Here’s an article with comments from some key players in the election fray:
http://www.insidetri.com/news/fea/2226.0.html
Thanks to Peggy McDC for posting it on rst.
Larry
I read the IT interviews and was taken aback by some of Jim Girand’s comments. In particular, this passage:
"IT: Why did you disagree with the opinions offered by Grinder and Backer?
JG: We observed there were no references to case law or other citations normally found in a legal opinion. Indeed, after seeing those two opinions, we sought an opinion from Alan Geraldi, an attorney licensed in the State of California and a law professor (and member of the San Francisco Triathlon Club), who presented a thoughtful analysis based on legal references and case precedents for California non-profit organizations. Contrasting the opinions of Grinder and Backer versus Geraldi, Geraldi had far better legal analysis and justification. Bear in mind when the board voted on election issues the three of us recused ourselves from those proceedings."
Interesting . . . but here’s what Mr. Girand is not telling you. First, the wise and learned Alan Giraldi, whose legal opinion Girand valued so highly that he was willing to ignore contrary ones from former board presidents David Backer and Jonathan Grinder, was listed on Girand’s campaign literature as a “member of Team Girand”. In other words, this was the rough equivalent of Congress accepting the legal opinion of Karl Rove on the inapplicability of the Geneva Conventions to prisoners in Iraq.
Second, Girand makes much of the fact that he, Gattis, and Travis recused themselves when considering the election protest. True enough. But what he doesn’t tell you is that two other board members (Tim Becker and Eric Bean) were also members of the Girand election machine . . . and they DID NOT recuse themselves. Which way did the two vote on the protest? Take a wild guess.