that chapter.

If the candidate really wants to make a difference, perhaps he would put forth how he is going to change his chapter's reputation on the issue of professional conduct towards others.

[mpallamary]

Ms. Magee,

Please explain and justify the letter you and your cohorts sent to me. I have attached a copy herewith. As everyone knows, my concerns have been validated by an independent audit. I have raised these concerns numerous times and all that you and your cronies have done is to attack me every chance they get. Instead of looking into these problems, they attack and vilify.

Please explain your definition of professional conduct. Please explain the notion of professional responsibility.

[William Magee]

Michael, that would be Mr. Magee to you.
As to your question(s), correct identification of gender in addressing others is certainly one aspect of professional conduct.
As to the document you are concerned about, I personally had no hand in creating it contrary to your misplaced assumptions.
As to the merits of its contents, I will leave that judgment to those who are curious. Although for a thorough perspective I would also encourage the curious to contact any one of the signers of that document as to their reasoning for creating and/or supporting it.

[Mr. Smith]

SSSSOOO Mr. P gets the credit for destroying or fixing CLSA ???


in spirit with the topic:


"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong organization has stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the organization that is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly…who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends themselves in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if they fail, at least fails while daring greatly, so that the organization shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1910 altered by Mr. Smith 2016


One question how many paying CLSA members today?

How many paying members in say 2010?

That is the question

Brian

[William Magee]

Brian,
My understanding is the corporate membership has held fairly steady in the period at between 1400 -1500. This year it dropped dramatically, but has since climbed back up to the same range. I understand the OC chapter's membership drive deserves some of the credit for bring the numbers back up.

[Mr. Smith]

That's good news, sounding like a big split or something going on,
you have to be patient with me Iam not to big on politics.

[DWoolley]

Words without meaning, innuendo without context hidden behind a pseudonym. For the casual reader - Magee is talking about me when he references "shenanigans".

Surveyors have only a handful of common threads. One such thread is they are not "joiners" in thought, word or deed - natural skeptics. This is likely the only thing in which there would be a consensus in the arena of public opinion. It is in this context that the credibility of the practice based chapter work rests.

Currently, Orange County is the biggest chapter CLSA has ever seen in the 50 year history of the association. The Orange County chapter is nearly twice the size the next biggest chapter. We are seating 11 Directors in 2017 - doubling our membership from 2015. Maybe, just maybe, one other chapter will seat 6 Directors.

Simply stated, 215 surveyors cannot be kowtowed or bullied into joining CLSA at $174 and designating Orange County as their home chapter - which includes 6 former presidents of other chapters. For reference, I am the Orange County Membership Chair. My name was on each request for membership. I personally called many of our members/would-be members. I do not recall an instance in our membership drive in which someone told me they didn't like our agenda or how we conducted chapter business. I would ask the nameless faceless man to have more deference towards these descerning professionals - which are counted in the hundreds within our chapter alone.

Readers, the referenced AB1855 was a land surveying bill I personally took from start to finish, solo - which was pulled 3 days before senate committee approval. The CLSA Board for Directors did not take issue with the language. What were you doing during the 2013-2014 legislative session Magee - besides wasting time trying to get me thrown out of CLSA? Bore me. While you were pining away, wringing your hands, I wrote the language, found an author (Assemblyperson), flew to Sacramento to coordinate with the Senate staffers, served as president of our chapter and ran a small business. All with the support, thankfully, of the Orange County leadership and membership - which included Joe Padilla. Meanwhile, you were worried about what I said or possibly, how I said it? Please.

I am loathe to respond to nameless Internet trolls.

Readers note in Magee's previous post "[in reference to membership] This year it dropped dramaticly, but has since climbed back up to the same range.". Plainly stated, membership is unaffected. In fact, it was reported CLSA has more members today than in 2015. Even Magee's good news reads like an obituary.

CLSA will be fine. We have lots of good works in the pipeline. Watch the Orange County newsletter for details. If anyone has questions or concerns about the Orange County chapter contact our President or Secretary. If your concerns are about me personally, I am in the book.

Magee, I close with:

"The man who complains about the way the ball bounces is likely the one who dropped it." Lou Holtz

Please eat your sour grapes in silence,

D. Woolley

[mpallamary]

Mr. Magee, thank you for clarifying your gender. Given the activities of your associate Stan Myron, many of us remain confused.

