[E-ioof-members] Resignation and Thank You

[Joyce Puntillo]

This conflict has to end, this is NOT what Odd Fellows is about.   
People are forgetting what our organization does, it HELPS PEOPLE.   
This negative back and forth is pulling away from what we do.  There  
is always going to be different opinions, different points of view  
and that is a good thing, we need that to balance, it should never be  
taken personally.  To me it seems that this is becoming a political  
argument, which is EXTREMELY wrong.  We should not have any thing to  
do with a political agenda and if this is a political agenda to you  
then the people involved in those idea's should gracefully back out  
of Odd Fellows.  I think some people are forgetting why they joined.   
Please stop,
revaluate your thoughts and actions, this is not a healthy  
environment to our cause.

Joyce Puntillo





On Nov 23, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Dave Rosenberg wrote:

>   Dear Odd Fellows:
>
> It is most unfortunate that it has come to this on Thanksgiving, of  
> all
> times. Because the e-mail from Gruskas contains so many  
> inaccuracies and
> accusations, I feel compelled to reply to set the record straight.
> However, this will be my one and only engagement in this effort. I  
> find
> it neither production nor conducive to the principals of Odd  
> Fellowship.
> There is simply too much negativity in their e-mail, and I choose  
> not to
> go there.
>
> I, too, was saddened by Mel's resignation. At the very end of the last
> meeting (following the election of officers) during "good of the  
> order"
> Mel suddenly announced that he was resigning from IOOF. Following the
> meeting, I had a personal conversation with Mel asking him to  
> reconsider
> and urging him to stay in the organization. I also sent him an e-mail
> the following morning making the same request. I considered him to  
> be a
> valued member and sincerely wanted him to remain in the order. Mel  
> and I
> got along well and worked together well. To no avail. Mel had made up
> his mind and wished to resign. While I regret his departure, I will  
> say
> that his resignation e-mail showed a lot of character and class.
>
> The Gruska e-mail implied that there was a concerted effort to prevent
> Mel from becoming the Vice Grand and moving up the ladder. I know  
> of no
> such effort. I, for one, would have been pleased to serve with either
> Joe Patti or Mel Trujillo as Vice Grand next year. Both have served  
> the
> Lodge well: Mel primarily on his work on the IOOF articles of
> incorporation and By-laws and Joe in the management of the Lodge Hall
> and the reconstruction project. In fact, prior to the election I had
> written an e-mail to the membership saying that both Mel and Joe are
> excellent candidates and I would be pleased to serve with either as  
> Vice
> Grand. The "problem" we had is that we had two highly qualified
> candidates for Vice Grand. When you have such a situation, only one  
> can
> prevail. That is truly unfortunate, but that is what happens in an
> election. At a meeting when both Joe and Mel were nominated to run for
> Vice Grand, I did in fact suggest that Mel consider running for
> Secretary as well. That suggestion was not made so that I "could treat
> him as a workhorse, not an equal" (I don't know where the Gruskas came
> up with that canard) - that sort of thought never crossed my mind. I
> made the suggestion with the most positive of hopes: I suggested
> Secretary as a way of avoiding the "winner-loser" scenario, and as  
> a way
> of utilizing Mel's talents of accuracy and attention to detail. It  
> would
> have been wonderful to have both Joe and Mel serving as officers with
> me. But for some reason, the Gruskas view things from the prism of
> negativity and look for an ulterior motive in things that are done.
>
> The election for Vice Grand turned out to be relatively close. My
> recollection is that it was 19 for Joe and 12 for Mel. If there was  
> any
> difference between the two candidates, it was the fact that Joe had  
> been
> a member of Odd Fellows for a relatively long time - something like  
> 6-8
> years - and Mel was a relatively new member of the Lodge. I suspect  
> that
> this may have had something to do with the result. (For example, I
> noticed that in the election for Trustee, the four members who were
> selected were the most senior members - some with 10 years of  
> membership
> - and the two members who were not selected were the two newest
> members.) I honestly don't think the vote was a vote "against" Mel. I
> think it was a vote "for" Joe given the choice "Mel or Tony". It
> is,however, possible that some IOOF members may have been taken aback
> when Tony, prior to the election, sent an e-mail out to the membership
> endorsing Mel for Vice Grand. I don't ever remember a Noble Grand  
> making
> endorsements in the past and that may have struck members as odd.
