A petition presented by URTV producer Dale Joyner calling for the removal of outspoken board member Davyne Dial at the last meeting of the public-access channel’s board of directors constituted a call for a special meeting of the channel’s membership, URTV attorney Scott Dillin asserted in an e-mail today.
Dial, along with board member Richard Bernier, has pointedly criticized the management of the station and what she sees as issues of transparency. On Feb. 9, the board’s executive committee voted to recommend the removal of Dial and Bernier.
“The Special Meeting was called by the members, at the last board meeting, via [Joyner’s] petition,” Dillin wrote, in response to requests by Xpress to clarify the meeting process. “Under the bylaws, such a petition would constitute a request by 10% of the members (I recollect approximately 26 were said to be on the petition) for such a meeting.”
Usually, URTV bylaws require a 2/3rds vote by the Board of Directors to remove a member, and this is the method that has been used in the past. State law does allow the members of some nonprofits to remove board members they’ve elected.
“Other positions on the Board, such as Mr. Bernier’s seat, are appointed by the Board itself or Asheville City Council, and so on, and are not subject to removal by the Members,” Dillin noted.
“In the end,” he added, “this is probably a positive for all parties involved, as it requires notice be sent to all members, giving all parties with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity be present and cast their vote reflecting their position on the removal of the member.”
In presenting her petition, signed by 26 URTV producers, Joyner called on the board to “discuss the dismissal of Davyne Dial,” whom the petition accuses of spreading “undue negative publicity and false rumors to URTV that have served to bring URTV negative press at a very critical period.” As read, the petition did not mention a special meeting of the membership.
The special meeting will be held at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, April 29, in the URTV studios.
Video of Joyner presenting the petition is below:
— David Forbes, staff writer
As to Ms. Joyners public statement that I “sent slanderous material related to URTV, it’s board, it’s executive members to the National Alliance of Community Members, (whatever that organization is???) to be distributed throughout the country,” I’d need to see her evidence. I have no recollection of this type of action. Slander is spoken, so ostensibly I’d would be traveling all over the country for months to achieve what she is saying I’ve done. Ms. Joyner needs to back up her public accusations with facts.
The spreading of, ““undue negative publicity and false rumors to URTV that have served to bring URTV negative press at a very critical period.” , has not been my doing. The press revelations have been in response to behavior of certain other members of URTV. I am simply not that powerful a person that I could have brought on all the recent attention focused upon URTV.
Davyne, you have a LINK to the National Alliance on your FaceBook page! So you must have heard of it.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Davyne-Dial/1216488694
But I think Ms. Joyner refers to the Alliance for Community Media which you DID attempt to send libelous material to.
http://www.ourchannels.org/
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.
Bingo.
Part of why URTV producers have issued this recall petition.
While scapegoating is a traditional and popular approach to problem-solving, it is also one of mankind’s least effective. I mention this fact as yet another reason why I’m voting to retain Ms. Dial.
Instead of sacrificing a living board member, may I suggest a paper mache effigy? Or how about a pinata filled with candy? That’s a good way to redirect and work out some aggression with the added bonus of instant rewards to the mob upon the scapegoat’s messy demise.
After the scheduled spectacle, might we calmly discuss URTV’s problems and try to make some real progress? I’d really like it if this ‘special meeting’ isn’t just a special waste of about eighty bucks in postage for URTV and of everyone’s time and gasoline, including Ms. Dial’s and Ms. Joyner’s.
To: Truthsquad…Ms. Joyner said “National Alliance of Community Members” in her petition statement.
Not the “Alliance for Community Media”….of which I’ve never sent any correspondence to. I’ve only recently joined that organization, so till just recently, I could read their list serve messages, but couldn’t post to them. I have yet to post to them.
Ms. Dial … you are parsing … you are doing a Bill Clinton:
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
You did it (tried to post a nasty message about Director Garlinghouse and hurt her career) and that is one of the reasons you are being recalled. You are just plain mean. ‘Fess up.
It IS what it IS.
I didn’t / don’t have to do anything to hurt her career, she’s done enough herself.
As has been shown in the numerous articles written here.
http://www.mountainx.com/topics/find/URTV
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.
Bingo.
Truthsquad, you should’ve kept reading the Wiki article that you cut and pasted from, especially the sections entitled Defamation and freedom of speech and Defenses …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel#Defenses
No, really….Go back and read ’em, because you are SERIOUSLY uninformed….
You did it (tried to post a nasty message about Director Garlinghouse and hurt her career) and that is one of the reasons you are being recalled.
There are so many things wrong with the above statement…
First of all, do you possess any FACTS? Screenshots, documents, audio recordings?
If not, how can you even dream of claiming to know the intent of ANY of Mrs. Dial’s actions? Much less the one that you CLAIM deserves her “recall”?
Second, what, EXACTLY, is your definition of “nasty”? What if it doesn’t correspond to MY definition of “nasty”? Have you ever heard of the word “subjective”? Have you ever heard of FREE SPEECH?
And finally, do you breathe loudly through your mouth?
You are just plain mean. ‘Fess up.
It IS what it IS.
Wow! I mean, really…. just, Wow! Pot, meet kettle…
Mrs. Dial, these attacks on your rights to free speech are astounding. I am truly sorry you are having to deal with these uninformed and vindictive people.
I, for one, will be at the meeting and most assuredly will vote in defense of free speech.
Tatuage, thank you.
Any URTV members who are concerned with your rights to free speech on URTV, you need to attend this upcoming meeting.
This is probably the most important member meeting URTV has had, since the opening of it’s doors back in June ’06.
It has been eye-opening to be having to first amendment fight at a Public Access facility. Any other members who have had similar experience of being silenced, please feel free to contact me at this email addy, mailto:magnolia.voice@gmail.com
yeah, truthsqaud’s post is certainly useful. thanks for the entirely irrelevant clinton quote, you partisan yahoo.
HHmmmmmm? Questions on excessive travel expenses in Houston, and refusal to allow access to the books, here. Those books are part of the “Public Records”
http://www.records.ncdcr.gov/guidelines.htm
According to the county officials I’ve spoken with URTV indeed come under open record laws.
Looks very bad, why the need for all the secrecy?
“Truth squat AKA RR said: You did it (tried to post a nasty message about Director Garlinghouse and hurt her career) and that is one of the reasons you are being recalled. You are just plain mean. ‘Fess up.It IS what it IS. ”
This is just ridiculous. I’d have to be the stupidest individual to post something libelous to a national forum, knowing how litigious certain people are. Besides, I find life just plain easier to stick to the truth…so this purported “libelous attempt” is simply not in my nature.
Now, would someone who hosts a forum that I was once a member of, (and has my screen name and password) till that host removed me from the forum, and who has it out for me, try to post something scurrilous using my screen name and password?????….in my opinion, yes they possibly would.
This inquisition//scapegoating, is not going to go over so easy. There will be a price.
Davyne,
Bless your heart,
Every time a producer checks out a camera, posts a production, and enters the URTV media center is an important meeting.
