Submitted by Golferguy49 t3_z0oec3 in ColumbiaMD
justanotherkev t1_ix7f9wp wrote
Why are they trying to get rid of her?
Baltisotan t1_ix7ojv7 wrote
One of the first articles tried to back solve for the issues and best they could come up with was the board was upset she tried to limit their access to individual CA employees, something individual CA employees asked for to reduce distractions and allow them to do their jobs.
It’s a power trip.
Golferguy49 OP t1_ix7t9pl wrote
No one knows the exact reason, which is why I said they have too much power. They have zero oversight and have pushed back against anyone who tries to speak up. The elections are in April, they need to be voted out. They’re going to try oust her beforehand and misuse community funds in the process.
justanotherkev t1_ix7v0al wrote
Yeah I agree. If you can't lay out your reasons in a specific manner than it must not be a good argument.
brainandthepinkie t1_ix8ti52 wrote
It’s hard to win because of the way the elections are set up and because these folks know so many older residents who don’t monitor their Board representative’s bad behavior.
Just gotta keep telling people about the unethical things they’re doing.
danteheehaw t1_ix7l30u wrote
"Boyd asked the Board of Directors to clarify her position and address speculation that the board was lining up a replacement at a meeting on Oct. 27. Tensions between Boyd and the board stem from complex issues surrounding disclosure of a legal settlement, ethics violations and policies, and perceived board micromanagement." from the article
The board is being vague saying they don't want to discuss the issues, employees and the community seem to show wide support for her.
lovelyrita202 t1_ix7y3qs wrote
The debacle over the symphony of lights was settled out of court. Now the CA board wants all the details. But it’s confidential.
chairmanm30w t1_ix8rgdt wrote
JFC the whole Symphony of Lights thing is such a weird hill to die on.
toothpickslacroix t1_ix8j41b wrote
What was the deal with symphony lights? Why did they go to court?
lovelyrita202 t1_ix8she2 wrote
Oh gosh; someone here probably knows better than I do; I remained willfully ignorant because it was such an amazing mess. In short, years ago the CA filed to stop it, and it was very popular.
chawlk t1_ix9c9md wrote
>Symphony Woods is owned by CA. The land surrounds and entirely land locks Merriweather Post Pavilion. MPP is owned by The Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission ("DCACC") and is operated by It's My Amphitheater, Inc. ("IMA"). Various easements and agreements exist between these entities to provide parking and access rights. These agreements have been updated and amended numerous times over the years as the parties and circumstances have changed. The legal action asserts that the Symphony of Lights parade exceeds the scope of the access and parking easement agreements and is seeking an order that would prevent the DCACC and IMA from hosting the drive-through holiday light parade this year.
TinyHorseHands t1_ix9bgkf wrote
I could be wrong, so definitely fact check if you're really interested, but I think the short version was the event used to actually be sponsored by Hopkins and would directly benefit HoCo General. Several years back, that stopped being the case and a private company started running it for profit (with some charitable proceeds, I think). CA owned a part of Symphony Woods that allowed access to the Symphony of Lights and used to grant an easement to Symphony of Lights to allow them to run their event. After the new event organizer took over, CA didn't want to allow the event to use the easement anymore (although, that may have occurred before the organizer switch, I'm not sure). I believe that is what they ended up going to court over.
CoinOperational t1_ixbbla0 wrote
Well looking at The Rouse Project steering committee, and looking at the owners/operators of IMA/MPP, you can see where all the discord is stemming from.
It's a paltry 20k that they give HoCo General btw, or at least it was last year. Flat upfront. I personally know that after a few operating days it's pure profit for IMA/MPP. IMA/MPP will fight tooth and nail, and repeatedly try to vote out CA board members to keep the cash cows going for personal profit.
Personally I'm against IMA/MPP fully, and I hope CA can in any way eliminate any money that ever goes the direction of those greedy scumbags.
You should check out the history of sexual harassment accusations coming from IMA/MPP while you're at it. Certainly haven't seen David Nitkin looking to write any article in that direction.
Critical_Ad6764 t1_ixi9546 wrote
How would we find that information about harassment complaints? Is that public information?
Critical_Ad6764 t1_ixipxdw wrote
I think the agreement was eventually made available. One of the articles mentioned that. So are they just punishing her even though they got what they wanted?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments