Timeline of asking about RAAM's Fred Boethling at UMCA's ExComm meeting:
January 2nd (orignal)
February 17th (compiled version of Jan 2nd orignal--see below)
April 17th (Mavis re-sent the questions)
February 17th, 2008 at 9:02 AM (updated on April 18th)
Dear UMCA government,
I have twice submitted the questions relating to Fred Boethling, the RAAM President/CEO who was at the executive committee meeting as reported on page 24 of the Sept-Oct 2007 UMCA magazine. In this meeting, they made amendments to the UMCA Bylaws. After 6 weeks, I am now taking the time and trouble to present some multiple choice questions. It’s up to you to either pick the most accurate answer or answer in your own words.
1) What exactly is the nature of the RAAM president/CEO’s role in the executive committee meeting for making amendments to the UMCA Bylaws? (Pick all that applies.)
A—According to the RAAM-UMCA contract, the RAAM president/CEO has the right to be on the executive committee even through the Bylaws state that he’s not a member of the executive committee.
B—The RAAM president/CEO has no legal right to be on the executive committee, but he was invited even through the entire Board was not invited.C—The entire Board was invited and only the non-elected Board member from the for-profit RAAM organization attended.
2) Why was the RAAM president/CEO invited to this executive committee meeting? (Pick all that applies.)
A—Since the UMCA is partners with RAAM, its a logical thing to have the RAAM president/CEO take part in the meetings, such as this one, concerning the amendments to the UMCA Bylaws.
B—The RAAM president/CEO has a solid background knowledge of the issues and was advising the executive committee on the bylaw amendments.
C—The RAAM president/CEO was just invited to be at this executive committee meeting and he didn’t actively participant in the meeting. (His presence is, however, having an influence.)
3) Was the RAAM president/CEO appointed/approved by the entire Board to attend this reported executive committee meeting? (Pick one.)
A—No, he was not approved by the entire Board, but the entire Board knew about this beforehand.
B—No, he was not approved by the entire Board and not everyone on the Board knew about this until after the Bylaw amending session.
C—Yes, he was approved by the entire Board to take part in all UMCA meetings.
D—Yes, he was approved by the entire Board to take part in this one executive committee meeting.
4) It does sound logical to have UMCA attorney attend this particular executive committee meeting for makingthe Bylaw amendments, but does the entire Board have the connection to him too? According to Rick Hays, it costs money to have the entire Board contact the UMCA attorney and this is the duty of the executive committee. Yet, in the preservation of the elected UMCA Board's Bylaw rights...
A— The entire Board does have the UMCA attorney’s connection information and they are expected to talk to himat their own expense.
B—The elected members of the Board were denied the requests to talk to this attorney.
C—The elected members of the Board never was given the lawyer's connection information.