Whatever the outcome of this meeting personally I
feel more threatened by your groups actions and methods than any URTV encounters. As a standing board member, you have done nothing but use your first amendment sword and the Mountain express to slice and dice any one who you personally dislike or disagrees with you.This is not what public access or the first asmendment is all about.
After you are through with URTV, http://urtvweb.com/
What or who is next?
If you think the Asheville community agrees with you ,and you speak for them , you should run for an official elected office and put it to the test.
For those of us who learn from history sounds like Senator McCarthy is out looking for communist public access producers and TV stations
under the Vail of a personal secrecy agenda. The first amendment still stands and the people who were blackballed , survived , and the truth prevailed as will with this.
http://urtvweb.com/
Oh well,
Thanks for the opportunity to Expres myself
I have to go put bread on the table.
First Amender said: “As a standing board member, you have done nothing but use your first amendment sword and the Mountain express to slice and dice any one who you personally dislike or disagrees with you.This is not what public access or the first asmendment is all about. ”
So all the violations of bylaws, meeting requirements , the edicts from the Board President that members cannot express their own personal opinions, that have been written about in this series of exposes’ is perfectly fine????? And that I’ve been the author??? Is that your point???
What you fail to understand or are tiptoeing around for some reason, is that this disrespect for our procedures and bylaws is merely the tip of an iceberg of non-compliance. Anyone in their right mind would wonder if these people would so blatantly disregard the law in public, what else is happening. JMHO
God this stuff is getting nasty.
Intresting how many psuedonyms have been created just so people can sling mud at each other, without having to take heat themselves.
If you dont accept Davynes judgement, fair enough. We all have different opinions and perspectives. But to say she’s trying to destroy URTV is absurd. I dont think anyone is TRYING to destroy URTV. I think everyone involved cares about URTV’s future. Everyone just happens to have thier own opinion about what’s best for URTV, and any chance to sit down and work it out is gone.
I don’t have a dog in this fight but I sure do love to watch a good tussle. And when it comes to first amendment rights it makes it all the more interesting. Since I can’t help but throw in with the underdog (as it is always my nature), here is a bit of food for thought. I did a little reading………
The bylaws as posted on the URTV website state: “A Director may be removed by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) majority of the voting Directors then in office. A Director proposed to be removed shall be entitled to at least ten (10) days notice in writing by mail before the Board meeting at which such removal is to be voted upon, and shall be entitled to speak on the matter prior to the vote. “
There are two points of interest in the above statement. First, a vote requires 2/3 of the 11 voting members. Please note that this says nothing about how many show up for the vote. It simply states 2/3 of the potential 11 voting directors. I say potential because the URTV website only lists 10 voting members. So here is the math 2/3 of 10 directors is 6.6 directors and since there is no 0.6 of a director that would mean 7 directors are required to remove a current voting director. If there are in fact 11 directors and one is simply not listed on the website that means that 7.3 or rounded up to the next integer would be 8 voting directors are required to agree on the removal.
This is where it gets really interesting and my second point. Let’s say all 10 or 11 member show up. Remember, Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial are voting members of the board. That means they get to vote on this topic. So in order to override the action to remove them both, there need only be two additional board members voting with Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial. That means if they have two sympathetic board members this entire conversation is moot. So if the group wanting to vote them out shows up with anything less than 7 or 8 votes required by the bylaws they cannot by definition succeed. The 7 or 8 have to show up and vote in concert, anything less is a defeat of the motion.
There you go, Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial. Have at it. Good luck.
There is some more interesting information in the bylaws that is pertinent to the conversation. The executive committee, when it meets, has no real authority over the board. The board can in fact change any decision with one exception as noted: “The Executive Committee shall consist of the Officers of the Corporation. The Board may at times, by majority vote, give the Executive Committee the power to make specific decisions when no regular Board meeting is scheduled. Any actions of the Executive Committee shall be reported to the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors and shall be subject to revision and alteration by the Board of Directors, provided that no rights of third parties shall be affected by such revisions or alterations.”
So why I find this pertinent is at the last meeting, the gentleman at the left end of the table( is he the clerk/secretary?) called a point of order – stating- and I am quoting from the video of the event – “A point of order, Mr. Chairman, what we are doing here, these are reports, they are really not points for discussion. So basically what we need to do is go through the report and then move on. Um, the items of discussion are the things on the agenda. The motions here…we have different motions on this agenda. So basically all we are doing is reporting.”
The point of this is that the gentleman is incorrect. The bylaws clearly state that the full review and “revision or alteration” of an action taking by the executive committee is within the purview of the full board. Every action can be reviewed and if a voting director wishes to do so, a motion to review the entire executive committee meeting can made and a second to that motion is all that is required. Then as each of the actions by the executive committee is reviewed, subsequent motions and seconds can be made to call for a vote on those actions. Depending on the actions being voted on, it might take either a simple majority of the quorum or 2/3 vote of the voting directors to support the action by the executive committee.
So the point of this is that the Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial can act in concert to have the executive committee action reviewed by making motions and seconds. Votes would then be required. I would suggest they do so at the next meeting as follows.
The chairman of the March 19 meeting stated that there is an audio tape of the executive committee. I would suggest they put forth a motion to review that tape in open session.
The chairman also made reference to what seemed like a part of this executive meeting was held in something other than an open session because he makes reference to “coming back into open session at 8:45am”. So the question is what happened before 8:45? That is part of the meeting minutes as well since the bylaws make no provision for secret, private or confidential meetings of any sort. It does say the board can vote to go into executive session, but that is within the scope fo a meeting of the full board. And even then there is no provision in the bylaws for any secrecy. I would suggest Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial put forth a motion to review that part of the meeting as well . The clerk/secretary as stated in the bylaws, is required to “record, prepare, maintain and disseminate minutes of the meetings”. I would suggest Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial put forth a motion and second to have the executive committee meeting minutes distributed to the board members (although his is not required as it should be mandatory but requesting them puts this on the record).
And finally I would suggest a motion and second to table the issue of voting on removal until the evidence can be absorbed by the full board of directors and a fully informed decision can be made. It is quite clear from the video that the two ladies (one gray haired and one black haired) had no idea what happened at that meeting. It is also clear that the gentleman in the ball cap is uninformed as well. (I take from what I have gather that the capped gentleman and the black haired lady are Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial).
With the grey haired lady that makes three. Who is your fourth? Good luck.
Mr. DebateTeam1,
Good morning, and you make some great points. Problem is, the board members proposing to discard Bernier & Dial for upholding the rules have simply thrown our bylaws” to the wind.”
All the questions you are asking , are the same ones we are asking……..this has just moved beyond the Board of Directors an on to lawyerland, as it’s very apparent the Board does not intend to follow their bylaws, if the bylaws do not suit their desires.
Mr. Bernier and Ms. dial are not show in the small photo above, we’re shown and the opposite end of the table in this video……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFyq_2UfgF8
For a revealing view of how the board is not following proper procedure, see this related video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5629661647096642595&ei=uozgSf7VPIbSqQK9kfSaBw&q=urtv+board&hl=en
DebateTeam1, thank you for your input…
However, I must point out an error.
