Cont. reporting on BOD take-over of the Longlake Election …

PLCA Board meeting May 16, 2012:  President Duder said that Mr. O’Neill (Longlake) responded to Mr. Duder’s May 3 e-mail regarding the Board’s decision that deemed a committee elected and not to permit Longlake to reconvene their adjourned annual Neighborhood meeting and hold an election.

Board President, Duder, rather emphatically said he does not intend to address the issue any further.  No other board members stirred – they sat mute.

Mr. O’Neill is an exceptional writer and he highlights the bottom-line results – read how the Board’s intervention “served” the community …

May 15 2012 email ONeill to Duder subject Election

Keeping in mind that Mr Duder informed Longlake residents that he had consulted counsel, presumably intending to convey the notion that counsel had approved of what the Board was doing (though he never said that.)  None-the-less one can presume that no one in Hart’s office (PLCA’s attorney) told Duder that an unexercised limited proxy was the legal equivalent of a ballot.

The Board’s position in the Longlake election fracas, distilled down to the essentials, was that the Clearfield proxies reflected “the will of the people”, not exactly a fine legal analysis — Hart was never heard from — the Board was not about to unleash him, despite the legalese — in short we don’t know what Hart’s advice was …

Whom Hart & Co. represent as a matter of law, ethics, etc., is another nice question.