Flashbacks:
The RNGC Caddyshackpocalypse
Bollards!
Guy Rando, one of the candidates running for the Lake Anne/Tall Oaks seat on the Reston Association Board of Directors, has called for the election to be halted. Along with the well-documented questions about endorsements by current board members, Rando alleges there are issues with the balloting process:
In addition, it has come to my attention that there are irregularities with the way the ballots have been distributed this election. Cate Fulkerson has stated that some of the codes were incorrect and extra ballots were sent out to some condominium owner/occupants. How many of these extra ballots were sent out? Ms. Fulkerson says that it will be sorted out by the next election. I don’t think that is reasonable. We need an investigation of the ballot process now.The full text of Rando's letter is in the comments. Remind us when this election is over again?
Because of my concerns, I am asking that the election be halted. I am asking that an investigation of the balloting process be undertaken and the election process begun over from scratch.
Below is the text of Guy Rando's letter:
ReplyDeleteMarch 18, 2010
Board of Directors
Reston Association
1930 Isaac Newton Square
Reston, VA 20190
Dear Reston Association Board Members:
It has become apparent to me that the current election for board seats has been compromised not only by statements from sitting board members meant to demean some of the candidates, but also by technical irregularities in the voting process itself.
President Robin Smyers circulated an email alleging that the Save Brown’s Chapel coalition has hidden and ulterior motives and their intention is to harm Reston. Such statements by the President of the Board of Directors has the potential to disrupt the election process by introducing fear, suspicion and mistrust. Robin Smyers should apologize to the candidates from the SBC slate and also to the community.
Richard Chew has written an email in which he states that only the younger candidates have the ability to look to the future. He states that the older candidates are stuck in the past and have no vision. Since I am the oldest candidate running in this election, I have to take exception with his statements. The vision I first conceived in 1964 using air rights to connect the north and south sections of Reston is a vision for the future. As recently as last week, I was working on drawings to create pedestrian walkways across the Toll Road at Herndon-Monroe Station. My age has nothing to do with my ability to look into the future and see possibilities. Mr. Chew’s statements show a profound prejudice against the older candidates and he has to be called on this. Mr. Chew needs to apologize to me, to Joe Leighton, and to the community.
Both Mr. Chew and Ms. Smyers used email distribution lists they accumulated during their tenure on the Board of Directors. Using emails addresses collected as part of their work on the board to discredit certain candidates is inappropriate.
A number of people have spoken out against the statements by Ms. Smyers and Mr. Chew that denigrate certain of the candidates. Kathleen Driscoll-McKee has suggested passing Board Conduct Standards to keep sitting board members from endorsing or campaigning for board candidates. Dave Edwards of the Elections Committee has also asked for such standards. He states that the behavior he has seen in this election should not be tolerated. Gerald Volloy has stated that incalculable harm has been done to the candidates running in this election because of the hostile emails circulated by Ms. Smyers and Mr. Chew. In the end it is the community that suffers. What volunteers will come forward in the future when they know they may be assailed by board members unwilling to let the democratic process work as it was intended?
In addition, it has come to my attention that there are irregularities with the way the ballots have been distributed this election. Cate Fulkerson has stated that some of the codes were incorrect and extra ballots were sent out to some condominium owner/occupants. How many of these extra ballots were sent out? Ms. Fulkerson says that it will be sorted out by the next election. I don’t think that is reasonable. We need an investigation of the ballot process now.
Because of my concerns, I am asking that the election be halted. I am asking that an investigation of the balloting process be undertaken and the election process begun over from scratch.
Sincerely,
Guy L. Rando
Urban Designer and Landscape Architect
RA should be sued. Chew and Smyers as well.
ReplyDeleteActually I was thinking this same thing this AM. At the very least there should be an injunction to stop the election to sort out the ballot issues.
ReplyDeleteWhat a goddamn cluster fuc&!
HC&D
I could not agree more --- get rid of those two fat cows --- Smyers and Chew -- and the embarrassment to all of Reston (young AND old) they both represent!
ReplyDeleteThere are well-documented RA election issues going back many years; with nothing being done -- and it's time to get rid of these disgusting creeps who are just pathetic losers.
GOOD RIDDANCE SMYERS!
Where's pretty-boy Mike Collins the attorney?
ReplyDeleteCan't he do some pro bono work and stop this mess from becoming front-page Washington Post news?
And what about that alleged conflict resolver running for the RA board? She could be earning as much as Milton Matthews were she to take on this fun little project?
(That Matthews salary would be well into six figures of YOUR assessment dollars, kiddies! Supported full-steam ahead by the abominable Robin Smyers. Six-figures worth of dollars that are not being used to maintain and enhance the RA common elements, pay for camps to keep the kids out of the crumbling RA facilities and out of trouble)
I heard a rumor along these lines recently... that owner/occupants of condos were given TWO votes, while other residents were only given one. Explain to me why someone who lives in a condo should have twice as many votes as someone who lives in a townhouse or SFH?
ReplyDeleteAnd what is this business about sorting this out by the next election? That is just crazy- sort it out NOW!