This vote has been called by members and will take place among members.
Usually, URTV bylaws require a 2/3rds vote by the Board of Directors to remove a member, and this is the method that has been used in the past. State law does allow the members of some nonprofits to remove board members they’ve elected.
“Other positions on the Board, such as Mr. Bernier’s seat, are appointed by the Board itself or Asheville City Council, and so on, and are not subject to removal by the Members,” Dillin noted.
I am assuming Directors CAN vote, as long as they are members in good standing.
But we, the members, will be voting as well. For this vote to take place, 10% of the active membership must be present..
5. Quorum. At any annual or special meeting of the members, a quorum shall consist of
ten percent of the voting members of the Corporation according to the membership
roster as of 60 days prior to the meeting.
Unfortunately, I do not know how many active members there are. Does anyone?
So DebateTeam1, in reality, your math, although correct and applicable in MOST voting scenarios, doesn’t really apply to this specific instance.
tatuaje,
Thanks for responding. Just to reiterate, I don’t know any of the folks involved here. I am not a producer, only an occasional watcher of this TV Station. So I have no axe to grind. In fact I find it admirable that all the people on the board are unpaid. But I digress. I understand what you have said, however, there is no error in my statement. I am simply reading the bylaws and stating how they affect this situation. I think the misunderstanding is over “election” vs. “removal”. The bylaws are clear on “election” and here is the full text of Article 4 “Board of Directors”, section 2: “Number. The number of voting Directors shall not be greater than eleven (11). After the initial three-year initiator/startup process the board structure shall be as follows:
Two (2) Directors shall be elected by and from the Corporation’s voting members;
Two (2) Directors shall be appointed by the Asheville City Council;
Two (2) Directors shall be appointed by the Buncombe County Commissioners; and
Five (5) Directors shall be selected by the sitting Board of Directors.”
So you are quite correct that the membership shall elect 2 members by popular vote of the membership. But the bylaws are equally clear on “removal” as stated in Article 4 “Board of Directors”, section 6: “Resignation or Removal. A Director may resign by delivering his or her written resignation to the Corporation at its principal office, or by presenting it in writing to the President or the Board at a Board meeting. Such resignation shall be effective upon its acceptance by the Board of Directors. A Director who fails to attend three (3) consecutive regularly scheduled Board meetings without notice to the President and for good cause may be removed from the Board of Directors at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors. A Director may be removed by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) majority of the voting Directors then in office. A Director proposed to be removed shall be entitled to at least ten (10) days notice in writing by mail before the Board meeting at which such removal is to be voted upon, and shall be entitled to speak on the matter prior to the vote.”
As you can see removal is only accomplished by a vote of the voting directors of the board- not the membership. The members can have a vote I suppose but it has no effect on the standing of the current board. This means that until a director’s term expires Article 4, Section 6 is, according to the bylaws, the only process for removing a board member.
One other note of import from Article 4, Section 4 “Voting. Each voting Director shall have one (1) vote, with the exception of the President, who shall not vote unless to break a tie.”
So this means that the President should have no vote on any motion.
So as I understand it, the planned vote at the meeting on April 29 has no bearing on anything and is a non-binding action. To properly remove Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial, a motion by a member of the board to remove them must be offered and seconded. A vote as described in Section 6 above must occur. That is the only way, according to the bylaws.
If the membership wants to change the process, it will require an amendment to the bylaws which is clearly defined in Article 13, Section 1 and the board will have to make this amendment on behalf of the members. An amendment requires a motion by a board director that is seconded by a director and would require 2/3 of the voting directors. The members have no say in the bylaws.
Also, I understand that Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial are “suspended”. There is no explicit authority granted by the bylaws to the president or the executive committee to perform such action. That action would be assuming authority not granted and would be in effect “illegal”(not sure of the proper word here) as it is not in accordance with the bylaws. There is no provision for suspension, only removal.
I hope this helps. (P.S. This is really fun, thanks for letting me take part)
Cheers!
Also, there is no requirement that a board director be a paying member. There is no stipulation in the bylaws for that restriction.
DebateTeam1,
Yes, you are correct in MOST everything you have written.
But I would again point you to the statement made by URTV attorney Scott Dillin..
State law does allow the members of some nonprofits to remove board members they’ve elected.
Now, how do we know that URTV is one of those nonprofits that is allowed to remove board members by a vote of membership? Does the option have to be CLEARLY stated in the bylaws? I don’t know. I am not an attorney and am only assuming that Mr. Dillin has vetted this process for this circumstance.
But, assuming that URTV IS able to undertake such measures, my prior post stands….
Also, there is no requirement that a board director be a paying member. There is no stipulation in the bylaws for that restriction.
Again, you are correct…
But for someone to vote on the dismissal of Mrs. Dial in the upcoming meeting (assuming, once again, that this is, by state law, possible) any board member wishing to cast a vote would have to be a member in good standing.
Debate1Team1, you get a gold star for wading through the bylaws….and are correct that there is no provision in our bylaws for removal by the membership.
They are using this statute http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_55A/GS_55A-8-08.html
as justification for removal by the membership, but in section there is an exception to this blanket statute. Certain Board Members who wish us outta there, appear to be grasping at straws to accomplish their goals.
[K]
The articles of incorporation may:
(1) Limit the application of this section in the case of a charitable or religious corporation; and
(2) Set forth the vote and procedures by which the board of directors or any person may remove with or without cause a director elected by the members or the board. (1955, c. 1230; 1973, c. 192, ss. 1, 2; 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 801, ss. 19?21; 1993, c. 398, s. 1.)
In our articles of incorportion;http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/Corp.aspx?PitemId=5341373
…the articles say we are governed by our bylaws.
Also, it is ridiculous and shameful that we would be illeglly ‘suspended” for asking to review the financial records, to have access to the membership list and to review the “tape” of the secret meeting held to vote upon recommending our dismissl. This request is what precipitated our “suspension.”
URTV is owned by the public, public funds pay the salaries, equipment, overhead (lease, utilities,phone, etc.) and other yet to be explained expenditures, but is being handled as if it is a privately owned enterprise….everyone should be aware of this.
URTV is required to have open records to anyone in the community who wishes to review them. I encourage anyone who cares about URTV’s future to demand the books be opened.
G.S. §132: Public Records Law
* Defines a public record in the State of North Carolina.
* Sets out, in detail, provisions governing access to public records.
* Establishes confidentiality of certain public records.
* § 132-1
o § 132-1(a) defines public records: “Public record” or “public records” shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivision.”
o §132-1(b) states that “The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost…”
* § 132-6 discusses access to public records.
o § 132-6 (c) states that “No request…shall be denied on the grounds that confidential information is commingled with the requested non-confidential information…”.
