Welcome to Southside Pride!

Changes coming; board business still under wraps at CNIA

by Cheri Thompson

In keeping with what appears to be the preferred standard operating procedure for the current Central Neighborhood Improvement Association board, the September Board meeting was brief, superficial, and then moved into a closed executive session that excluded community members. Committee chairs gave brief reports, which were frequently cut off to avoid providing information that might be “inappropriate” for the open session, and announcements of major organizational changes were made in bland tones.
According to treasurer Louis Seragoza’s report, CNIA expects to receive $41,000 on Friday from Neighborhood Revitalizatin Program funds, and an unspecified additional amount from the MCDA Citizen Participation Contract in the near future.
Seragoza began to read specific payments made in the past month “because I think people should know what we spend our money on,” but was cut off by Board member Valerie Metoyer after he specified a payment of $3,976 to interim director Robert Woods. “We just want to be respectful of people’s privacy,” according to president Zachary Metoyer. Woods’ salary as interim director has been a matter of contention with community members in the past, and clear answers as to why Mr. Woods is paid several times what the previous executive director was have never been provided.
Seragoza identified the Board’s accountant, attending the meeting in order “to discuss the James Ford Bell Foundation situation” during the closed executive session to follow. The Bell Foundation demanded the return of $36,398.78, within five working days, in a letter dated June 15, 2000. The Bell Foundation was unable to provide information about whether the funds had been returned.
Board president Metoyer announced the hire of John Ruffin, previously of Hawthorne Area Council, as the new executive director of CNIA. “He offers great vision to this Board and to the community,” said Metoyer. Interested community members can obtain a copy of Mr. Ruffin’s resume from the CNIA office.
Metoyer also announced the resignation of Basim Sabri, The board’s landlord representative, from the board. Sabri’s resignation letter was not available at the meeting but will be made available at the CNIA office. According to Metoyer, Sabri cited his business interests in the neighborhood, accusations that have been made, and the need for a more culturally diverse board as reasons for his resignation.
Peter Brown, a community member, expressed “challenging support” for the board, and expressed his desire to see the board and the community move forward and continue efforts to reinvigorate the community.
Brown and Brian Danielson were approved by acclimation to the two open at-large board seats. Jennifer Gahnstrom was approved by acclimation to the open District 7 seat.

CNIA board loses, then wins, special election

by Frank Fuller

The Central Neighborhood Improvement Association Board of Directors was first ousted at a special meeting held Sep. 20 but then kept in a recount. The meeting was an attempt to end conflict in the neighborhood group but may only guarantee that conflict continues.
CNIA bylaws allow a special meeting to be called by petition. This petition was backed by supporters of the old board, which was replaced in CNIA's elections last May. Critics of the board that took over in May have said that the May elections included ineligible voters who were brought in by supporters of the new board. Actions the new board then took, including allegations of locking staff members out of the office, firing staff members, and holding illegal meetings, led to further conflict in the neighborhood group. In response to these alleged irregularities, at least five long term members of the board, who were reelected in May, quit the board since that election.
This special meeting was chaired by Thomas J. Gmeinder, a meeting facilitator who is not involved in the CNIA. He was hired because he is familiar with parliamentary procedures. Rules were suggested and voted on that limited the amount of time people could debate issues, and he kept crowd noise - applause, cheers and boos - to a minimum to keep the meeting from getting bogged down.
But still the meeting was tied up for over an hour and a half on one issue: the eligibility of voters. The petition had stated that the League of Women Voters was going to observe and run the election so only eligible voters could vote. Eligible voters are residents of Central Neighborhood, those who work for businesses in the neighborhood, and those who own businesses in the neighborhood. One of the issues disputed in the May election were allegations that some of the voters said they worked in the neighborhood but didn't. Some members said these voters were brought in to vote for the new board. It took nearly two hours for the membership to argue first about whether all who had voting cards were members and how to determine if those who said they worked in the neighborhood actually did. Some suggested these workers show a business card or payroll check stub, while others said it was unreasonable to expect people in an inner city neighborhood to have business cards or payroll check stubs with them.
The motion to recheck all voters for eligibility was voted down.
The meeting then discussed the original motion to remove the board. Again, members spoke both for and against and covered a wide range of topics: that ousting the board would further divide the community; that some residents never received notification of the meeting; that the board did not represent the diversity of the neighborhood; that the May elections were illegal.
Sometimes the statements and requests seemed bizarre. At one point, several speakers said they wanted to see all the current board members lined up for the audience to see. The chair then asked them to come down. This was then followed by another speaker's request to see all board members who had resigned after the May elections. The chair seemed confused by this request but then asked them to come down so the membership could see them. The only discernable difference between the two lineups was that the current board is comprised wholly of people of color, while those who resigned from the board who stood up were all white.
When a vote was called for, those who wanted to oust the board demanded that all the vote counters have observers watch and check their count. Students were doing the counting, so for this first vote, an adult accompanied each student counting in each section. The vote was 120-112 to oust the board. This vote was a hand vote, with voters holding red cards up that proved they were eligible voters and had registered at the door.
However, Robert Woods, the interim director of CNIA, asked for a recount. This time, the method of counting votes was changed. Each side went to opposite sides of the room and walked past a vote counter and observer. This time the vote was 120-104 to keep the board.
The meeting was then adjourned, but even as people were leaving, a number of residents were shouting things like, "This was a bogus meeting." The conflict in CNIA was not ended with this vote.