<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">BTW ( by the way)<div>OCCUPY Mendocino has paid RENT from the beginning of its use of the Senior Center for meetings.</div><div><br></div><div>At first it paid by passing the hat for donation and trying to make sure we came up with $20 to donate. Then OM started paying 'officially' $20 per meeting delivered by hand to Senior Center office staff. And currently ongoing since the kerfuffle ?last year? when the Senior Center board (current group minus ?unsure?) decided to try to keep OCCUPY Mendocino from having access to the Senior Center for our twice monthly Saturday 2-4 pm meetings.</div><div><br></div><div>The board tried to charge OM $50 per meeting which, of course, is an impossible cost for OM to manage. Charles Bush, as ED, worked out a rental policy which was much more fair and also explained (I think) that OM is just a community group and cannot be prevented from using the Center, esp since it is almost /exclusively/ a group of Seniors 60 to 96 years of age. We have one steady member who is 48 now but we let him hang out with us anyway <grin></div><div><br></div><div>I'm now 'Treasurer' and I send a check to the Senior Center for each month - $40 for 2 meetings a month. We have a very teeny checking account with MendoLake Credit Union and pass the hat at every meeting to pay for our privilege. </div><div><br></div><div>OM faithfully pays rent and very much supports the Senior Center as a wonderful community resource.</div><div><br></div><div>So - if someone tells you OCCUPY doesn't pay rent, please correct their mistaken impression.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you</div><div>Jessie Lee</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Sep 21, 2013, at 10:34 PM, Jessie Lee VanSant <<a href="mailto:vjessielee@gmail.com">vjessielee@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">This is a letter written by Gin Kremen, a member of the Redwood Coast board of directors. (all caps = shouting/yelling)<div><br></div><div>Thursday over the course of the day, I was in meetings which included 2 other board members - Bob Bushansky and Syd Balows and Charles Bush in person, first hand reacting to Wednesdays events. Bob and Syd had a very different point of view and opinion of the Senior Center board meeting from that presented by Gin Kremen.</div><div><br></div><div>5 people can watch the same incident and as eye-witnesses give 5 different and contradictory descriptions/statements/testimony.</div><div><br></div><div>The board members were handed an action sheet at the beginning of the improperly convened meeting. Bob protested the whole meeting and left; Syd stayed and voted then left the meeting. There are 9 board members (is a quorum 5?) all 9 were there at the beginning of the meeting. One left, 8 people remained. Those 8, which seemed to be in their opinion a quorum still able to conduct business, took a vote which was to fire Charles Bush. 4 people voted yes; two voted no and 2 abstained. </div><div><br></div><div>For other boards in existence that result would be seen as the yeses 'win' 4 to 2 (6 total -still a quorum??) i.e. the vote to fired Charles was approved by the majority of the voting members. 4 to 2 to fire Charles no matter how anyone wants to spin it.</div><div><br></div><div>Charles sure felt fired…..</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin: 0px; "><span style="font-family: Helvetica; "><br></span></div><br><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; ">9/21/13</div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; min-height: 17px; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; ">THERE IS A BOARD MEETING FRIDAY. THAT IS OUR REGULAR "LAST FRIDAY OF THE MONTH" BOARD MEETING. NO SURPRISES THERE. </div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; min-height: 17px; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; ">PER ANN RENNACKER'S SALARY STATEMENT: THE PAYROLL IS $30,000 A MONTH. I ASSUME SHE UNDERSTANDS THAT. CHARLES GAVE BACK PART OF HIS SALARY THE FIRST YEAR HE WAS E.D. THIS HAS NOT CONTINUED. (DID SHE UNDERSTAND THAT $30,000 TO BE FOR THE YEAR?)</div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; min-height: 17px; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; ">PRESIDENT DID NOT SAY "OCCUPY WILL NOT MEET HERE AGAIN". THAT IS TOTAL BULL%&*#. I WAS THERE UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE. THIS IS NOT ABOUT OCCUPY. THE PRESIDENT TAKES A LOT OF FLACK THAT SHE DOES NOT DESERVE (AND HAS RECEIVED DEATH THREATS). SHE, AND THE BOARD, BELIEVE THAT OCCUPY SHOULD PAY RENT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES. (I THINK SO, TOO). </div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; min-height: 17px; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; ">YOU CAN'T FIRE CHARLES WITH 4 "YES" VOTES. CHARLES WAS NOT FIRED. </div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; min-height: 17px; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; ">BOB LEFT BEFORE A VOTE WAS TAKEN.</div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; ">SYD LEFT AFTER THE VOTE, BUT BEFORE THE END OF THE MEETING.</div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; ">CHARLES HAD LEFT THE BUILDING BEFORE THE MEETING ENDED.</div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; min-height: 17px; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; ">DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS AS TO WHERE THIS "THE BOARD FIRED CHARLES" CAME FROM, AND PUT THE BLAME FOR THIS MESS WHERE IT TRULY BELONGS. </div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; min-height: 17px; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; ">FOR MONTHS, EVERYTHING IN CLOSED SESSIONS HAS BEEN IMMEDIATELY LEAKED TO CHARLES. AGAIN…PUT THE BLAME FOR THIS MESS ON WHOMEVER LEAKED CLOSED-SESSION INFORMATION. ALL THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED HAD WE BEEN ALLOWED TO WORK IT OUT IN A SENSIBLE, ORDERLY FASHION. THIS WAS NOT "WHISTLE-BLOWING" AND DOES NOT DESERVE "GRATITUDE" FROM THE COMMUNITY. THIS WAS MEAN-SPIRITED, SELF-SERVING AND HAS TORN A COMMUNITY APART.</div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; min-height: 17px; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; ">SHAME ON THE LEAKER AND SHAME ON US ALL.</div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; min-height: 17px; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 13px; ">GIN KREMEN</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>