This is so complicated that there is no way the average person with a life could ever have untangled this web. Even after several years of studying this and then setting it aside, I still discover new issues.
This is major:
Issue 1: Who formed the GWLUA?
The GWLUA was formed an unincorporated association under NMSA 53-10.
Here is the first paragraph of the law:
The first thing it says is “whenever two or more persons shall desire to form an association…”
Look at the GWLUA documents. Who are the two or more persons? Mike is one. Who is the other? There is NO ONE else listed on any document!
NMSA 53-10 is violated. The law is literal. ALL GWLUA documents violate this law because a second person is never recorded as agreeing to the formation of the association.
I can’t believe I never noticed this before!
Also, the final line in that first paragraph talks about the members making the rules, including the “terms by which it’s members may maintain or cease their membership therein.”
This means that members get to determine how to get into the club and how to get out. A club cannot require membership. There is no way that this law can be used to force membership on anyone who doesn’t agree to it. By extrapolation, there can be NO PENALTY for refusing to be a member. If GWinc was created as an offshoot of the GWLUA, the same rules would apply: GWInc cannot force membership and cannot penalize those who refuse membership.
Issue 2: The repercussions of Mike refiling GWLUA documents.
This has plagued me for years: why did Mike refile entire sets of documents when amendments would have sufficed? He now says, that doing so restarted the statutory clock for how long the GWLUA could run. I’ve finally figured this one out….
Mike originally created the GWLUA in April of 1994. The 1994 Articles of Association of the GWLUA state at Article VI, that a board will be created within 7 years. The 1994 Bylaws of the GWLUA, Article V, § 3, state that a board will be created within 5 years. Either way, a board was mandated by 7 years at the most, or 2001.
What happened in 2001? Mike filed new GWLUA documents. In these documents, Mike says there will be a board only after 90% build out.
IF Mike had filed amended documents, this change, eliminating the board for years, would have been apparent. By filing entirely new documents, he was able to hide this change and it was unlikely anyone would notice for years. To make matters worse, Mike issued new membership agreement forms more than a year after he had already filed these documents against the properties of the members. It was only then that members were asked/forced to agree to new terms they knew nothing about. It’s deceitfully brilliant.
Mike didn’t intend to restart the GWLUA: that idea only came to him when the Rhines lawsuit was filed. Mike wanted to maintain control over the community indefinitely, and filing the documents this way, enabled him to do so.
Issue 3: The Board’s Power.
NMSA 53-10 says that the members get to determine the rules, but we never did. Instead, Mike gave himself, and eventually his board, almost limitless power as shown in this clip from the 2003 bylaws.
Note one of the details: it says that the director and eventually the board, shall “adopt and publish” rules and regulations.
Having secret rules that no one knows about isn’t going to accomplish much.
There is no published rule book that has ever been distributed to community members, so that they would be timely made aware of such rules. I’ve gone through old minutes of the earliest Board in 2005, and there is no documentation where the board reserved the right to scrutinize building permits prior to filing a permit application with the county. There is no documentation of a board vote to pay for property taxes for land that is titled in Mike’s name. There is no recorded vote to agree to pay for road maintenance (in direct violation of the 2003 LUC.) Mike did send out minutes where road maintenance fees were discussed, but there was no recoded vote to initially levy such fees. If Mike made up all these rules before he appointed the board, he didn’t “publish” them. Of course, that doesn’t even begin to address the fact that such rules were self-serving and violated his fiduciary duty to the community.
These are major issues of community concern, that one would expect to have been added to the community documents as amendments. Any rules that directly contradict our documents, required an amendment to be legally binding. Also, I consider the LUC to be superior to all the other documents in the even of a conflict, because the LUC had no expiration date, unlike the GWLUA documents. Anyway, no amendments regarding these issues were ever filed.
If there is no record of a vote and no record that the community was informed of these rules, whenever they were made, how can they be enforceable? The answer is they can’t.
I realize that much of this is now moot, since the GWLUA is no more, however the existence of GWInc rests on the legitimacy of the GWLUA. I think I’ve discovered that the GWLUA was void simply because only one person, instead of the required two or more, agreed to its formation. I know this sounds crazy simple, but the law appears to read this way.
It also appears that 53-10 cannot be used to force membership on anyone, and therefore GWInc cannot force membership on anyone. This means GWinc cannot penalize anyone for non-compliance.
