Consequences Of Supporting Illegal Board Decisions

January 28, 2010 by THE VOICE.

Director Carl Weinstein has posted on AnthemToday as follows:

 ”There were several occasions when I felt that what the Board was going to do was not in the best interests of the residents and I voted “no”. I was accused of not “cooperating” and of “confrontation” with the other Board members. After I made my case at meetings so that the residents were informed, I ALWAYS ended up supporting the majority Board opinion–that is the democratic way we live.  Other former Board members who were in the minority at voting time did everything to “torpedo” the Board’s decisions. That is NOT my style.”

This helps to clarify one of the many fundamental failings of the so-called Unity Party board members and its followers who intimidate its sponsored board members into ALWAYS going along with the board majority decision.

Contrary to Mr. Weinstein’s statement, it is anti-democratic/potentially illegal to willfully go along with apparently illegal board decisions.  A director is lawfully bound to aggressively oppose and challenge unlawful board behavior.  The majority opinion of any board can not be always correct!  Honest mistakes and deliberate corruption are potential risks facing every board.

Here are some Wikipedia symptoms of groupthink we see regularly promoted by Unity Party participants:

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.
6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8. Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

A director who knowingly goes along with a board decision that violates statutes or criminal laws can be accused/prosecuted for being an “accessory” or “accomplice” to crimes. 

In addition, here is a review of some potential consequences for a director who initially objects to a board decision, and then goes along with law violations (such as stated by Mr. Weinstein and other previous directors).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_%28legal_term%29

In general, SCA members can not trust those who have been elected by the unity party and have routinely practiced unity’s mantra of “cooperation–not confrontation“.  This unity party policy has been distorted into meaning that they never look back on/evaluate the previous board’s financial decisions–regardless of the consequences.

Directors such as Carl Weinstein and Dan Forgeron and Attorney Ann Small who have gone along with so many alleged law/statute violations are vulnerable for being charged with being “accessories” or “accomplices” to the alleged violations and/or crimes.

They should be considered untrustworthy for continuing to serve in SCA board and/or committee positions.  And, directors not up for re-election at this time must stop following the group think practices, or be considered eligible for removal.

Posted in Veterans Affairs, 2010 Campaign, Ann_Small, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Laws & Rules, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | No Comments »