RECENT COMMENTS
Pear Street Project expected to draw crowd for CHA meeting tonight
Membership Meeting Reminder and Agenda
Just a reminder that this month’s CHA Membership Meeting will be held [Tuesday] night at 7 pm at the St. John’s Church Parish Hall. We look forward to seeing you! The agenda for the meeting is below.AGENDA
Approval of Agenda
Approval of April minutes
Moment of silence for Oklahoma
Welcome Jennifer McClennan and new membersCommittee reports:
Treasury
Membership
ZoningPresentation from the Hon. Jennifer McClennan, Virginia House of Delegates
Old business:
New voting procedures-membership signing in at meetings
Newsletter update
Holiday weekend update
Plein Air update
Bellevue updateNew business:
Recording membership meetings
Formation of a membership committee to advise on 2014 Holiday Party/Ball
Picnics, June and August
Pear St. Membership discussionAdjourn
How is it possible that the CHA Agenda has ‘Pear St. Membership discussion’ as the last substantive issue for the meeting?
And, why is it under ‘New Business?’ The issue has been discussed several times in the Zoning Committee and Mr White and his architect made a long presentation to the last CHA meeting and members asked many questions.
Obviously, there is something going on here and it isn’t pretty.
Dan, What do you think is going on?
Well, #2 took the bait.
Jon Ondrak, I take it you object to having this issue on tonights agenda!? It is your right to be supportive of this project as an individual, however, when you insert yourself as a representative of the Church Hill Association, ( as you have, even signing letters to our City Council representative this past March as” President of the CHA”) that right ends.
As a member of the zoning commission, you have made it clear that you are in favor of this development, however you have never declared a conflict of interest to the CHA.
Because of your strong pro developer bent, this past Holiday house tour was used to showcase empty, undecorated properties that were for rent. The argument was that people wanted to see a “renovated” property?!! Be that as it may, my objections to this developer promotion lead to the formation of a committee to draw up guidelines for future house tours specifically to prevent this occurring again. You threatened me with “public humiliation and chastisement” if my objection became public and informed me that N O O T H E R complaints had been received. This was done by you in your capacity and under the title of president of the CHA.
You tried very hard (at the CHA meeting) to prevent this committee from being created. When that failed, you tried to form your own committee at a board meeting. When that failed, you joined the legitimate committee and attempted to take over. When that failed and your instructions to the Chairman (Jim Beckner) of the house tour committee were not followed, you stopped showing up to the meetings.
You contributed nothing but dessention and never completed your assigned tasks.
When you put yourself in the position of leading a community organization, you are obligated to represent T H E I R views, agenda, wishes, opinions and desires; N O T yours!!
@2 & 3. Pitchforks? Fire? I’m bringing my portable guillotine. Which one of you wants to be first? You self serving pricks.
#4 You asked me what I thought was going on – and then you answered. I completely agree with your post. You said it better than I ever could.
It would seem, in the spirit of being an honest broker, Ondrak should recuse himself from many if not all of the issues of importance to the CHA rather than trying to skewer it with his pitchfork. Indeed, the honest path for him to follow would be to resgn from the Association. And, the sooner the better.
I love how the placement of something on the agenda causes the conspiracy theories to roll out. If it was under old business, what would the conspiracy have been there? Would that we could know.
The previous post is a great example why i do not post my name on this board.
#9 You are right; it should be under ‘Old Business’ because that is what it is. Tell me, how is it possible to take Pear Street and put it as the last but one item (Adjourn).
Could it be that the meeting would not have a quorum at the end of the meeting? Or is it less important than:
New voting procedures-membership signing in at meetings
Newsletter update
Holiday weekend update
Plein Air update
Bellevue update
Recording membership meetings
Formation of a membership committee to advise on 2014 Holiday Party/Ball
Picnics, June and August
I would be surprised if the CHA bylaws dont have a provision to force and officer out who takes public stances on behalf of the organization that are in disagreement with the wishes of the membership. In fact, the way this story is presented, there might even be grounds for a lawsuit.
Tiny, if you are not comfortable posting your name on this or any other post, that is your right and I think you have a valid point.
When I posted my opinion about the necessity of leashing dogs, I was attacked for my lack of gardening skills, edcuation and poor personality as well as other relevant items. I had a good laugh!!
What I did not laugh about is the person who came by and threw rocks at my geese! The geese are not responsible for the opinions of their keeper.