I will have to redraft my letter to the GWInc board declining their invitation to admission into their organization
As usual Gillian, you continue to open my eyes and the light of day is shining brighter and brighter. Just a few things I want to make sure to highlight in what you have discovered.
The formation of the original NMSA 53-10 documents never met the requirements necessary to be legitimate and are expired even if they had.
The formation of the GWLUA original documents never met the necessary requirements to be legitimate and are expired even if they had.
The formation of GW Inc has solely based it's legitimacy on prior entities that were never legally formed thus it is not legitimate.
Yet currently GW Inc has emails out to all the owners under their good graces asking them how they would prefer that we, the lower class peons, should be punished. And anyone who has actually signed paperwork with them are more than likely illegitimately encumbered, so these people too have no legal tie to them.
Looks like Mike was right all along. This is nothing but his experiment and we are nothing more than his lab rats living in his Greater Wallet while doing to us the exact and very thing his "treatise" states clearly does not happen here.
We have no water. We are not sustainable. We have a leader that no longer notices his people. His people have noticed.
We do indeed have our Greater World Land Users Code permanently filed with Taos County, as a legal subdivision of Taos County. This is what we are folks.
We are at not at war with anyone, but we are actively defining what we are in the real and true legitimately legal world.
We are the ones investing money into this place and the truth of the matter is Greater World is a subdivision in Taos County without an active HOA.
LaNaeh commented 4 months ago
It seems to me that 53-10 is a law that describes how 2 or more people can form an association. It talks about who can make an association and how to do it, it describes the maximum term of existence and what to do with the possessions of the club or association at the end of that time and so on. I have been looking, but have been unsuccessful in finding the legal term that describes what it is called when the rules of the club that are made go outside of the law allowing it to exist in the first place.
For example, it says that rules can be made about the club... so let's say in our rules that it can exist for 25 years instead of 20 -as the law says... and we can file with just one person instead of two or more. I know the law says that at the end of the 20 years the property in the name of the club should be sold and any profits divided among members, but if I were greedy, I could make a rule that the profit would only go to certain people... etc. I am thinking of examples of how the rules could be formed to go outside of the what the law allowed. To make our rules in defiance of the law that allowed formation of an association in the first place. ... I know there must be a legal term for this, but I can't find it.
It can't be that just because the law allowed rules to be made- that the rules could go beyond what the originating law allowed. The law (53-10) has authority over any rules made under it.
The law says 20 years, not 25. It says two or more people- not just one. I believe the rules are supposed to pertain to the association lands- not our private homes... because the law was meant to govern a recreational club- not a homeowners association. But that is just my interpretation.
Thanks Gillian, and everyone, I too spent years researching the issues... (that is a great revelation you just found) and yes, it is mind boggling!
Jody Rhines commented 4 months ago
There are hierarchies of laws and documents. Laws trump our documents and then there is a legal order to our documents. After study, I believe the order is this:
NMSA 53-10 > LUC > Articles > Bylaws
Absolutely, the 20 year limit imposed by 53-10 overrules the 25 year limit stated in the Articles. That shows that whoever wrote our documents didn't scrutinize the law when they crafted them. It was either an incompetent lawyer, or a non-lawyer.
In order to create an association under 53-10, one must abide by the stated elements of that law, the first of which is that two or more people must wish to form the association, identify themselves and give their addresses. That requirement was never fulfilled despite Mike filing formation documents four times.
Sometimes the law will seek a work-around if the intent to follow the law is indicated, but there is no good will demonstrated here, since many other elements of 53-10 were also violated.
Now you have interesting insight regarding the lands... I would be inclined to agree: such an informal organization as envisioned by 53-10, should not have jurisdiction over private property: that is a huge right for members to voluntarily give up! To the extent that the GWLUA might own its own property, that is different. In the end, the GWLUA never owned any property.
I've not seen any case law on this point, probably because no one else would have been so stupid as to use this law to form an HOA. I don't think either side of the lawsuit has considered this theory.
There is a lot to be optimistic about with these revelations.
Gillian Fryer commented 4 months ago
Is it a lack of intelligence? you said "stupid" ? Or intentional... 'fraud'? In determining if it is just ignorance or 'stupidity' versus intentional fraud... perhaps one could think about motives. In the end, I think it was around $92k that was (in my opinion wrongfully) gained by the sole initiator of the association. Think about who benefitted in an unusual way from this set up. I think about the normal and typical ease of forming a non profit- and then why would one choose to go a very different way.
