Bill Strong’s Rebuttal to Bill Weber

1323

This week’s RSF Review paper contained this letter to the editor:

In a December 16, 2021 Letter to the Editor, the writer [Bill Strong] alleged that the RSF Association board by a 4-3 vote failed to abide by the Protective Covenant. That allegation is false and misleading. The decision to extend the search process for candidates for the Art Jury does not in any way abrogate the provisions of the Protective Covenant, a fact that was confirmed by our counsel in that public meeting.

Bill Weber
President, Rancho Santa Fe Association

Here is Bill Strong’s rebuttal:

RSFA President Weber’s letter in the RSF Review says: “We abide by the Protective Covenant.”  He goes on to claim his decision “does not in any way abrogate the provisions of the PC”.

This is bureaucratic “hair-splitting” of the highest order, and it is false.

How is it possible to not follow Protective Covenant (PC) paragraph 55, claim you “abide” by the PC, but did not “abrogate” it? Confused?

The facts are exactly as described in my January 5th article in the RSF Post.

Weber’s illogical statement is at odds with all the facts. He did not follow PC paragraph 55 or the governing Resolution 2017-111, but now claims to “abide by the PC”.  His appointment did not follow these requirements, and had to be withdrawn. His withdrawal is proof of non compliance.

Then he ruled a valid meeting request to “follow PC 55” made by two Directors was “invalid”. How can a request to follow the PC be invalid? The later claim to not “abrogate” the PC is therefore false.

His claim of a “public meeting” is also misleading, without a single member in attendance.  A motion to follow PC 55 was not allowed in the meeting.

In addition, prolonging the process unnecessarily is wasteful and discourages volunteers. The Board was excluded from the required PC 55 process.

There is no provision in the PC for the President to prolong the search when there are the required number of nominees. The President gave no evidence to the contrary, and offered no information of any kind about his mishandling of this process.

The President is claiming powers not in the PC, and has failed to follow two established provisions, then claims he did not abrogate the provisions of the PC.  This is unintelligible double-talk nonsense.