+ This section deals with confidential information that may be part of a public record. To fulfill the request for these records you may need to redact or remove the information that is confidential from the record before providing it for public inspection. Redaction must also be performed on electronic records. If there is a database that has both confidential and non-confidential information in it, you must provide the non-confidential information to anyone who requests it.
o § 132-6.1 addresses the proliferation of electronic records in state and local government.
+ § 132-6.1 (a) states that … no public agency shall acquire any system for public records unless it will not impair the agency’s ability to permit public inspection…”. This provision is in place to ensure that agencies don’t purchase equipment which makes it harder on the public to gain access to records, and places the responsibility for redaction on the agency. Your office must have a plan to provide public access to electronic or digital records.
+ § 132-6.1 (b) directs agencies to index databases. (See Public Database Indexing Guidelines.) This section indicates that database indexes are required by law. This requirement is a good idea for all databases, and can help you keep an inventory or guide to databases within a department.
o § 132-6.2
+ § 132-6.2 (a) indicates: “Persons requesting copies of public records may elect to obtain them in any and all media in which the public agency is capable of providing them…”
# Example: a citizen can request a copy of a record on a CD, or in paper; however, if they request a record on a transparency, and your office does not keep transparencies, you may decline the request to place the record on transparencies.
+ § 132-6.2(b) states “No person requesting to inspect and examine public records…shall be required to disclose the purpose or motive for the request.
# While you cannot require a person to disclose their reason for the request, you can inquire about the reason if it will help you provide them with what they want; however, knowing the reason cannot be used to deny access to the records.
+ § 132-6.2(f) states that “… the inspection or copying of any public record…may be made subject to reasonable restrictions intended to preserve the particular record.”
# This section provides you with the ability to protect records that could be damaged by public inspection. In most cases this section refers to records that are very old (100+ years). If you have such records, contact us so that we can assist in preserving them.
tatuaje
Thanks for the discussion. On the statement of the attorney Scott Dillin, “State law does allow the members of some nonprofits to remove board members they’ve elected.” I have no basis to dispute that. It sounds reasonable though. But I would say that the bylaws are clear on how a “removal” occurs. Unless state law supersedes the bylaws of URTV, then the bylaws would stand. It is unknown what statute in state law gives that authority to supersede corporate bylaws, Mr. Dillin would have to make that representation. I would assume this is a requirement before allowing such a vote. But logic would suggest that the bylaws have been previously reviewed and approved by an attorney so the bylaws would stand and that process would be followed.
On the requirement of standing for voting , I understand what you are saying and agree with you that if a director has not paid dues they could not vote as a member, but I would just reiterate that the bylaws make no requirement of paid dues to vote as a director.
So the bottom line here is: I think we are in agreement on the process stated by the bylaws. The only point of non-clarity is what the state law provides for with regards to membership voting on the removal of board directors and if that statute supersedes corporate bylaws. Like you I am not a lawyer so I have no idea. Would be interesting if someone with legal knowledge could help us with statute information. At the very least, I would suggest Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial request that information as it is certainly not clear.
Ok, I am off to dig in the garden. Enjoy!
DebateTeam1, tatuaje, you two have had probably the most civil back and forth on this subject I have seen yet. If only others have had the temperment and attitude that you two have, a careful, close, level headed examination, then maybe this wouldnt be such a mess.
Sifting through it, you two have come to a good point, and one that I have wondered myself. The procedure for the board removing one of thier own is clear, it happened before with Peter Brezney, who like Davyne was member elected.
But can a special meeting be called for the members to unvote a member elected board member? Is this something the rules allow for?
DebateTeam1 says: “But logic would suggest that the bylaws have been previously review.”
According to one of our previous Board Presidents, this type of dismissal has never been done at URTV. We have always gone by our bylaws, not outside statute. Our bylaws were set up by a brilliant attorney Frank goldsmith in Marion.
Frank Goldsmith was born in Asheville and grew up in Marion, North Carolina. He graduated from Davidson College in 1967, studied international law and French constitutional law at the Université de Montpellier, France, and received his juris doctor degree with honors in 1970 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif (a legal academic honorary society), served as Associate Editor of the North Carolina Law Review, and received the Van Hecke-Wettach Citizenship Award and the Student Bar Association Certificate of Service. Mr. Goldsmith received a commission as an Infantry lieutenant in 1967 and served on active duty as a captain in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps from 1970 to 1972. Following his honorable discharge from the Army, he practiced law with a firm in Durham, North Carolina, then returned to his home town of Marion, where he has practiced ever since. Mr. Goldsmith and his brother and law partner, Jim Goldsmith, formed their own firm, Goldsmith & Goldsmith, in 1979. In 1990, the brothers were joined by Julie Dews, and 1996, the firm changed its name to Goldsmith, Goldsmith & Dews, P.A.
Mr. Goldsmith’s practice is focused on litigation in a variety of areas, as well as mediation. Much of his litigation practice involves employment law, personal injury litigation, commercial, real estate and construction litigation, and constitutional and civil rights law. Since 1996 he has been certified as a mediator by the North Carolina Dispute Resolution Commission, and he regularly mediates cases pending in various state and federal courts, as well as serving as an arbitrator. Mr. Goldsmith also finds time for pro bono work, including representing inmates on North Carolina’s Death Row. For well over thirty-five years now, he has litigated cases at all levels of the state and federal court system, including the United States Supreme Court, where he argued and won a case for a prisoner as court-assigned counsel in 1977.
In addition to his law practice, Mr. Goldsmith has served as a Senior Lecturing Fellow at Duke University Law School, teaching trial advocacy as an adjunct professor. He has served as a faculty member at various institutes and programs, both in North Carolina and other states, sponsored by the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA), the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, and other organizations. He is a graduate of NITA’s Advanced Course and its Harvard Teacher Training Program. Mr. Goldsmith has also lectured in a number of continuing legal education programs for lawyers in the fields of civil rights, general civil litigation, criminal defense, and habeas corpus litigation.
In 1994, Mr. Goldsmith was inducted as a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers at its meeting in Ottawa, Canada. He has also served on the Boards of Governors of both the North Carolina Bar Association and the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, has served as Chair of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the N.C. Bar Association, and more recently was Chair of the Employment Law Section of the N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers, as well as serving on various committees and task forces. He currently chairs the Ethics Committee of the N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers and is serving a second term on that organization’s Board of Governors, and is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the North Carolina Law Alumni Association. He has served as president of the Twenty-Ninth Judicial District and the McDowell County Bar Associations and on the boards of Catawba Valley Legal Services, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, and the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (which he served both as president and later as chair of its Legal Committee). In 1987, the ACLU-NC honored Mr. Goldsmith with its Frank Porter Graham Award. Mr. Goldsmith was one of five North Carolina attorneys profiled in a 1999 series of articles in The North Carolina State Bar Journal entitled “Searching for Atticus Finch.”
Mr. Goldsmith’s outside interests include hiking (he is a section maintainer for the Appalachian Trail), canoeing, sailing, travel, and the study of languages. He is also active in various civic and religious organizations and has served as president of his congregation.
