Atlanta Progressive News

The leadership of NPU-R failed to conduct the annual NPU-R election within the time frame required by Atlanta City Code.  [Sec. 6-3017.  Elections.  (a)   Elections shall take place during October or November of every calendar year. If an election(s) has not been held by November 30. Said election(s) shall be conducted by the bureau of planning during the month of December. http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10376&sid=10]

The Planning Bureau initially stated that it would abide by its obligation under the Code of Ordinances.  However, on the evening of the election, the Planning Bureau reneged, stating that it had been counseled not to intervene.  That switch on the part of the Planning Bureau is being contested.

On March 4, 2009, an election took place at the Campbellton RD YMCA.  There, a number of voting irregularities [attendance, etc.] took place, violating NPU-R Bylaws.

Residents were brought in to cast a vote for NPU Officers although they had not attended four previous meetings as required by the Bylaws.

The candidate put forth by the Nominating Committee for the position of Vice-Chair did not meet the attendance requirement of NPU-R Bylaws.  During the meeting of the Nominating Committee [according to Committee minutes], the members of the Nominating Committee agreed not to press for adherence to the attendance requirements of the Bylaws.

At a community-based Leadership Training Institute conduced by APAB [Atlanta Planning Advisory Board], the City’s Ethics Officer announced that she had received a number of emails alleging NPU irregularities.  She lamented, however, that the present scope of the City’s Code of Ethics does not cover NPU elections.

For their own personal reasons [insurance sales, rental income, real estate development, political agenda, favor for private schools, etc.], several members have taken the stance that a little impropriety should be accepted because “no one is perfect”.

The City Ethics Officer proclaims we “ought to avoid [even] the perception of impropriety”.

[Statement before the Atlanta Committee on Council, Monday May 4, 2009.]

“AD Bell stated that the situation was already set up to have a confrontation.  In order to avoid, the committee would give the gathered info from the nominating committee. And if need be, not acquiesce to the NPU governing body and the validity of their position.”

[Minutes of Nominating Committee Meeting of February 27, 2009, pp.1-2]

“Jacobs and Johnson suggested calling and emailing the law dept on Monday asking:

–        Specifically how to avoid a public display.

–        Clarifying that they feel that the city has no right to do what they are doing by law.

–        To make clear that the committee is legal and voted on by the body.

–        That the NPU director is trying to usurp the nom committee authority.

–        To state the ordinance and bylaws on who has the authority for special elections

The committee did not make it clear on who would be the liaison of this information but all agreed that contact between the NPU and the law department was necessary before the March 4^th mtg.”

 [Minutes of Nominating Committee Meeting of February 27, 2009, p.2]

A member [Ben Howard] sent out an email blast inquiring about the process for handling the personal information contained on NPU-R sign-in sheets and commenting on the problems caused by improper handling, sharing and storage of those sign-in sheets.  [Without the sign-in sheets, it was impossible to accurately identify all residents who had not attended four prior meetings as required by NPU Bylaws.  Therefore, ‘ringers’ were allowed to cast votes, thereby skewing the election results dramatically.

AD Bell, who has not been approved by membership vote to be the Sergeant-at-Arms has warnedBen Howard [via a ‘heads up’ email] that he intends to keep “order” “by any means necessary”. In the past, their brand of “order” has included stifling Points of Order and Points of Information, which are allowable under Roberts Rules of Order.

In a timely manner, according to NPU-R Bylaws [three days in advance], Ben Howard submitted a request that this matter be placed on the agenda for the May 6, 2009 meeting of NPU-R so the membership could vote [by Roll Call Vote] on just how much force they are willing to allow a person acting as Sergeant-at-Arms to exert.  The “Chair” responded “this will never happen”.

NOTE: The phrase “by any means necessary” has historically included physical violence.

Does YMCA Maintenance or YMCA Security check the setup of the Meeting Room just prior to the start of meetings to ensure that the setup:

1] allows for safe and trouble-free exit from the room in the event of emergencies?

2] accommodates handicapped members of the public?

3] accommodates police, fire and/or EMS personnel and equipment in the event of emergenicies?

In the event an untoward incident occurs at the [regular] entrance to the room where NPU-R meets that causes a bottleneck in the event attendees feel a need to scramble out of the meeting room in a hurry, is there an alternate exit?

Are the windows breakaway windows.  Do instructions exist on how to escape through them?

Does there exist a rope ladder that attendees can use to escape via the windows?

How can the lighting in the meeting room be increased at least twofold?

Does a ‘panic button’ or ‘panic telephone’ exist in the meeting room?

Is there a defibrillator anywhere within the vicinity of the meeting room?

How do handicapped residents and residents in wheel chairs escape in the event of an emergency?