Was there an "Official" Emergency Meeting on April 1st, 2009?


Yes... at least as far as we knew at the time.

Because the Vice President and President both resigned that morning, I sent a copy of my "Intent to Resign" to Bob Alexander the acting President so that he would have an understanding of the actions prompting the resignations. I beleive he discussed this letter with the other executive board member and a decision was made to call an emerency meeting that evening.

There were two meetings actually, one April 1st and the second on April 3rd.

The meetings was recorded, brought to order, role called with everyone in attendence except the President, Vice President, and one exception in the second meeting.

Much was discussed concerning the past and present actions of the President. A motion (after several changes) was made to offer the President a "delayed" acceptance of his resignation so that he could finish the legislative session. A vote was taken and passed with the idea that the legislative session would be covered and further changes could be made at that time. Looking back, it was unfortunate that little or possibly no discussion about the Vice President came into play, it focused heavily on the President and Lobbyist positions.

No one realized that these meetings were not following the proper protocol and could therefore become null and void. And I beleive that to also be true of the President as evidenced by an email he sent referencing the deal offered by the Board. However, the information in the meeting was damaging, so I'm sure that some quick research was done to discover a way out of releasing any recordings or minutes.

However, the fact that this meeting could never be construed as official as held at that time, it could have easily been held again for the purpose of making it official. If the President was really sincere about his resignation, a procedural change could have been made, and a proper meeting could have been called. This has been verified by a couple of corporate lawyers.

Think about it... if two executive Board members die in an airplane crash, does the corporation just die with them? Of course not. There are equally avenues to take care of resignations as well.

So why did this procedural change not take place? Probably because it was determined that the remaining board did not have the authority to accept or deny the resignations as well. After all... how many times has the President resigned over the years...? with no acceptance...? Do you really think he expected this one to stick?

As discribed to me by a board member a few days later... a decision was made (by whom I have no knowledge) to allow the President to remain in position until the end of his term - June 30th, 2010.

Since I was never called for any further board meetings, I have no idea who made this decision.