Thank you, too, DebateTeam1,
It seems that we are indeed in absolute agreement.
You’ve made me think about this situation from an entirely new angle.
I think it would behoove all parties involved to verify whether or not the upcoming member vote is actually legal.
All we have at the moment as impetus for moving forward is a very vague statement from Mr. Dillin that, in reality, doesn’t say whether it is or not.
Again, thanks for the reasoned debate, even though in truth we never actually ‘debated’. So rather, thanks for actively participating in this ‘distillation’ process.
Here’s to your hopefully bountiful garden….
Chairman Jerry Young,
It appears that you are out of line here – I would suggest that you read URTV bylaws ASAP. You have failed as a Chairman & have not followed URTV bylaws,Open Board Meeting rules,City & County Agreements.
Buncombe County was forced to re-issue the resolution again due to your lack of leadership as Chairman & most of the Board of Directors.
I am very aware that your term on the board expires in June 2009 – I would strongly suggest that you consider to step down due to numerous & willfully violations the items stated above.
As you recall, I have email you & ask you questions which you refuse to answer without giving any response & you have refused to make any statements to the media of your improper actions as Chairman of the Board of Directors.
I simply call for you to resign based on your failures & violations as Chairman of URTV. Richard Bernier
URTV Board Member 2009-20011
A reading of the Articles of Incorporation reveals in Article V: “The Corporation shall have no members” but the Articles of Amendment reverses that statement and clearly describes the powers of the members: “The corporation shall have members. The qualifications of members of the corporation, the different classes of membership, if any, the voting and other rights of members, and the amount of dies payable by members shall be as set forth in the By-Laws and operating policies and procedures of this corporation. “
The Articles of Incorporation specifically declares the bylaws as the document detailing the voting rights and other rights of the membership. As we have discussed, the bylaws does not provide members the right to vote to remove any directors only to elect them.
NC General Statute 55A-8-08 “Removal of directors elected by members or directors” sections (a) – (j) provide multiple methods by which a director may be removed from office and that includes a vote by the membership of the corporation. But section (k) states that: “The articles of incorporation may:
(1) Limit the application of this section in the case of a charitable or religious corporation; and
(2) Set forth the vote and procedures by which the board of directors or any person may remove with or without cause a director elected by the members or the board. (1955, c. 1230; 1973, c. 192, ss. 1, 2; 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 801, ss. 19 21; 1993, c. 398, s. 1.)”
The NC Statute declares that the Articles of Incorporation may outline procedures for the removal of a director elected by the members. This would be the articles take precedence of the NC statute. Since the Articles of Amendment to the original Article of Incorporation declare the bylaws as the authoritative document, and the bylaws have a documented procedure for doing removing a director, it is evident that the founders of URTV chose not to rely on the NC General Statute 55A-8-08 sections (a) thru (j) but to spell out their own methods for removal as detailed in the bylaws.
From this logic trail one can reasonably conclude that the URTV bylaws are the authoritative document, and as such, provide a documented process for the removal of directors. One can also conclude that the members of the corporation has no authority over the directors in this case and that the intended vote on April 29 is moot.
So here are my conclusions:
1. The Bylaws are the binding rules.
2. The Bylaws provide a method to remove directors and members have no standing in that process.
3. The president has no authority under the bylaws to “suspend” Mr. Bernier or Ms. Dial as there is no provision to do so. Their suspension is “illegal” (“illicit” might be a better word to use).
4. There is no provision that requires a board of directors member to be a dues paying member of the corporation in order to vote as a director or in order to be a director in good standing. A non-dues paying director cannot vote as a member.
5. The meeting scheduled for April 29 is not binding and serves no purpose with regards to the removal of Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial.
6. The board will have to remove Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial by a motion, a second, and a vote that results in 2/3 of the 10 or 11 voting board of directors now sitting which means a total of 7 or 8 votes of the voting board directors (this excludes the president) is required. This means Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial need a total of 4 board members, of which they are two, to block the attempt to unseat them as directors.
That’s all I have folks. Time for sleepy time.
Below are the links to the pertinent documents for your review:
URTV Bylaws:
http://urtvweb.com/images/PDF/bylaws june 05.pdf
Articles of Incorporation and the Articles of Amendment:
http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/Filings.aspx?PItemId=5341373
NC General Statute GS -55A-0-08:
http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_55A/GS_55A-8-08.html
There is a line above I botched. Sorry for that. You will know it when you get to that line. It should read: “This would mean the articles take precedence over the NC statute”.
oops…..
Open Meeting Laws, URTV Bylaws, City & County Agreements, Buncombe County Resolution x2, has been willfully broken.
The Chairman along with other members of the board have failed.The future of URTV will need an about face & do what is right.
Ms.Dail does not deserve this treatment, im proud to be standing with a person who speaks her mind & honors her duties as a board member.
By the way, do you know how the two of us got placed on the board to begin with? Ask the current Exective Director, – their was little or no notice posted when I was voted on the board.
It was clear to myself that they only wanted like minded board members to “go along to get along”.
Looks like they were 0-2 in this master mind plan.
From this logic trail one can reasonably conclude that the URTV bylaws are the authoritative document, and as such, provide a documented process for the removal of directors. One can also conclude that the members of the corporation has no authority over the directors in this case and that the intended vote on April 29 is moot.
Agreed.
3. The president has no authority under the bylaws to “suspend” Mr. Bernier or Ms. Dial as there is no provision to do so. Their suspension is “illegal” (“illicit” might be a better word to use).
Again, agreed. I hope URTV, once informed of the “illegality” of the suspension, corrects this error immediately.
4. There is no provision that requires a board of directors member to be a dues paying member of the corporation in order to vote as a director or in order to be a director in good standing. A non-dues paying director cannot vote as a member.
Once again, agreed. And apparently this has relevance to the particular plight of Mr. Bernier. As recently as 4/10, Mr. Young, the President of the Board, has written saying that Mr. Bernier’s lack of dues payment somehow affects his situation. It clearly does not.
And so, since Mr. Dillin’s above statement seems to carry no weight, I am in absolute agreement with everything DebateTeam1 has put forth. I, personally, can find no fault with the reasoning he/she has put forth.
Well played, sir/madame. One slight grammatical error can in no way tarnish your reason and clarity.
This has been a truly enlightening exercise and leads me to question the actions of the leadership of the Board and of URTV.
I hope URTV moves to dismiss the scheduled meeting and further moves to correct it’s mistakes.
Mrs. Joyner, I’m sure that since you were the originator of this special meeting, which has been found to be moot according to URTV bylaws, then you as well could cancel it.
Let’s do the right thing here, people. Based on reason and logic, not on emotion. It can be difficult to admit mistakes. It can be difficult to see things not go your way. But Free Speech and Public Access are worth it.
Thank you for your help, DebateTeam1….
DebateTeam1 said: “The Board may at times, by majority vote, give the Executive Committee the power to make specific decisions when no regular Board meeting is scheduled. Any actions of the Executive Committee shall be reported to the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors and shall be subject to revision and alteration by the Board of Directors, provided that no rights of third parties shall be affected by such revisions or alterations.”