Remember that in the beginning, there were no deeds. People were building houses on lands they didn't own - lands which were supposedly held by an association that would expire. What could happen at the expiration time? It seems to me that the actual owner of the lands could simply say 'thanks for all the houses!' And kick everyone out- because the lands were not in the association's name. But- that is just something I thought.
Then, the old Planning Commission guy died and the new one called all three locations 'illegal subdivisions'... and there was a lawsuit and things changed... a little bit.
Somewhere, I read that when it is confusing, or very complicated one should suspect intention, and fraud... especially when someone benefits from that confusion.
Who benefitted from the confusion? Did anyone gain anything monetarily from the 'stupidity'... if so... was it really stupidity? Perhaps it was brilliant.
What else was possible by forming it this way that would not have been possible by doing it the usual or normal way? Is it typical that a developer can use the community, land, soil, water, roads, meeting places, offices etc of a subdivision for over 20 years? Beyond what the law allows for phased development? Why don't the standard rules pertaining to phased development time apply to this subdivision? I believe each phase is allowed a time of years, and then if more time is needed, an extension is applied for... but I never saw any such documents pertaining to GWC phases. When I bought, I thought the community was in the final process of completion... it had been so long.
Is it typical for the County to own the only business (Visitor's Center) operating in a subdivision- that business profiting the developer/County- while the community itself owns nothing?
See how complicated it is? Very confusing indeed. And no... it isn't because it is a green community- that excuse is not something I believe... it has been used as an excuse for many things.
Reynold's current lawyer's name, Natelson- is on some very old documents. I think he might have been involved from long ago- and he doesn't seem stupid to me.
Thanks Gillian, Lanaeh, Wally, Carrie, Alicia, Zac, Sally, Diane, Brian... everyone who takes the time to care about the community. It seems to me that the people, unenchanted, love their neighbors, their community. There have been some comments about me 'winning' the lawsuit or Reynolds etc. Regardless of what happens from here on out, how much we lost financially, personally etc, just so you all know- from my perspective, in my heart- I have already won.
Jody Rhines commented 4 months ago
You've risked more than any of us. I'm impressed that you can see some positive in all of this. You went from a pariah, ultimately to the person unwittingly bringing the community together, despite all of Mike's attacks! I think in the long run, we'll work this all out.
I'm into adages, and Hanlon's Razor, states never to attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Yes, everything you've suggested has merit. If you follow the money, Mike certainly stood to gain.
Maybe I'm still clinging to the hope, that in the beginning, Mike started this with altruistic intentions and only turned tyrannical after the subdivision lawsuit. Based on his creation myth, his early advisors never thought he had any insight, and that is why he became so defensive. I think what was more likely was that his poor people skills and his narcissism were all too apparent, even as a student himself.
The only reason why anyone has stayed through this turmoil, is because we believe in the bigger picture. We will make it work in spite of Mike.
Even though the county hasn't done us any favors by not enforcing the subdivision laws, maybe we lucked out that they did what they did, if it prevented Mike from stealing people's homes.
Karmic debt will get all of them. And probably sooner than we expect.
Gillian Fryer commented 4 months ago
Something Gillian said reminded me that Peggy would say sometimes," Can't we build a home here, and just not deal with Mike? "
Jody's commenting today has made me want to try to phrase something I wanted to say some time ago. I long thought that the words he put into his Treatise were very important to Michael Reynolds. Words such as:
If I have left out words or rearranged words, I am sorry. That these words are meaningful to Michael Reynolds is important to many of his admirers.
Some time ago, Jody had occasion to tell us how she felt sometimes after beginning her lawsuit against Michael Reynolds and others. If Jody eliminated " others, " I am glad of that. As I recall, Jody referred to terms such as: felt harassed, unsafe, I thought I was going to be shot, became afraid, feared for the safety of mules, attacked on the roads, could be shot while walking my dog, stalked, e-mail hacked, defamed. This became her experience in the Greater World community. I may be mistaken, but Jody registered " civil " concerns before the Greater World Board before the civil lawsuit.
I understand that a fair number of people are fond of Michael Reynolds, and that a lawsuit against him made some of them angry. However, this was a civil lawsuit originating from a civil complaint, not a civil war. The continual threat against Jody, family and fellow plaintiff, always with the hint of violence, was way out of proportion to any natural reaction to a lawsuit brought against somebody you like. This vileness happened in the Greater World community.