I can actually agree with that condos getting two ballots. Happened to our friends who live in a Reston condo, and our townhouses only received one. I actually wanted the extra one they had to add a second vote for Rod! YESSSSSSSSSSS.
ReplyDeleteCondos sometimes and apartments always have tenants -- tenants who do NOT pay the assessment and can vote or give their ballots to whomever they wish. The ever-increasing number of section 8 apartments and tenants surely guarantee that RA will stuff the ballot boxes for years to come if this nonsense is not sorted out NOW!
ReplyDeleteThat's surely why RA gives them TWO ballots because they know that these are typically people who will vote for the status quo or don't case about increased assessments, $100 million white elephants and all of the other nonsense and BS that is RA.
Yes -- sort out the fraud NOW --- not next year.
I own a SFH and I got one ballot -- already cast and (I pray) counted.
Isn't the apartment rep on the RA board from Reston Interfaith?
ReplyDeleteGuess who's baby that is???
My understanding is that anyone who owns and occupies their house code "oo" on your ballot gets 2 votes. Actually, you can only vote once and it counts double, so a husband and wife can't vote for different people. I believe tenants/renters get 1 vote and landlords 1 vote, giving a total of 2 votes for each property.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify everyone is sent one ballot. Their are codes on the back which specify how many votes you get. If you own and occupy your home, whether it is a single family home, townhouse or condo, your vote counts double. Tenets votes count once and landlords votes count once. It actually makes sense.
ReplyDeleteI am not a fan of the current RA board, but please leave Reston Interfaith out of it. My family and I volunteer there frequently. All communities need and are lucky to have organizations like this.
ReplyDeleteThe black helicopter are just over the horizon waiting to take over Reston. Right, anon 8:31, 8:40, 9:12.
ReplyDeleteBTW Chews been on the Board 1 year. Leighton been on the Board 12 years. But Joe's not catching heat for the current state of affairs?
What's up with that?
@anon 9:59 volunteer and donate your cash all you want -- that's good and your choice -- but Reston Interfaith should not be taking public tax money which is bad and over which I have no choice.
ReplyDelete@anon 11:10 -- I do not know if the RA voting records are available, but Joe often votes against the current RA block including on the ever-increasing RA budget and illegal board actions and maneuvers. Ask him and he will tell you.
ReplyDeleteHe certainly has not sent defamatory bigoted emails or campaign literature or trespassed on private property.
And, most important of all, he uses his two ears to listen to his constituents.
He also supports getting new and different things done in Reston. His decades of experience in common-interest community leadership and residency in Reston and supports a wide array of divergent and diverse ideas and thoughts.
My vote is for Joe!
Anon 11:39
ReplyDeleteThe RA Board meetings are on Ch 28 every month. Watching them would reveal that 95% of the votes are unanimous. They pretty much work by consensus and Joe's voting with Chew most of the time.
Joe brought the Wal-mart rec center fiasco to public light and I've already voted for him because of that.
But to beat up on Chew without even mentioning Joe's vastly greater contribution to the current state affairs at RA grossly distorts reality: 1 year versus 12 years.
I believe in the past the owner occupant was able to have two votes on the actual ballot. This would allow the household the option to split their vote. I dont know if this consitutes a change and if so does this need some type of formal approval.
ReplyDeleteThe RA election committee needs to take a look. Guy Rando may actually have a valid issue. If the election is a "do over" the election committee should make sure that no ballots are counted. This avoids the RA board, or anyone else from wanting a "do over" if their candidates are not elected.
The PRESIDENT of Reston Association endorses her slate of candidates and SLANDERS the SBC slate of candidates, calling them "harmful to Reston" among other choice words such as "uneducated" and "partisan" (code word for Republican), and then goes on to say they have a "personal agenda" and "vendetta".
ReplyDeleteThat alone should be enough to question the fairness of the election results. It would be a true miracle if any candidate outside of the RA endorsed slate is able to pull-off a win here.
Are we living in the US or the old communist Russia?
Anon 1:38
ReplyDeleteSmyers can't endorse but former board member Rick Beyers can?
Incumbents, especially retiring incumbents, make endorsements of their successors in every organization, private, public and NPO.
Was her endorsement uniquely ineffective and petty? absolutely.
I really wish Smyers' and Beyers' personal animosity wouldn't consume this election.
I also wish we had candidates for the district positions who were more informed about RA.
It's a shame that the two candidates with the most RA experience, Leighton and Robertson, are running for the same seat.
"Richard Chew has written an email in which he states that only the younger candidates have the ability to look to the future. He states that the older candidates are stuck in the past and have no vision."
ReplyDeletePretty funny considering that public records show that Dick Chew is in his 60's. Maybe he should quit and go back to working fullt-time in the dog toy section of Petco.
1:38, in Soviet Union elections, the Politburo proposed a slate of candidates and the locals either voted for them or didn't vote. There were no opposition candidates -- and not because nobody dared run against the Communist Party. Their elections only resembled ours in that people went to a polling place to cast a ballot.
ReplyDeleteI understand that you were being facetious but to compare our local politics to the Soviet Union is way over the top. I'll take our muddy, divisive, system of elections any day over the Soviet-style elections.
