I am writing for several reasons, I'm not a social media type, have no accounts, and do not post, but here goes.....A few topics, the VP slot, transparency, and thoughts on where we are and where we need to go.
First, I support Scott's candidacy for the Vice Presidency. When the issue came up, conversations were held with Board members to survey their views. A letter was then prepared to send out to Vecinos members announcing that Scott was not qualified to run as VP, by virtue of his "residency" status. Many know the history of this requirement, the reasoning and logic, while others seem to prefer taking it at face value for what in my mind is political advantage.
Personally, I took objection to he approach of "assembling" a decision on this topic by gathering views in private conversations with Board Members. I asked that the Board have an extraordinary meeting to present the issue, have a discussion with input from all Board Members and to take formal vote.
In the end, a majority of the Board members agreed, and we held an extraordinary meeting. Neil, in his post on this topic, relates his views. I agreed with Neil when he presented those views, and agree with him now. So, it will come as no surprise, that I was the other dissenting vote on the matter. It was defeated, as Ricardo pointed out in his statement, 7-2.
Two issues for me:
- Sticking to the mantra that "these are the rules and we must observe them strictly" in this case is an artifice intended to cover the deeper political rifts in the membership.
The intention of this bylaw provision and the underlying reasoning must be sought and observed. It was put in place to make sure that the officers were available in the community full-time, so that they can effectively respond to the events in real-time, as opposed to an individual that likely would spend substantial amounts of time elsewhere. This is a mostly expat organization, so this was and is a real issue, but Scott is perhaps the best equipped to meet the spirit of this provision, as he is here all of the time, in Akumal, and knows the community, probably better than anyone else.
The wording in the provision is undefined, although some strive to define it in the narrowest possible manner to exclude a valuable and experienced candidate. This interpretation will only serve to diminish the status, authority, and effectiveness of Vecinos as a force in the community and region.
The exclusion of Scott as an officer candidate, effectively makes it a one candidate race, which is almost never a good strategy for an organization struggling with participation and legitimacy.
Therefore, I strongly support placing Scott on the ballot. It will still be a competition of ideas between the candidates, which is the foundation of a democratic organization. Having a real "race" is not a threat to the community, on the contrary, it enhances and elevates debate and deliberation on critical topics.
2. My second issue has to do with transparency and how Vecinos is operating. As Neil and others have pointed out, the membership is the ultimate decision-making body, and the Board/Officers merely their representatives.
As it is impossible to bring every issue to the members and impossible to conduct day-to-day operations without appointed individuals, the Board and Officers take on that responsibility. However, the Officers are not unilateral decision-makers, they do not function in an "executive branch" sense. The concept in my view, must be a clear and open presentation of all issues to the Board, which as a deliberative body, must analyze, evaluate, discussion, and decide on all meaningful decisions. No unilateral decision-making.
Minutes describing those discussions and decisions, must be promptly shared with the membership if the organization is to succeed. Participation by the members is driven by an understanding of the issues of the day, community understanding and deliberation on those matters.
While I believe that this is a broadly shared view of the membership, it has not always proceeded this way. This must change in order for the organization to thrive.
Finally, the most critical element for our community leadership are the four basic tasks of leaders:
- Get the big ideas right.
- Communicate those ideas effectively.
- Oversee the implementation of the ideas
- Determine how to refine the big ideas — then repeat the cycle.
Last year, some "goals" were laid out during our elections. Few, if any of those, rise to the level of strategic goals, and in my personal view, we do not have a coherent overarching strategy as an organization.
We run the Pluma (that took some doing), we fix the streetlights, and we attempt to control the topes and potholes. The park is, well....not moving. That is not a strategy. What are our major objectives? What is our future role in the community and region, realistically within our possible authorities as a non-governmental entity? How can we increase engagement and improvement in Akumal, given our role? Current status:
- Our former quasi-governmental memorandum with the Municipality has not been renewed.
- Our role in major upcoming projects, such as the sewer, is minimal and perhaps "influential" only, assuming the project every moves forward. If it doesn't what are we doing about the sewage and septic systems (this is critical in my view)
- There is now an additional civic association that is present and working in the community, and has implemented a greatly improved transportation system for the workers in the community.
- Development of the "100 acres" seems to be on the back burner for the moment, but it will return at some point soon, guaranteed.
- Security is always a concern, given the current state of affairs in QR. The pluma and National Guard have been extremely positive forces for us in maintaining the security and safety of our community.
In summary, we need to get step one done, then move on to two. The revisions to the bylaws last year seemed "somewhat" helpful, hopefully at least in reducing election shenanigans (votes from parking lots and casitas). But they have not and will not get us where we need to go.
We can choose to continue existing to conduct the tasks listed above, but I believe there is much more potential. As development and density increases (which it inevitably will do), in order to retain the character of our community, which brought us all here in the first place, I believe that we must build an organization that is inclusive of the whole community and puts forward leaders that develop and implement a sound strategy that brings people together.
Easy to say, hard to do. If you've made it this far in this tome, thanks, I hope that this makes some sense.