>
> The Gruska e-mail also accused me of expressing disdain for Holly
> Bishop. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lea and I love Holly
> and consider her to be one of our best buddies. As a matter of fact, I
> brought Holly and Matt Bishop into the Lodge, and Lea and I sponsored
> their membership. Holly and Matt have been great new members. Lea  
> and I
> nominated Holly for the job of Treasurer because she is intelligent,
> competent and accurate. I see Holly as a future Vice Grand and Noble
> Grand if that is where she wants to go. There have certainly been  
> times
> when I have disagreed with Holly on some local issue, but that is the
> extent of it. I admire Holly Bishop and all she has accomplished in  
> her
> life and in Davis. And she has done an excellent job as Treasurer - we
> thank her for her work on behalf of the Lodge and we know she and Matt
> enjoy their membership.
>
> If the election were marred at all, it was because it lacked
> organization. (Prior to the election, I had offered to Tony to help  
> run
> the election if he wished, but he declined.) I think virtually  
> everyone
> at the election meeting will attest to the fact that the election
> process - particularly in the beginning - seemed dis-organized. I will
> give just two examples. First, at the very start of the election, we
> first voted by acclamation for all the uncontested offices. That was
> fine. But right after that, Tony announced we would be voting for the
> position of Vice Grand. Ballots were being handed out and while most
> members in the room hadn't yet even received their ballots, some  
> members
> had already cast ballots in the ballot box for the Vice Grand  
> position,
> but some members had also been given other ballots for other positions
> and had thrown those into the ballot box as well. Fortunately, this  
> was
> immediately spotted and the process was stopped, those ballots  
> destroyed
> and we started again. The new process made sure that each person in  
> the
> room was given one ballot, and that each person cast one ballot for  
> Vice
> Grand. Second, prior to the meeting, I had written an e-mail to  
> Tony and
> to Mel asking how we would conduct the election for Trustee  
> (pursuant to
> our new By-laws) since we were electing several trustees and we had
> seven candidates. Both were open to suggestions, so I suggested a
> process whereby a majority vote was needed to elect anyone to a  
> trustee
> position - such a process would require several ballots and the
> elimination on the lowest vote-getter in each series of balloting  
> until
> someone got a majority. Tony agreed to this process. However, at the
> election meeting, Tony used a totally different process where trustees
> were elected who received a plurality vote, not a majority. I raised a
> concern at the time of the meeting that this was not the agreed upon
> process, but out of deference to the Noble Grand and because the
> plurality election process was a faster process, I did not  
> challenge the
> process further.
>
> The comments about our Hall Board members are discouraging, because
> those members serve to benefit the Lodges. The Hall Board is  
> composed of
> six members, three selected by the IOOF and three selected by the
> Rebekah Lodge. The current Hall Board members from IOOF are Bob
> Bockwinkel (who serves as President of the Hall Board), Andrews Skaggs
> and myself. Contrary to the implication in the Gruska e-mail, the Hall
> Board does not operate in secret. Meetings are scheduled (unless  
> changed
> due to holidays) and are announced. Meetings are open, and IOOF  
> members
> (including Tony) have attended. Minutes of the meetings and financial
> documents are provided to the Lodges. At Lodge meetings, either Bob or
> Joe report on the activities of the Hall Board. The Hall Board members
> have major responsibilities and work hard for the Lodges. The Hall  
> Board
> is responsible for managing our major assets: the Lodge Hall and our
> rental properties. Since I have been a member of the Hall Board, I  
> view
> our major accomplishments are (1) Completing the major reconstruction
> project of our Lodge Hall - scheduled for completion in the next few
> weeks (if anyone has ever built a house, you know how much work is
> involved in managing such a project); (2) Developing a new fee  
> structure
> and plan for increasing Hall rentals and thus increasing the  
> revenue to
> our two Lodges; (3) retaining new management of the Lodge Hall. The  
> only
> members who are "paid" are the three Rebekah members and the three  
> IOOF
> members who receive a stipend of $20 per Hall Board meeting (this
> stipend goes back as far as anyone can remember) and Joe Patti who was
> retained as the manager of the Lodge Hall.
>
> As far back as anyone can remember, we have always had a property
> manager and that person was paid for his/her work. When I was first
> elected to the Hall Board, there was dissatisfaction expressed with  
> the
> current property manager. That person was replaced by a vote of the  
> Hall
> Board and Joe Patti was retained again by a vote of the Hall Board  
> as an
> independent contractor to handle the property management duties. There
> is no conflict of interest in his capacity. Barry Melton and his
> committee was asked to look at this issue and found no conflict and
> developed an independent contractor agreement for this position. In
> fact, there are even members of the Grand Lodge of California who are
> paid for their work for the Lodge; so there is no inherent conflict in
> an Odd Fellow being paid for work for the Lodge. And Joe has done an
> admirable job, particularly in bringing the Hall reconstruction  
> project
> to its conclusion. Joe has had to work on the reconstruction project
> virtually day in and day out, and I am confident that the members  
> of our
> Lodge will be pleased to see the outcome when the Lodge opens for
> business again in a few weeks. The long wait will have been worth it.