So happy someone besides myself in this ongoing dialog caught this very important but nuanced detail of the bylaws. What is happening at URTV is a chosen few have become our Executive Committee….and without the full consent of the entire board (as required by the above statement) are making decisions that affect URTV.
For example, the executive committee which met in secret as was written about earlier in Mtn Exp: http://www.mountainx.com/news/2009/urtv_executive_commitee_votes_to_remove_two_board_members was not given this responsibility by the full board, only the “chosen few” decided to have this meeting and recommend the dismissal of Mr. Bernier and myself. Additionally, In January it was announced by acting president Jerry Young that due to the changes in public access, the “current restructure of URTV’s bylaws and committees was being changed to accomodate the changing environment…..”http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5629661647096642595&ei=4ETiSZLULovcqAK5ofyrAw&q=urtv+board&hl=en
There was brief discussion about this and board members asked and were adamantly assured by Roberts, Young & Garlinghouse that this would be brought forth for a vote. Yet in the March meeting the new committee structure is announced, with no discussion allowed. I specifically asked if anyone recalled this being discussed in full at the January meeting and was upbraided by the secretary “you were there so you know we discussed it,” And Pam Silvers assured the Board she remembered this being discussed. It’s clear from the video clip, no discussion occurred to debate the necessity of changing the committee structure.
Only the most detail oriented people will be interested in this…but here are the facts. The Board decides if the bylaws need changing, after discussing the necessity, as stated at the beginning of this post. This has not occurred. It did not occur in that part shown on the clip in January and it certainly didn’t occur in March….so certain members of the board are taking it upon themselves to usurp the power of the complete board to carry out their own desires to change important board guidelines like the bylaws.
A special thank you to the people here who are beginning to take a good hard look at what is happening. As arcane and boring as bylaws and policy may seem they are there for good reason.
URTV’s attorney is quoted as saying ““The Special Meeting was called by the members, at the last board meeting, via [Joyner’s] petition,” Dillin wrote, in response to requests by Xpress to clarify the meeting process. “Under the bylaws, such a petition would constitute a request by 10% of the members (I recollect approximately 26 were said to be on the petition) for such a meeting.”
Hmmm, what about the membership signing a petition to remove the executive director? I think we could get at least 26 signatures for that, maybe LOTS more. I’m sure theres some online site where we could park a petition for disgruntled members to sign, that would sure expedite getting those siggys. If the executive director can make up convenient new rules to execute her wishes to dismiss people, shouldn’t we the paying public be able to accomplish the same thing?
In the referenced MountainXpress article by Ms. Dial above, there are several things of note.
1. The bylaws are in conflict because it states in Article 7 “The president shall appoint, the chairpersons and members of all standing committees, except the Executive Committee, subject to the approval of the Board of Directors.” It also states that in Article 7 section 1, “Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall consist of the Officers of the Corporation.” This document is clearly in conflict with itself. But no matter, I would assume there are two members that would call for the motion to remove Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial and it would be seconded. Hence the letter that was sent to Mr. Bernier as referenced by Ms. Dial’s note above (I assume Ms. Dial received one as well?). In any case, this part of the bylaws needs to be amended.
2. The letter presented to Mr. Bernier is in accordance with the bylaws in all but one thing: It states “After speaking, you will leave the room and the board will vote.” According to the bylaws, Mr. Bernier is a director in good standing and has a vote. So is Ms. Dial. The bylaws do not require that they leave the room, in fact is required by the bylaws that Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial vote. All voting directors must vote. If any voting director does not vote, it would mean that fewer votes in opposition are needed to annul the motion. For instance if only 9 or 8 members vote, of course this includes Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial, then 6 members must vote in favor of the motion. This would mean that Mr. Bernier and Ms. Dial, plus one additional board director would have to oppose the motion in order to annul the motion.
3. The bylaws make no mention of any oath. Any oath has no standing within the bylaws and is meaningless. In the MountainXpress, Ms. Garlinghouse is quoted as saying “the oath is just a formality and that while it says “all affairs of URTV,” the clause applies only to such matters as personnel or property acquisition, which public bodies can legally address in closed session.” Directors are required to uphold the bylaws as stated in the bylaws Article 4, Section 1: “Powers and Duties. The affairs of the Corporation shall be managed by the Board of Directors, who shall have and may exercise all powers of the Corporation, except those powers reserved to the members by law, the Articles of Organization, or these Bylaws.” So if any type of “oath” the requirements should be documented in the bylaws, not a separate oath.
4. Open Meetings: “In January 2007, Asheville City Council amended the nonprofit channel’s management agreement to require its board to abide by North Carolina’s open-meetings law.” I saw a video in which John Blackwell asked to video tape the board of directors meeting. He was originally denied but then allowed to video tape but was told it could not be reproduced. It can and should be reproduced according to the NC General statute 143-318.10 : ” Every public body shall keep full and accurate minutes of all official meetings, including any closed sessions held pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11. Such minutes may be in written form or, at the option of the public body, may be in the form of sound or video and sound recordings. When a public body meets in closed session, it shall keep a general account of the closed session so that a person not in attendance would have a reasonable understanding of what transpired. Such accounts may be a written narrative, or video or audio recordings. Such minutes and accounts shall be public records within the meaning of the Public Records Law, G.S. 132-1 et seq.; provided, however, that minutes or an account of a closed session conducted in compliance with G.S. 143-318.11 may be withheld from public inspection so long as public inspection would frustrate the purpose of a closed session.” A Note to Ms. Dial and Mr. Bernier: You will have to request a “closed” session in order to review the audio tape of the executive session held to discuss the removal of you two from the board. NC law does allow for that to be kept confidential from the public, but not from you as board members in good standing.
5. In the meeting video taped from Jan 15, 2009, Ms. Dial makes an objection to the minutes. She wants it noted that minutes do not reflect her opposition to raising of rates by 50%. The secretary responds that “the minutes are not a verbatim transcript” but that the proceedings are being records. I checked the URTV website and there is no documented record of any meetings in 2009. No minutes, no audio tape, no video tape. It does not appear the Secretary of the Board is in compliance with the NC GS 143-318.10 statute or the amended agreement signed by Mayor Bellamy obligating URTV to adhere to that statute.
6. In Nov 2007 (please note this says 2007, not 2008) Peter Brezny was removed from the board of directors. It appears this open meeting issue is a long standing one that has yet to be resolved. It has been a contributing factor to at least one other board member being removed. Please read his email to the Board at: http://www.ourasheville.org/071115-urtv/
In the above (excellently observed comments of URTV bylaws) DebateTeam1 referenced an error:
“2. The letter presented to Mr. Bernier is in accordance with the bylaws in
all but one thing: It states “After speaking, you will leave the room and
the board will vote.” According to the bylaws, Mr. Bernier is a director
in good standing and has a vote. So is Ms. Dial. The bylaws do not require
that they leave the room, in fact is required by the bylaws that Mr. Bernier
and Ms. Dial vote. All voting directors must vote.”