One or two words from Michael Reynolds would have instantly put a halt to threats of violence. Did Michael Reynolds not know? Did Michael Reynolds speak out? If Michael Reynolds did say " stop this," or if he did not know, then I owe Michael Reynolds an apology for the direction I have been heading. I am sorry. If Michael Reynolds did know this air of violence, and did not speak out, then the words in his Treatise are hollow of meaning. I do not wish this.
Wallace Hammond commented 4 months ago
Mike wrote his flowery treatise about the Great World that he envisioned years ago. He even includes a mention of it in the beginning of the GWInc, under the purpose of the organization.
He refers to making living less stressful by making a building that provides for our daily needs. He also says that modern housing and the mortgage system is unnecessarily expensive.
I'd like to think he meant it when he first wrote it. Much of what he wrote clearly no longer applies, and hasn't for years. Mike lists his lots for as much as $100K, even though he paid only a few hundred an acre. He has houses in the mid-six and seven figure price range. Many owners are having to order water every few weeks, so it is no longer true that we don't have utility expenses.
But purposely scaring someone or their family because of a legal dispute is thuggery. Encouraging threatening behavior by your employees, or turning a blind eye to it, negates everything good about Mike's legacy. Mike refers to himself as a 'bitch.' I think by that he means that he has had to be assertive to accomplish his great mission. Its the ploy that the ends justify the means: its just an excuse for bad behavior.
So,Wally, you're right: the treatise, the dream that Mike marketed, is hollow. And worse than that, it seems Mike will stoop to almost any level to defend his image. It took several years but the lawsuit revealed who each of us really is! Its been a shock to see who has integrity and who does not.
In all of this lock down crap, some of us have developed friendships and it appears that we are finally growing the community we had searched for years ago. Because of that, I don't feel nearly as vulnerable as Jody did.
And it was all so unnecessary.
Gillian Fryer commented 4 months ago
The treatise is a pipe dream. The utopia we all want. It is some kind of poetic wording that is supposed to deliver your mind to this wonderful reality that was the intent and vision.
The treatise now is a battle ground of moot words of which you are deemed to stand against if you are not in the good graces of the master. The words mean nothing. The words have been consumed by greed itself which always leaves us knowing that the greedy is blind to its own machinations.
Mike is and has become that which he detests and fought to defeat in his lifetime.
The Phoenix recently received water delivery twice in as many weeks. One coming after dark on what looked like an emergency run. It's not as if only the "bad" people in the community don't have enough water. None of us have fresh water.
And the main sticking point of this entire thread?
When you make an ASSOCIATION, it is legally necessary for TWO OR MORE individuals to participate.
You do not have an ASSOCIATION under the sole rule of one man.
In order for there to be an association two or more people must be aligned or to what are you associating?
Currently and in the past Mike has actually run a dictatorship not an association.
None of us, not one of us are bound to any association of ONE simply because an association is by definition plural, not singular.
Gillian Fryer commented 4 months ago
Wally, If you go to the top right side of this home page and look into the GWC documents you will find one called something like 'Stipulated Agreement'. On about page 13 the Architectural Board describes how Reynolds and his people teamed up to harass others into silence. The same methods described long ago in that year 2000 document were used against Marcus and I and Michael Balassone. Reynolds would file a suit for defamation against anyone who complained and others would more directly threaten individuals who dared to speak up or seek redress.
In our case, Reynolds sued me for 2 million dollars for sharing the content of our lawsuit with the community. He felt it was defamation. You know what is real defamation? When the developer goes all around the community having 'small group meetings' wherein he tells people you are crazy and just trying to get money. Telling people I have "PTSD" and that I have "snapped." Then... when I tried to sell our home, realtors would be at first be interested, then... when they figured out who I was - they would never call back. When we realized they knew my name but not Marcus's we tried just having him try to sell the house- because he has a different last name. I kept my maiden name after we were married. So... then we got a response! One realtor responded! We were hopeful! But, then... she found out he was my husband and she texted him saying she wouldn't sell our home because of who his wife was. Me. That is what real defamation is. Losing all the equity in my home, having my credit and name ruined. .
When I would look out my windows as folks with earthships often do, I would see people stationed with binoculars- watching my home. People hiding behind the front berm of my home, sneaking up on my child... being stalked on the roads, Balassone was threatened on the roads- alledgedly Tom would drive up to his bumper super fast and then slam on the brakes- threatening. Early on, Tom had sent me an email with a link that contained phishing- he told me to peruse the article. The article had nothing to do with anything relevant to me. Later, I discovered it had a phishing virus attached.