I believe that if you have something valid to say and your facts are solid, then you should own what you say, and not be afraid of saying it. I do not believe in making up facts to suit the current situation at hand and the practice of revisionist history . These two items are less likely to occur if a poster can be held accountable.
#9 There is NO conspiracy ‘theory”. It is what it is!!!!
#12 I have just skimmed the By-Laws of the Association and couldn’t find any reference to ‘Past President’. In my recollection, recent Past Presidents have not tried to drive the train but have left the new President and Board of Directors to push ahead.
Perhaps the new Past President could learn from his distinguished predecessors and leave the current President to set her own agenda.
It seems to me that making people post their own names does nothing to make the conversation more civil. Sme of the biggest “attackers” post their real names, thinking they can say whatever offensive thing they want as long as they identify themselves.
The proposition that a board member who supports a position should recuse him/herself from speaking or voting on an issue solely BECAUSE s/he likes the proposal is the single stupidest thing ever said by a CHA person.
How would anything get done? Everyone on every side of any issue: I demand you recuse yourselves!
See everyone tonight at St. John’s for amateur hour!
#17 I think it is rather that saying one’s own opinion is that of the Association is the theme here.
#14 If it is what it is, then it is… appropriate placement of an open item, not previously tabled per Robert’s Rules, in the only place on the general membership agenda where it can get free and open conversation from the membership.
Weak conspiracy, methinks.
#18 The only theme here I see is to undermine perfectly reasonable opinions with personal attacks, and to find conspiracy in the normal course of operations.
How completely embarrassing for you Ondrak….I’m embarrassed for you!
# 19 You are and were wrong on Roberts Rules. Before I could make a motion to amend the agenda to properly place the Pear St. discussion in old business, someone else did, and of course it passed with a wide majority vote.
You need to READ what you are trying to respond to.
The “normal course of operations” is and has been unacceptable of late.
In that case, I hereby denounce the Pear Street project! The CHA board and past board are exposed as guilty conspirators, and everyone who opposes it has behaved with valor and righteousness! What a fool I, a nameless bystander, have been.
#21 I’d agree but I don’t want to pile on. If I remember, while there were 4 nay votes, John was the only one who abstained. Shame.
One reason the placement of the Pear St. at the end of the agenda, might have been to allow all other business to finish first. This allow folk to stay for what they want to hear and allow them (ME) to leave to miss the long discussion that would then happen.
Personal attacks on a public blog is in poor taste regardless of the issue.
@26 – If the personal attack is on a private citizen, I agree completely. I think the standard is different when it’s a public figure – elected officials, local celebrities, etc. Those folks are in a position where some criticism is healthy for the community to keep them honest. The bar there would be if the attacks are on their personal life (versus their public duties).
I think if Mr. Orndak is doing things in his position with CHA that folks disagree with, it’s fine for them to call him out on that. If the attacks were referencing things that have no bearing on his role there, it’s clearly off limits.
where is pear st?
THere’s a photo here that shows it pretty well: http://chpn.net/news/2013/04/12/cha-to-consider-holiday-home-tour-guidelines-new-pear-street-development_27004/
So what actually happened at the meeting last night? And why can’t CHA learn how to spell its delegate’s name?
And folk wonder why it is hard to get folks to volunteer to be on the CHA board or to be the newsletter editor?
@28. Here’s another reference and renderings of how the building will sit in the local environment:
http://chpn.net/news/2013/05/16/flyer-opposing-pear-street-condo-project_27490/
There was a call to move the Pear Street Issue up to the first issue of old business. Tayne (I’m assuming that’s who was leading the meeting; no officer bothered to introduce him/herself which would have been a good thing considering the number of newcomers) protested, saying that if that was brought up first a lot of people would leave afterwards, but the majority ruled. Someone had written up a formal protest against the project to present to the developer. Some complained that the document was premature, but again the majority ruled. For the record, maybe ten people or so left after that vote.
Julia H.
Please read posting #6, especially the last paragraph. Private discussions have had no effect whatsoever!!
I apologize to you if you were offended. I did what I did because I am offended. As a dues paying member of a civic organization for over 25 years, voicing my objection should not result in threats from the president of that organization. I kept my “attack” brief….it could have been much longer.
I stand by my facts, (most of which are public knowledge) and as an aside there were numerous complaints about the same issue from other members which Mr. Ondrak knew at the time that he told me that there were ” no other complaints! ” Mr. Ondrak was advised against putting these properties on the tour by other members. He chose to ignore their wishes.
Please R E A D both of my postings.