There is a second large error:
“This reprint from URTV’s bylaws: 1. Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall consist of the Officers of the Corporation. The Board may at times, by majority vote, give the Executive Committee the power to make specific decisions when no regular Board meeting is scheduled. Any actions of the Executive Committee shall be reported to the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors and shall be subject to revision and alteration by the Board of Directors, provided that no rights of third parties shall be affected by such revisions or alterations.”
No meeting was ever held by the Board and permission granted by the majority of the Board, to the Executive Committee to meet in an undisclosed location to discuss the removal of Mr. Bernier and Miss Dial….consequently this meeting was in error of URTV bylaws. When this error was mentioned by Scotto at the March board meeting (clearly captured on video) , Roberts and Young refused Soctto’s suggestion that they negate the results of that meeting. So again, the Executive Directors blatantly disregarded the bylaws.
Below are guidelines for non-profits to follow, reprinted from NC Center for Non Profits…they are in reference to Sarbanes-Oxley law, that came about after the Enron debacle. It has been determined that Sarbanes-Oxley applies to non-profits like URTV in addition to corporations.
Mr. Bernier and myself are being retaliated against for pointing out noncompliance….we have become the lonely whistleblowers: Sarbanes-Oxley supports us in our endeavors to encourage URTV to follow it’s own bylaws and management agreements.
____________________________________________
http://www.ncnonprofits.org/
General
{organization name} (Organization) Code of Ethics and Conduct (“Code”) requires directors, officers and employees to observe high standards of business and personal ethics in the conduct of their duties and responsibilities. As employees and representatives of the Organization, we must practice honesty and integrity in fulfilling our responsibilities and comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
Reporting Responsibility
It is the responsibility of all directors, officers and employees to comply with the Code and to report violations or suspected violations in accordance with this Whistleblower Policy.
No Retaliation
No director, officer or employee who in good faith reports a violation of the Code shall suffer harassment, retaliation or adverse employment consequence. An employee who retaliates against someone who has reported a violation in good faith is subject to discipline up to and including termination of employment. This Whistleblower Policy is intended to encourage and enable employees and others to raise serious concerns within the Organization prior to seeking resolution outside the Organization.
Reporting Violations
The Code addresses the Organization’s open door policy and suggests that employees share their questions, concerns, suggestions or complaints with someone who can address them properly. In most cases, an employee’s supervisor is in the best position to address an area of concern. However, if you are not comfortable speaking with your supervisor or you are not satisfied with your supervisor’s response, you are encouraged to speak with someone in the Human Resources Department or anyone in management whom you are comfortable in approaching. Supervisors and managers are required to report suspected violations of the Code of Conduct to the Organization’s Compliance Officer, who has specific and exclusive responsibility to investigate all reported violations. For suspected fraud, or when you are not satisfied or uncomfortable with following the Organization’s open door policy, individuals should contact the Organization’s Compliance Officer directly.
Compliance Officer
The Organization’s Compliance Officer is responsible for investigating and resolving all reported complaints and allegations concerning violations of the Code and, at his discretion, shall advise the Executive Director and/or the audit committee. The Compliance Officer has direct access to the audit committee of the board of directors and is required to report to the audit committee at least annually on compliance activity. The Organization’s Compliance Officer is the chair of the audit committee.
Accounting and Auditing Matters
The audit committee of the board of directors shall address all reported concerns or complaints regarding corporate accounting practices, internal controls or auditing. The Compliance Officer shall immediately notify the audit committee of any such complaint and work with the committee until the matter is resolved.
Acting in Good Faith
Anyone filing a complaint concerning a violation or suspected violation of the Code must be acting in good faith and have reasonable grounds for believing the information disclosed indicates a violation of the Code. Any allegations that prove not to be substantiated and which prove to have been made maliciously or knowingly to be false will be viewed as a serious disciplinary offense.
Confidentiality
Violations or suspected violations may be submitted on a confidential basis by the complainant or may be submitted anonymously. Reports of violations or suspected violations will be kept confidential to the extent possible, consistent with the need to conduct an adequate investigation.
Handling of Reported Violations
The Compliance Officer will notify the sender and acknowledge receipt of the reported violation or suspected violation within five business days. All reports will be promptly investigated and appropriate corrective action will be taken if warranted by the investigation.
If the conduct, intelligence and communication skills exhibited by URTV board members and users here is any example of the kind of activities conducted by and for URTV, I call for its complete shutdown immediately. The real violation here is that video service tax dollars are being thrown away on lunatics and children when every public dollar must be put to best use. There is no excuse for this bickering money hog to exist in this economy.
Shut this circus down already! What exactly does it take?
“The special meeting will be held at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, April 29, in the URTV studios. ”
if this meeting is held,and if you are a member of urtv,please go to the meeting and vote,or if you know someone who is a member of urtv,please call them let them know what is up,and tell them to go ,and vote…
i think there may be a petition at that meeting that you can sign to recommend the removal of the E.D…
so lets get everyone out to get this thing put right,so we can get back to the work of public access…
i hope people like peter will come back to help…
James L,
Funding for URTV is supplied via multiple sources: Charter Communications provides funding for public access as part of the Charter franchise agreement. But Charter is in bankruptcy, ATT/Bellsouth may become a competitor, and it is possible that the funding source will go away. Membership dues of $50 a year are also a funding source though not as significant as the Time Warner money. Grants obtained by the staff of URTV also account for the income. So if Charter loses its exclusivity it is possible the funding issue may resolve itself to the detriment of this channel.
Oversight is provided by both city council and the county commission. You can share your thoughts with them by directing your comments to the City Council at:
AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov
and County Commissioners can be reached via their online mail form at:
http://www.buncombecounty.org/governing/commissioners/emailCommish.asp
While you are correct about the impairments of the board of directors, the membership seems to be truly passionate about the station and most members seem to have remained focused on the purpose of the station which is making relevant television beyond the sitcoms found on 99% of channels. Most of the people involved at URTV, board directors and members are non-paid volunteers. This makes it truly bizarre since there is no significant money at stake (at least from what I can tell). It seems a shame that so much energy is being expended in this manner when the more relevant problem is trying to secure an ongoing viable revenue source.
Debate Team 1, if I ever meet you in real life, let me buy you a beer.
You are correct, funding comes out of charters profits ( no tax dollars ). So an outcry of ignorant cranks cant shut it down.
And there is no $$$$ at stake here. We are involved out of love and passion. For some of us URTV has been a genuinely life changing experience. And the place has produced some genuinely strange bedfellows.
And James L, is calling people involved with URTV lunatics and children an example of those fine communication skills that you feel are lacking?
URTV can be and is an educational tool. I learned skills there I am now being paid to use. Im not the only one in this town able to say that. It is what you make of it.
Matt, well said… I can only add, I too have gone on to make some fairly good money from what I’ve learned through certain talented people @ URTV.
