Mrs. Mack was voted out on January 16, 2013. We think she knows it.

A vote of 4 to 3 is a “no” vote for Mrs. Mack. She didn’t get the 5 votes required for the motion to carry.

Mrs. Mack must have known that, so she had “no comment” at the meeting, and she let the Board think they had properly reappointed her.

Even though she was sitting in a front row seat, Mrs. Mack apparently didn’t want to advise the board at the meeting. Had she done her duty, and advised the board, the board would have had to move right on to entertain a motion for the next candidate on the list, and so on.

Until one of the others received the necessary 5 votes.

The agenda says:
“Discussion/Action: Vote ,
1. Legal Services Selection”

The first one to get 5 “yes” votes wins.

But Mrs. Mack had a conflict of interest. So she didn’t speak up to advise the board the board to go on to the next candidate.

The same board members who did the interviews and voted on 1/16/13, will now have to reconvene and continue the voting process.

The meeting must reconvene right away after proper public notice.

(Did the board members decide in advance to make the vote look like it was close – and so they went with 4 to 3? Was Mrs. Mack horrified as THAT played out right in front of her? And is THAT why she was uncharacteristically quiet? She couldn’t exactly pipe up and tell them “No! Somebody had better make a 5th vote here for me now or I’m OUT!”?)

Ouch.

BCWA claims they can just say "oops", and that's it.

They have to continue with the voting process on the other candidates, not give Ms Mack another bite of the apple.

Ms Marchand and the board will have a public relations nightmare on their hands if she continues to rig this outcome.

How many more votes on other issues in the past will be invalidated by this by-law coming to light? How can anyone reappoint a lawyer who has to be constantly prompted by the public or the board before she will give a useful opinion, andhalfthe time she's still wrong? She is either clearly incompetent or clearly dishonest. I'd prefer to think that she is simply incompetent. We need a new lawyer in that organization. Shame on the Directors who keep voting to keep her.

She should be sued for wasting everyone's time over and over, and over again.

This is beyond ridiculous.

Manifold: I don't think it's fair to start a conspiracy theory about the Board members trying to make it look like anything. Some people on that Board are voting their conscience and should be given respect for that reason.

Sandra Mack was voted out. No wiggling on this.

If one of the other candidates had received the same 4 to 3 vote, would there be a redo on THAT vote? We think not. We think Mrs. Mack would have made it known that THAT vote was over - no redo on that.

No redo on the Mack ouster vote. That vote is done and over. Mack didn’t get the 5 she needed. Whether or not the board knew that at the time doesn’t matter. And if Mrs. Mack thinks that bit of knowledge should matter to the outcome of the vote? That’s another line of inquiry.

The other candidates are still in the running.

But Sandra Mack is out of the pool.

And if none of the other candidates gets the requisite 5 votes? They're all out of the pool, too.

And that would mean that BCWA needs to re-advertise to get a pool of NEW applicants.

But Mrs. Mack was the first to be voted OUT of the pool.

As to our speculative opinions regarding certain matters of process, those are reasonably based upon a knowledge of past experience.

We now applaud those like Mr. Fitta, Mr. Palmieri and Mr. Allio who appear to be striving to bring positive change to the BCWA.

Mrs. Mack was voted out. That vote stands.

Mrs. Mack was in the front row on 1/16, watching the latest illegal "Redo" meeting.

She sat silently and allowed the Board to think that 4 votes were good enough.

This is the latest example of her incompetence and /or dishonesty.

She’s been the BCWA attorney since 1986. More than 25 years. That’s way too long.

She’s paid $375 per hour. That's excessive.

The old guard directors say she has “institutional knowledge”.

She seems to apply it to serve her personal goals.

Here’s what the “old-guard” directors say:

Jannitto: “I’m convinced we have good, competent legal services.”;

“Klepper “She has the most thorough grasp of the issues”;

Bishop: “She’s done an excellent job”;

http://barrington.patch.com/articles/new-meeting-on-legal-services-same-outcome

We cannot “respect” Directors who make statements that ignore the truth about the incompetent / dishonest legal services at BCWA.

Mrs. Mack was voted out. The fact that the bylaws don't comply with the applicable law is no reason for another do-over vote as to Mrs. Mack.

The bylaws should comply with the laws such as the enabling laws and the Open Government laws.

The bylaws don't comply. Mrs. Mack should know that.

The bylaws should have been rewritten to comply with all applicable laws. Mrs. Mack should know that.

Will the bylaws be rewritten to comply with the law?

How and when was the board notified that the 4 to 3 vote means that the vote to hire Mrs. Mack did not carry?