Reveal yourself and engage in a worthy discussion.

[mpallamary]

Time to move one.

[William Magee]

You continue to make my point.
For the record, I personally was not opposed to 1855. I saw it as a double edged sword and predicted it wouldn't survive against the many interests who would likely be opposed to it. I bring forward 1855 because it demonstrates that when an influentual entity took a formal position of oppose to it, they were then subsequently subjected to brutal verbal/written attacks by its author, who is both an OC chapter leader and CLSA director. Talk about sour grapes.
The actions taken against those who opposed AB 1855 is only one of the examples of personal attacks by OC leadership that OC's current candidate to the association's office has tolerated and defended in his role as a CLSA director. As was stated before, OC's candidate sat before the full board of directors and informed them he would put OC's interests and agendas as a first priority, ahead of that of CLSA as a whole. His tolerance and defending of these attacks during his tenure as a CLSA director is evidence of such misplaced loyalty.
So go ahead, continue to respond by attacking me. You only continue to make my point.

[Peter Ehlert]

Mr. Magee, thank you for clarifying your gender. Given the activities of your associate Stan Myron, many of us remain confused.

Reveal yourself and engage in a worthy discussion.

Mike: spend a few minutes and review maybe a dozen profiles and see how many "real names" are used, and how many provide real world contact information. I just did just that. ... Some we can guess who they are out of context, some not so much. BFD!
I wager that some just don't bother, but perhaps many need/want privacy.

I suggest you drop this badgering and allow some privacy. I for one am very tired of hearing it.

[mpallamary]

Peter, I suggest you cover your ears.

[mpallamary]

I am sorry that honesty and concern for one's association is so painful.

[Peter Ehlert]

that is a very different topic Mike

[DWoolley]

Magee, writing without distinction doesn’t pass as being “professional” – by any standard. Contrarily, writing with factual distinction and clarity isn’t a "personal attack", no matter how times you say it. Not naming names or not adding specifics or unclearly stating the facts, even as you know them, doesn’t mean anything to the reader and again, doesn’t pass the smell test. In fact, it is the hallmark of baseless information.

I will demonstrate my point.

Magee stated “I bring forward 1855 because it demonstrates that when an influentual entity took a formal position of oppose to it, they were then subsequently subjected to brutal verbal/written attacks by its author… The actions taken against those who opposed AB 1855 is only one of the examples of personal attacks by OC leadership”.

Translated:

The “influential body” was BPELSG. The verbal “attack”, actually a protest on the record, came when the BPELSG staff violated the open meeting laws by concealing a staff report from the public in an agenda. The law requires the information to be in the published agenda. In fact, the staff provided the staff report to the sitting BPELSG members the night before the meeting, via email, in violation of the law. Several of the BPELSG members stated, on the record, they did not have the staff report. Again, the law requires the agenda material to be published when an action may be taken by the BPELSG. If I wasn't clear, it is the law and they violated it.

When I checked the BPELSG agenda materials the night before the meeting, after work at 5:30pm, and realized there was no staff report I was on a flight to Sacramento within hours – I suspected foul play. The next morning I went to the front counter of the BPELSG office and checked the published materials, no staff report. Once the BPELSG meeting started I checked the table for the staff report, nothing. When the AB1855 came up on the agenda there was a verbal reference made to a staff report sent to the BPELSG the night before – clearly not in accordance with the law. Yes, I protested. Any person that believes the BPELSG staff should follow the law and not conceal information from the public in effort to sandbag proposed legislation and mislead the BPELSG members would be required to do the same. Another fact, the ACEC-CA representative, Bob DeWitt –see what I did there, named names – stood up in the meeting and said he has been kicking around the capitol since 1974 and he has never seen this sort of thing happen (again, on the record). It was clearly way out of line.

Any doubters? Board meetings are recorded. I will gladly send you the audio clip. It’s about an hour long. Decide for yourself.
Alas, the vote was cast and it was over. On to the next project….ah, not so fast.