I’d say my best teacher was the “Mad Scientist”. He taught more about sound than I could have ever learned through my own. A true and much loved genius to whom I’ll be forever grateful. And there have been others who helped figure out weird little quirks on my PDX-10 that I even sent to Sony and they couldn’t figure out the problem….but tech dudes at URTV did. I want to see this facility thrive & to be here for anyone who wants to learn professional videography. One of the many reasons URTV came to Buncombe was for the training of people to go on and make money.
It’s been a total pleasure seeing Matt Howard develop his skills.
Dr Blackwell….As I am 2800 miles away from Asheville there is little I can do to help(Matt you never answered me as to weather you wanted a copy of my visa or my IP address to prove I am out of the country?)
I wish you all the best in removing the ED through petition but as the position had to be approved by City and county Councils would you also not need to submit these petitions to the councils? Also, is there not a petition process you can follow to remove other board members such as the president of the board who has disobeyed several bylaws, as well as Ralph Roberts?
I wish the best for you and hope you can begin to get the wheels moving to achieve transparency and openness.
Also Matt and Debate team…while there may not be any funding through public finances at the current moment I believe there was for the start up costs which is the reason for the agreements with the city and county so you do indeed fall under the public meeting laws as well as public scrutiny and comment until those agreements expire and I think, not sure, if you are chartered as a non profit corp and not a private organization, URTV must comply with certain laws pertaining to transparency and corporate laws.
Once again, I hope Dr. Blackwell and others can move URTV in a positive direction via the petition at the upcoming meeting.
with $75 membership fees Patti Garlinghouse has taken the public out of public access..
urtv had a web page that was working well.. it had back pages for members ,and they could contact each other,to work on shows together and stuff..when pat took over,she shut that down,making it hard for members to get in contact with each other..and that was one of the first things she did..now if you need to get in touch with members,good luck…maybe pat will give you the email list.. ,I think not…all of this stuff is not just by chance…that is why the yahoo group was started..then the urtv forum was started to draw members away from yahoo,and give control back to pat..
it is coming up soon.. now is the time to get on the phone,or the email,and get all good members out to vote at the meeting.. as you may know we have no email list,so everyone must call who they know…
please help stand for free speech at urtv…
Here is a link to part 1 of the video that was shot at the Kangaroo court held by URTV to remove Davyne Diall from the URTV board. Pay careful attention in the video and see how Dale Joyner became angry that she was on camara and her assertion that the meeting was not an open meeting as required by NC Meeting laws. Once the meeting got underway the accuser herself, Dale Joyner, was remarkably absent so no one had the opportunity to question her about her trumped up and fictitious charges!
Here is the link:
http://exposureroom.com/members/dixiegirlz.aspx/assets/8d1db920dd7e4c6ca373d244a267d36e/
Is this the way you want your money, Public PEG Funds, to be wasted? Do you think people like Dale Joyner, Ralph Roberts and others at URTV should be able to run around unchecked and out of control?
good work people,now see what you get.. you loose your votes on the board..when will you wake up ,and see what is going on,and who will stop it now ???
changing the status of the producer Board members to ex-Officio or non-voting members
On Thu, 5/14/09, Pat Garlinghouse wrote:
From: Pat Garlinghouse
From: H Goosmann
To: Jerry Young
Cc: Pat Garlinghouse ; Bennie Lake
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:48 PM
Subject: Nominating Committee By-Laws review
Jerry-
Per your request the nominating committee has reviewed the URTV By-laws and made a revision to update them based upon the need as stated by our legal counsel. Please find a draft version of this revision attached to this email.
Please distribute the updated by-laws to the entire Board such that we can vote on the changes at next weeks Board meeting. I ask that each Board member review them beforehand and email me questions such that we can address any question/concern by the meeting. I am asking that we front load this such that research can be done if needed.
Last, I ask that each Board member take their time and review this revision carefully. There are some substantial updates suggested. Primarily in the membership category, the number of Board members, by changing the status of the producer Board members to ex-Officio or non-voting members, and by reorganizing the committees. Every effort was made to retain the essence and integrity of the original bylaws. There are good reasons for each of the changes and other suggested updates, and I look forward to a discussion by the full Board.
thanks,
Hunter
Hmmmmm…interesting Dr. Blackwell….and GloLady aka LiarLady now you have zero voice at URTV if this plan goes threw. Are you happy now! You voted out one of the few board members who would have stood up for you, the membership, and voted against this measure. I hope your happy with yourself because you just shot yourself in the foot because you will basically have no voice or free speech whatsoever once this happens!
sundance ,you have hit the nail on the head..when urtv started it had no member-board members,because it had no members..later they began to put members on the board,so the members(who know what it is like to be a member)could help the board out ,with there input…now days when a member makes a suggestion,they are just ignored..
case in point,at a board meeting ,months ago,a member asked if they could get caller id on the phone in studio-a,so they could block obscene calls before they got on the air… this is a very little thing,but it would be a big help to members,trying to do call in shows… i ran into the member who asked for this,the other day,and he told me that the ed said it was just not financially feasible to do this…
multiply this by every little thing that could work for members,and you start to see the picture of how things are being run…
no wonder 2/3s of the membership have just gone away.. at this point mostly the dregs remain..soon that will be all… people who know what they are doing,get tired of being treated like dirt,and just go away ,or some try to fix things..
ok.. i will go back and try to get things back on the good foot…forget the slights of the past and move on..
i agreed that this has all gotten out of hand and there needs to be a clean slate… let it start with me… i have re-upped my membership,and hope to start producing very soon..
now, lets all get back on the good foot..
if we will all work together ,i know we can do it… come on now,lets all give it a try.. good foot,good foot,get down,get back on the good foot..
some people have asked me to post all of the letter ,i got back from pat..
Tues. June 9, 2009
Dear Mr Blackwell,
Please be advised that your recent request to be a participating member of URTV and use of the facility is denied due to: failure to accept responsibility for following the Rules and Procedures of URTV and repeated abuse of URTV equipment and staff. You may, if you choose, use your membership to submit DVDs made elsewhere. If you choose not to submit programming, we will gladly refund your membership fee.
Please refer to the Rules and Operating Procedures document.
III. Rules, Violations and Loss of Privileges
A. Definitions and Limitations
3. Any producer who engages in activities in the URTV facility that are harassing, threatening, purposefully detrimental or damaging to another producer, URTV staff member, or URTV resources will be asked to leave the building.
C. Violations of the Rules and Procedures
1. The following are considered major violations;
a. Abuse, vandalism or failure to safeguard equipment and facilities, and, any, and all abusive treatment to URTV staff as stated in Section III.A.3. of URTV’s
Rules and Operating Procedures document.
Your commercial programming violation included words to the following: “we know that we shouldn’t say this but we will anyway.” You still do not accept your responsibility for the cancellation of your show and you have not made an appointment to speak with me.
Please check the Rules and Procedures to avail yourself of the appeal and grievance procedure. See Section III.D.
Very truly yours,
Pat Garlinghouse
Executive Director
cc: URTV Operations Committee Chair