>
> Could the Hall Board do a better job of communicating to the  
> Lodges? Of
> course. That is a work in progress. I made the motion several  
> months ago
> at the Hall Board that our minutes and our financial information be
> provided to the Lodges - as it should be - on a monthly basis. In the
> past, that information had not always been provided on a monthly  
> basis.
> And I urge our members - if you have any questions about the Hall  
> Board
> activities - to please contact one of your Hall Board members or  
> come to
> a Hall Board meeting. But the members of the Hall Board are not there
> for "self-serving" purposes. Attending yet another meeting every month
> provides me little "benefit". I do this because I care about our Lodge
> and believe we can continue to do more for our community. This is  
> public
> service, no more and no less, and I am sure the other Hall Board  
> members
> feel the same way.
>
> One final word about the proposed new Hall Board By-laws. The current
> By-laws have been in place for the Hall Board for over 50 years and,
> apparently, have served the Hall Board well. I have heard no one
> complain about those By-laws except the Gruskas. The next thing I  
> know,
> Tony has scheduled a vote on new Hall Board By-laws at the November
> meeting of our Lodge. To this point in time, no member of the Hall  
> Board
> had even seen a copy of the proposed new By-laws. A few days before  
> the
> meeting, Mel was kind enough to drop off a copy of the proposed By- 
> laws
> with me. I was amazed at what I saw, to be very frank. There were,  
> in my
> opinion, numerous changes to the current By-laws which caused me
> concerns. Let me identify just a few of the problems that I saw:  
> (1) The
> proposed By-laws did not spell out the duties of the officers of the
> Hall Board. The current By-laws spell out those duties in great  
> detail.
> (2) The proposed By-laws allow motions to pass with any vote of any 4
> members. The current By-laws also require 4 votes, but require that
> motions must receive the votes of two IOOF members and two Rebekah
> members to pass. This alone is a huge change in the historical voting
> requirements of the two Lodges. (3) The proposed By-laws require every
> substantive decision of the Hall Board to go to the two Lodges and be
> affirmed by the two Lodges before the decision can be implemented.  
> This
> change would severely damage the ability of the Hall Board to  
> manage the
> property and assets of the Lodges. (4) The current By-laws require  
> that
> certain officers of the Hall Board be bonded in the amount of $62,000.
> The proposed By-laws reduce this amount to $2,000. These and other
> changes caused me concerns and I wondered why we were trying to speed
> through these proposed By-laws, when the current By-laws have been in
> place for over 50 years. Further, I wondered why the proposed By-laws
> hadn't been referred to the Hall Board (made up of members of both
> Lodges) for review and discussion. Common courtesy alone would  
> indicate
> that such a referral was the appropriate thing to do. That's why I
> supported Kathy White's motion to table the proposed Hall Board By- 
> laws.
>
> We are Odd Fellows - we believe in Truth, Friendship, and Love. I am
> proud of our accomplishments for the benefit of our community, and
> believe the best is yet to come. When we open the new Hall, a new era
> will open for us as well. I know that 2007 will be a year of good
> fellowship, fun and community support. IOOF is the oldest continuous
> organization in Davis, and there is a good reason for that. Let's stop
> the negativity and personal attacks and start an era of positivity and
> good fellowship. That doesn't mean that criticism and dissent should
> stop. On the contrary, I think it is healthy for an organization.
> However, criticism and dissent should (1) never be personal, and (2)
> should be raised at a meeting of the Lodge, not in e-mails. And if an
> issue is raised at a meeting and is dealt with by the membership,  
> we all
> need to move on. We have things to do.
>
> Happy Thanksgiving. Let's count our blessings.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dave Rosenberg
>
>
>
>
> Rhonda & Anthony Gruska wrote:
>> Like many of you, we are deeply saddened by the resignation of Mel  
>> and
>> Joyce Trujillo from Yolo Lodge 169. As you may know, Mel was
>> instrumental in assisting us with learning about the laws that govern
>> our lodge and/or dispelling the misinformation of
>> members who would keep information from us and who would provide us
>> with inaccurate information. Why in the world would there be a
>> concerted effort to prevent Mel from becoming the Vice Grand of our
>> lodge and moving up the ladder to work for the Grand Lodge of the
>> State of California when they had expressed interest in him? He was
>> willing to work incredibly hard, not just for our lodge, but for
>> lodges throughout the state. We had no idea how extensive the effort
>> was to keep Mel from winning the election until the very end. Dave
>> Rosenberg made it clear that he wanted Mel to run for Secretary so he
>> could treat him as a workhorse, not an equal. On several occasions,
>> Dave also expressed his disdain for Holly Bishop to both of us. This
>> resulted in her being deemed acceptable to serve as treasurer for the
>> account with the small change because no one else wanted the job, but
>> not as a trustee or hall board member. Like Mel, Holly works hard,
>> asks good questions and does not just take any old line of BS for an
>> answer. In addition to the travesty of the disruptive, stacked
>> election resulting in our consistent hard working participants not
>> being elected to positions with any power, the by laws for the hall
>> board recommended by the Grand Lodge of the State of California were
>> tabled indefinitely. This was an extraordinary motion, nothing  
>> similar
>> to postponement. Now the membership must vote to untable the bylaws
>> and there is no provision for discussion. This is historically a  
>> great
>> way to kill a motion. Having the first reading of the by-laws was the
>> start of the process to amend them during the next several months.