We went to the pot luck because Balassone had called and said he was going... three Police vehicles came screeching into the parking lot, throwing gravel. I was shaken with fear- I thought I was about to be shot. It was all very threatening. We were told we'd be arrested if we tried to go to the pot luck where... Hillary said- they wanted to talk about the 'lawsuit' I guess behind our backs... they couldn't talk about us if we were actually there, dissenting.
When we left, it was in a rush- so much of a rush that Marcus had to come back a second time to get more of our belongings with a second U Haul truck.
The reason why we left so abruptly? I was at home alone... with my dog. The earthship windows were open. I was sitting in the front sun room. I heard a rifle shot and a ping at the back of the house (west side) where my dog is often on her lead.
I brought my dog in, I looked around. I didn't see anyone.
Before this time, I had not even put up any kind of window covering on our front face windows- I had always felt safe. After this, I felt exposed in the night especially. I felt I could be shot through my front windows- or perhaps just my dog... maybe my child would be shot, accidentally.
Having Ethan stalking us on the roads... glaring at us in his mirror or directly, revving his engine, driving 5 mph. Was he going to run me and my son over?
One time, much earlier on- when I felt more brave- I went to see who was watching my home with binoculars. I went out there- to the main road- and Hillary and Ethan were walking back- with binoculars. At another time, there were two vehicles posted. So many incidents. As a mother, I felt it was more important to protect the members of our family than to stay and fight in a community where we were hated by... everyone. Even if it meant financial ruin. I couldn't afford to pay a mortgage on a home with no water that I could not live in safely.
And yes, we tried to work with the board many times- just to do basic things we wanted- and we were met with hostility and told no. Hey Gillian... remember Judy slamming the timer down and curtly telling me my time was 'ticking'? No one else got the timer treatment- just me.
So... your question was- Does Reynolds know about the harassment? Well- I think he must- because it was a part of why he surrendered his Architectural license so many years ago. Those small group meetings he held after the lawsuit? He never met with us- just everyone else.
I believed in the dream and was enchanted too.
The Greater World is full of even greater people. There are only a few bad actors. So many very knowledgeable, skilled, good people. You all can do even greater things. Community connection was why I worked with Gillian and Nicole to get the community greenhouse in the first place. I felt that Reynolds didn't want any kind of place where the community could gather, because if they did, they'd unite. At one time, before the lawsuit, I talked to Hillary and Ethan about it. Ethan angrily told me that it would just be a place where residents would bitch about the builders and the defects of earthships or the 'courtesy board' etc. He was right. Keeping the community from any kind of forum where they could speak freely and share cares or concerns would result in some measure of disenchantment.
I had so many ideas, dreams! Like, what Brian said- something about getting water rights to an arroyo- hey! Maybe the seasonal flooding in the massive flood zone area could be captured and kept!
I encourage the community to keep on connecting- when the negativity of all of this is over, I hope you all can finally find more sustainable ways to live free and be strong and prosper.
Jody Rhines commented 4 months ago
i will admit that i have not read all of the above responses as i personally am not excited about spending much time on a computer, so i may say something that someone else has already said)
i have a few things to add to Gillian's 1st comment. Back in 2005 and 2006 several of us were wondering what an LUA was and if ours was legally formed. Try googling LUA and still to this day not much of anything is found. Once we learned that we were formed as an unincorporated association, a few of us questioned the whole '2 or more persons' thing and I guess we assumed that the documents (to that degree) would be legal because they were adopted by the county.... yet we still mostly wondered if our documents were legal based on what was written in them.
Several of us met with a woman who provided legal counsel to the county and she offered us a free meeting to clear up some issues. She provided us with a lot of information.
i believe what we then did with that was looked into forming a neighborhood association and we started having meetings. Our May 18, 2006 meeting had 12 attendees and of those, only 5 of us still live in the GW: Nicole, Zac, Amy Duke, Alix Henry, and myself. I think Mike got upset about our meetings, and over time, we let go of our process.
Carrie Thompson commented 4 months ago
Just because the county accepted documents into its database, doesn't make them legal: the county never examined those documents. Unfortunately, the only way to question their validity is to mediate at first and then pursue legal action. Jody tried to get both Mike and the board to listen to her, and we didn't. Instead Mike dismissed her as crazy.The only solution left was to sue or walk away quietly.
