In a recent selective survey of residents that have lived here at least 3 years, and with a response of over 150 residents, the following items were noted pertaining to our RAC.
It is felt that RAC does not take the resident side on issues and it is not supportive of the residents. In fact, the council will not allow residents to speak to the council on matters of importance.
The current council is made up of a group of close friends to the chair and therefore there are no checks and balances to what the chair can do. This isn't the way it is supposed to be.
The survey recommended the following:
1. More transparency - no one knows what the council is doing and that isn't a good thing. It is too secretive.
2. We have had a selected dining committee for almost six months now and we haven't heard anything they have done. The residents should have access to all minutes of the committee meetings, published is easily accessible form.
3. We have a finance committee and again, we never see their minutes and they should be published. Ask questions. For example, we have 15 cars here for staff to use - do we really need 3 more?
4. All minutes of the RAC board meetings should be published. Tell us what you are thinking and doing.
5. The by-laws have to be reviewed and brought up to date. The chair and liaison selections should be made with consideration to quality, not friendships.
6. The liaison reports should not just be reiteration of what we all know. Tell us opinions and findings from a resident perspective on what administration is doing.
7. Every question and suggestion to the council should be responded to by the council either in writing for all to see, or at the town hall.
86% of the survey responses were very negative towards the council. This has to change. We need a Resident Council that is active and supportive of the residents.
What happened with our last election in 2021 for 2022?
As told to me.
Bob Klimek was elected to the new Council and took a seat on the Council in late December, 2021. John Cutting was elected chairman at that meeting. There were 7 members at that time and John had at least two close friends on the council and that was how he won out over Bob Klimek and Bernie Weisman.
Bob met with John for the first time in early January. He had never met him before.
In early February, John presented a letter stating that the council was going to take action to remove Bob from the council. The letter stated that if Bob wanted, he could have a time with the council to state his case, of which he knew nothing about. He chose that and the entire council met in early February.
When Bob sat down at the meeting, John asked him to state his case. Since he knew nothing of any charges against him, Bob asked what the charges were. He was told:
1. Bob put a statement on the resident web site as to who was elected and who the liaisons were a few days after the election meeting in December. It made sense since other residents were asking and wondering. No one told Bob he couldn't do that and no other announcements had been made.
Bob's response: No announcement was made so Bob assumed it was ok for all members of the council to help, so he posted the info so all of the residents were aware of the new council. No one mentioned that someone else was doing it, espcially after a few days went by.
2. Bob was having medical issues at the time and had just changed Cardiologists after his heart attack the previous Spring. He had two appointments to meet with the new doctor and they coincided with two meetings of the council. The first meeting was at 10:00 AM. Bob asked John to move it to 11:00 AM so he could make it. John said no and that Bob should postpone or cancel his medical meeting. Imagine that. The second meeting was to have a stress test at the hospital, so Bob was unable to again make the meeting and asked to be excused and was told no.
Bob's resoinse: Bob was having serious breathing problems, amongst other issues and obviously felt it was important to be taken care of. His new cardiologist was willing to come in early for consultation and treatment, but Cutting said he should attend his meeting instead. Amazing.
3. It seemed obvious that the secretary of the council, a non elected person, Joan Harris, was having difficulty with the position. She was given that spot by John, a friend, and she was having some problems because she is relatively new here. Bob called her one day and offered for her to consider switching responsibilities, since he knew everyone here and would be able to communicate with staff better. He told her to think about it and if she wanted to pursue it, they would talk to John. If she didn’t want to pursue it, which she told him she didn’t, then they would both forget about it.
Bob's response: He was simply trying to help and even told Joan they would talk to John if both agreed to the change At the hearing, Joan made it sound like Bob wanted to take over and that was flat out not true.
4. John told Bob he was shirking his liaison duties by not talking to Resident Life staff, and this was not true. He had multiple meetings with the head of RL and members of her staff and had joined an Erickson group of RL liaisons to work with and learn from them. He had told John he would provide him with updates on all this. He had prepared a number of slides and issues he was going to use at the upcoming town hall concerning his liaison duty.
Bob's response: Bob had met with RL staff numerous times and was fully prepared to discuss and present numerous items concerning RL at the town hall. And, Cutting told Bob NOT to mention our resident web site as a feature of resident life, and Bob agreed, not understanding why.
So, these were the four items held against him, even though in each instance, he was simply trying to help. However, at the meeting, it was obvious it was a sham and no matter what he said or did, John wanted him off the council and got his ‘friends’ on the council to vote with him.
A shameful disgrace put on by the members of our resident council, every one of the.