>> Members would have been able to make edits and modifications just  
>> like
>> they did for the Oddfellows by-laws and the completed work would have
>> to have been voted on by the entire group of both the Oddfellows and
>> Rebekahs. We ask you, why in the world would Dave insinuate that Mel
>> and Tony were up to something by introducing the resolution to update
>> the hall board by laws? Why in the world would the Grand Lodge  
>> provide
>> us with boiler plate by-laws that were "questionable," as was  
>> inferred
>> at the meeting? Why in the world would we not want an expert on
>> by-laws such as Mel Trujillo assisting us to update by-laws that are
>> approximately 50 years old and totally out of compliance with the
>> state law requiring they be revised and updated every 5 years? Why in
>> the world would by laws that are supposed to be amended and approved
>> by the membership of both lodges be referred to the hall board? Has
>> anyone looked at those by-laws? At the current time, our hall board
>> could choose to meet in Hawaii if they wanted to. Until those  
>> outdated
>> by-laws are updated, the Yolo Lodge's real assets will continue to be
>> managed by a few who do not operate in the sunshine and some of whom
>> have used their hall board positions to engage in self serving
>> purposes. Members who have in the past and/or continue to reap
>> financial benefit from the lodge are disrupting our true purpose. Do
>> you know who gets paid in our lodge and how much they make? Do you
>> know how much members have made in the past on transactions involving
>> our lodge? Do you know why our licensed property manager's contract
>> was not renewed? Of course you don't. This information is kept secret
>> by the members of the hall board, who ironically are supposed to  
>> serve
>> at the pleasure of the membership. It is time to start discussing
>> these issues and getting some answers.
>> Sincerley,
>> Tony and Rhonda Gruska
>>
>> */"Mounkes, Glenn" <gmounkes at golyon.com>/* wrote:
>>
>>     Mel & Joyce,
>>     I'm stunned to hear of your sudden departure from the Odd  
>> Fellows.
>>     Mel, you've been a stalwart in the Odd Fellows. We joined at the
>>     same time and I've been inspired by the dedication you've applied
>>     to each/every project you've taken on.
>>     Joyce, you’ve only started with the Odd Fellows, don’t take the
>>     events of the last week as normal for the organization; there are
>>     extraordinary goings on at the lodge these days along with the
>>     usual pressure of the season.
>>     I’m hoping you’ll both take time to relax, breath and (re) 
>> consider
>>     staying on with the Lodge. If not, it’s been a pleasure knowing
>>     you both and I wish you well.
>>     Sincerely,
>>     Glenn Mounkes
>>     //
>>      
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> ---
>>     *From:* e-ioof-members-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us on
>>     behalf of joycetrujillo at comcast.net
>>     *Sent:* Fri 17-Nov-06 8:43 AM
>>     *To:* e-ioof-members at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
>>     *Subject:* [E-ioof-members] Resignation and Thank You
>>
>>     Effective immediately, Melvin and Joyce Trujillo hereby resign
>>     from Yolo Lodge #169, Independent Order of Odd Fellows. We thank
>>     all of the members for their many courtesies and kindnesses
>>     extended to us. We also thank the Lodge and send a million  
>> hugs to
>>     the members for their generous contributions to the Martin Luther
>>     King, Jr. Scholarship Fund and the Concilio of Yolo County.
>>     Sincerely,
>>     Mel and Joyce Trujillo
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     E-ioof-members mailing list
>>     E-ioof-members at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
>>     http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/e-ioof-members
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rhonda and Tony Gruska
>> Monticello Bistro
>> 5 East Main St.
>> Winters, CA 95694
>> (530) 792-8066
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> ---
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> E-ioof-members mailing list
>> E-ioof-members at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/e-ioof-members
>>
> _______________________________________________
> E-ioof-members mailing list
> E-ioof-members at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/e-ioof-members