The date you mention Carrie, of a Community Neighborhood meeting is interesting, as that would have been AFTER the formation of the board, on which Amy was a member.
Mike didn't like it and eventually you let go of your process? It had nothing to do with Mike and it was irrelevant what he thought about it... he doesn't live here and never has!
That's ultimately the problem: we've given our power up to Mike.
Mike says we treated him like a sugar daddy (those exact terms)! He says we always went to him when we needed help. Well, as the developer, he was legally bound to maintain things early on... it wasn't a matter of his generosity at all. And Sugar Daddy's always want something in return...
Mike only has power because we give it to him. It's time we stand up for ourselves.
Gillian Fryer commented 4 months ago
How many people can afford to 'walk away quietly' from their home... or rather, their $250k mortgage? I would have to sell the house- and sell it knowing it was a fake HOA. So... then... on the seller's disclosure- what would I say? There is or is not a HOA? What about water? Who would buy a home without water? I felt that if I told the truth, the house would not sell. If it did sell, I would be liable for when the subsequent buyer became disenchanted and realized they were sold a home with no water. Later, I was willing to try- but I would have to do so with a lot of disclosure and buyers understanding that there is no water, no water deliveries, no real HOA and yet a band of thugs who rule over you enjoying immunity from the rules etc. Meanwhile, I had a very hard time giving up on my dreams of sustainability in a community/ actual community. It was around that time that Balassone spoke to me of his issues and he wanted to file a lawsuit. I didn't have the up front money for a lawsuit... but he did. Afterwards, we paid a hefty monthly amount to match his up front money. I made many offers to Mike to buy me out- just buy my house back, make things right and we will walk away quietly... nope! Sugar Daddy? lol... the opposite is true- Mike was responsible for taxes, insurance, roads- but in my opinion, he got out of his responsibility by installing his 'courtesy board' of his employees and business partners etc who courteously made the GWC pay for it- $92k. In my professional experience it seemed that abusers often made their abuse sound like a favor to the victims. 'I hit you for your own good, you were out of line' etc. I believe at the time, he spun that courtesy board as a favor he was doing for the community. However, it seems to me it was his way of getting money to cover his rightful expenses.
Jody Rhines commented 4 months ago
I reluctantly agree with you. All of it.
I think none of us want to admit we were taken advantage of because of our idealism. And then Mike's thuggish behavior kept us in line.
Ultimately we will take a lot of abuse, just to keep the peace, but we all have a limit, and that limit has been crossed now.
Mike is so used to running his kingdom, that he expected to continue down this path for a long time. He now he is being challenged, he is angry and HE feels abused! It's clear now that he wrote all of the documents to favor himself and his businesses. And because he filed them with the county, they had the air of legitimacy. Today we call that 'Gas Lighting!'
John LaSala, who is now playing mini-Mike, actually said to MIke that his "crown is too tight!"
The reign of the green god is over.
Let's show them that we can do a far better job of running our lives and our community!
Gillian Fryer commented 4 months ago
yes the neighborhood association planning meeting that Amy attented was AFTER the formation of the 'board'.
a little history to this:
back in 2004 several of us wanted the 'board' to be formed sooner rather than later (as written in the GW papers)
-so i went to MR and amy.... thru this MR agreed to let me get
'suggestions not votes' from members as to who they'd like to see on the board. After 2 meetings, MR and amy agreed to the script i would say to collect info. I was to collect this info and give it to MR on Oct 6, 2004.
i also collected names of members who would consider or wanted to be on the board -there were 15 and of who did not want to be on the board -there were 12.
i had collected info from 2/3 of our members by sept 20th at which time i received a letter from MR that explained why he wanted me to stop.
i still have his letter, my script, and all of the other info.
Several months later he created a board with who he wanted to work with. After some members 'fussing', he told us to pick one person from our 'squeaky wheel group' to be on the board. Most of us did not like this, yet one person from the 'group' joined the board. i think that person was on the board for possibly a year (maybe more maybe less). i do not remember if his term was up or if he chose to leave for other reasons..... He also participated in the NA meeting.
i also have a sign in sheet from one of the neighborhood association meetings that i mentioned.
i do not recall all of the reasons we did not continue to meet as i am sure there were many.
Carrie Thompson commented 4 months ago