message board home
Next
7/3/2025 10:38:30 AM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 23: OPA Elections Subject: 2025 OPA Board Election Msg# 1229767
|
||||||
|
That said, information about the closed session has been floating around this community. No board member has disputed the essential facts that reportedly took place. Nor do I expects any will. Assuming the reports are accurate, that closed meeting and the intent to send cease and desist letters to several association members over Facebook posts, was a mistake in my opinion.
Joe, I obviously can't (and won't) comment on what occurs in closed session. But I feel compelled to say a few things in response to your post below, in the interest of accuracy. First, no one "threw a pencil" at anyone. Second, because a Board member "doesn't dispute" what you say happened, doesn't mean it happened as you report. Readers should understand more generally that your unconfirmed reports of what someone else said to someone else do not become confirmed by the lack of a correction from involved Board members, as you seem to suggest. Third, your opinion is just your opinion, based on what you know and don't know, and think you know. Fourth, what came out of the closed session you are referring to was a lengthy public statement that all but one Board member signed. Readers can go back and refer to that statement, as published by OPA on May 10, 2024. Lastly, the matter of concern at that time was not "leaks" as to what may have occurred in a closed session (although that should generally not occur, in my view); the concern was disclosure of attorney-client privileged communications. There is a rather significant difference between those two things, at least to me.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Regarding the closed meeting and discussion of Jacobs being accused of leaking information relative to sending cease and desist letters to several association members, including, I believe, now candidate Peck. Sources in the room report that the discussion taking place changed when Steve walked into the room. At some point, you addressed confidentiality and said to Jacobs, "You just ruined it." An outright accusation, if true. Other board members then proceeded to voice their comments about Jacobs, "blasting the crap" out of him, according to one source. At or near the conclusion of the meeting, someone apparently threw a pencil at Jacobs, just missing his ear. I realize this is what you would certainly call confidential information, and find it deplorable. Rick Farr openly told Stauss much of what transpired at the closed session. The pot calling the kettle black. Farr was not subsequently subjected to the same accusations of leaking closed session info as Jacobs was. That said, information about the closed session has been floating around this community. No board member has disputed the essential facts that reportedly took place. Nor do I expects any will. Assuming the reports are accurate, that closed meeting and the intent to send cease and desist letters to several association members over Facebook posts, was a mistake in my opinion. Stauss obviously had an inside report on what transpired. Several board members, including Rick Farr, openly told Stauss what transpired at the closed session. |