Does anybody know how the Chinese handle elections? Or do they even have elections?
One, there is a big difference between a former board president endorsing a slate of candidates and a current sitting president endorsing a slate using her position.
ReplyDeleteSecond and most importantly, Smyers didn't just endorse a slate of candidates she slandered the opposing candidates in no uncertain terms. The opposing slate having been the group that defeated her "pet project".
Third, not only did Smyers endorse candidates so did Richard Chew and there are definite reports that he misused email lists for this purpose.
Forth, RCC the other organization that was behind the indoor rec center and the real brains behind the idea coincidentally decided to endorse the RA slate of candidates and call SBC once again "dangerous"
What is truly scary here is the idea that people or a group are "harmful" or "dangerous" if they dare to disagree with RA or RCC. Also truly scary is the lengths that they are to which they are going to stamp out all dissension. We all must think alike, we all must think alike, we all must think alike...
Anon 5:01
ReplyDelete"One, there is a big difference between a former board president endorsing a slate of candidates and a current sitting president endorsing a slate using her position."
That would be what, exactly?
Two, what Smyers wrote was counterproductive and stupid opinion but not slander.
Three, what misuse? Chew probably used the address book his computer automatically accumulates on everyone he e-mails or e-mails him.
Fourth, RCC did no such thing. Individuals on the RCC Board may have done so. Those individuals don't lose their rights as RA members when they joined the RCC Board. Just like SBC members did lose their RA rights when they joined that organization either.
I heartily agree with you that Smeyers has been arrogant and disrespectful of those who have even the smallest of disagreements with her. I first became aware of that behavior from a report of a DRB meeting where she was strongly disrespectful of an hoa president who questioned a sidewalk project on Weihle, a full year before the BC projected surfaced.
There is a real problem with group think among Smyers and her allies but who her allies are is not always as clear as one might think.
While I feel that it is inappropriate for a sitting board member to endorse a candidate (this is not party politics even though some seem intent on making it so) there is nothing in the regulations of RA to restrict it. There is an elections committee and it appears to have no power or influence to regulate the election. Hopefully both of these will be rectified by the new board.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not endorsement however. The issue is a blatant and completely inappropriate attack on other candidates. That has no place in a local election. I would hope that in the future the elections committee would have the power to censure, stop and even ask the board to remove from office a board member that behaves in this way.
So it shall be that Smyers will be sleeping (alone we pray) in the bed she made for herself.
ReplyDeleteBalance says: There are nuggets of wisdom to be found here. There is also a motherlode of b.s. However, on the whole it is delightful to see at least a few RA members taking an interest in what goes on around us. Judging from watching previous RA boards, it is reasonable to conclude that no matter who wins in the current cesspool of campaigning, little will be done by the next board to help or hurt the RA. (Assuming that lack of inspired leadership is viewed as in the "no hurt" category.)
ReplyDeleteThe Smyers adminstration faced four major issues. The headquarters fiasco was doomed by a late start. Too much time passed after the first (successful) referendum to buy office space. By the time the RA got serious about a purchase and learned what the market offered, there was a mad rush to "sell" the new plan to the community. Many felt they had been had. Many felt left out of this important decision. So, in the midst of a great buyers' market and extraordinarily low mortgage rates, the voters shot themselves in the foot. Understandable, but sad.
Then came the rec center. For years the community asked, why is it that the RA and the RCC can't get together in meeting the rec needs of Reston? One has money and the other has land and both are there to serve us. So, the two boards got together (in public) and agreed to partner on something at long last. At a cost of less than $2.00 per resident, they did a study. So far, so good. Then they foolishly reduced it to a concept plan, picked a concept site that was dead on arrival, and found themselves in a predictable war with nearby residents. This effort was ill-managed, but not evil as opponents chose to paint it. And that's all we will remember.
Issue three, indoor tennis. Another issue that had the general consent of the membership for many years, always having been posed as self-sustaining. Now, I doubt that would have been how it worked out, but I allow that the planners believed it would be so. Timing will kill this project. Again, current market conditions are not likely to be this good for a long time to come. Lower construction costs, great financing. But on the heels of the rec center explosion, there is no stomach to consider rationally the benefits of RA doing that hundreds of other communities have done. Breaking from tradition, the RA board decided not to be a do-nothing body. Instead, they became a do-something-dumb body.
Issue four: Master Plan. It's a bit early to comment, but it appears that they might just have done something right for a change. Yes, some will not be pleased and when they do not get their way, they will skewer the Smyers administration. I hope that some objectivity will prevail as we judge the RA's performance.
The next board? I am not encouraged. Reacting to failures 1, 2, and 3, candidates came out of the woodwork. Some would hurl us back 20 years. Some would strangle the prospect to advance. This whole silly discussion of partisianship, endorsements, and ethical lapses is intellectual mud-slinging. The next board will be paralyzed as a result. As you fire up your keyboard to share your unique insight into the sinister motivation of the RA board and staff, pat yourself on the back for adding to this pitiful state of affairs. It's in your hands.