About 6-8 weeks later Ric Moore, BPELSG Executive Officer, sends an unsolicited letter to the League of Southern California Organizations (“LCSO”) grossly misstating the fate and facts surrounding AB 1855– in fact, I said then, I say now, he was lying. Why? I have no idea to this day. Personally, I had moved on before the plane touched down in Orange County. These types of things are clearly a win some – lose some transaction. I tend to be a good sport about these types of losses – even this time, when the laws were violated by people entrusted to enforce them. However, when the BPELSG staff violated the law and then, Ric Moore tries to rewrite the history with lies, not a varying account of events, I will not, absolutely will not, passively let it slide. If demanding our public officials follow the open meeting laws is “unprofessional” Magee, I will wear it like a badge. Up until that point, after speaking at the BPELSG meeting at length, I had no cause to retell the story.

If readers want to know more about these specific shenanigans it is well documented. At the time, I wrote a detailed account of the events for my personal records. After reading his letter, I sent Ric Moore a letter, copying LCSO, calling out his indiscretion- together with a new copy of Pinocchio. If any reader wants to see the correspondence and a detailed written account start a thread on AB1855 - I am good either way.

D. Woolley

And that, patient readers, is how you tell a true story. A personal attack or factual account? Vote for Padilla.

[William Magee]

First I'd like to note that the accusation made against BPELSG staff was simply one of many nasty attacks that have shown a pattern of abusive behavior tolerated and defended by OC's candidate. The attacks on BPELSG staff by the OC director caught my eye and have been imprinted on my memory in part for their rudeness and in particular due to the misinformation and misleading tactic as to the law itself. Perhaps one can understand the origin of the misinformation if one believes in the courtroom antics of attorneys who throw everything at the wall, substantiated by law or not, and see what sticks and what the ignorant might buy. That is not an excuse for public accusations on the other hand as accusations hurled in public that harm individual's reputations must be based on factual evidence. In this instance, the accusation was made that Board Staff had submitted a staff report at the last minute to the Board in regards to their recommendation on AB 1855. The accusation went on to state that Board staff had violated the Brown Act in doing so.
At this point one should take note that the Brown Act is the open meeting law for Local Agencies. It is important to note that BPELSG Board Members are actually held accountable under the Bagley-Keene Act, not the Brown Act. The Bagley-Keene Act is found in the Government Code starting with Section 11120. This is the open meeting law which ensures BPELSG Board members don't hold meetings in secret. Note it governs meetings of Board members, not Board staff meetings or actions.
Section 11125(b) provides that an agenda item listing need not exceed 20 words. Section 11125.1(b) further goes on to allude that staff reports and other topic background information can be distributed prior to or during the meeting. It does not have to be in the agenda. It can be distributed to board members by email. However they do, at least for staff reports, have to be made available at the meeting itself. I am of the understanding it was made available to the attendees at the meeting itself when the item came up for discussion. Having information provided at the meeting is not unusual whether it be state commissions, boards or local governing bodies. This is completely within the law.
At the meeting the Board members voted to oppose AB 1855. I have the utmost faith that the Board members considered all information they received, that in support, that in opposition, and that which was simply analysis of impacts and background. I believe they made an informed decision regardless of whether information on it had been received prior to or during the meeting. Certainly the Board members did not violate the open meeting laws. Remember, they are the ones subject to the Bagley-Keene Act, not Board staff. Also, the author of AB 1855 should not have been surprised that the Board voted against his proposed language considering that the aurhor's views were no where close to being universally held by the industry, had serious impact on the public, and were a considerable game changer to the laws governing land surveying.
Again, I only bring up the sour grapes public accusations the OC director hurled at Board staff for their recommending opposing AB 1855 solely as it is indicative of a continued pattern of verbal and nasty attacks hurled at those who oppose ideas and viewpoints of certain OC Chapter leadership. A pattern of attacks of which the current OC candidate for CLSA position of Vice President not only tolerates, but also has defended on multiple occassions. I cannot support a candidate who puts the interests of his chapter's leadership first, before that of the association as a whole. It is the fiduciary duty of every officer and every director of the association to put the interests of the association as a whole as first and utmost priority. It is the fiduciary duty of every member who votes to place a director or officer on the Board of directors to ensure that director or officer puts the association's interests first. I am convinced the OC candidate does not hold that understanding of that requirement for either the office he seeks nor for the director's chair he has held.