Selection of Directors Dominates Nina Place Redevelopment Issue（英文）

此内容暂无简体中文译文，以下为英文原文。

Historical February 1980 report or notice. Original dates, prices and contacts describe the source period; current availability has not been established.

At a special meeting. Tuesday. January 22nd, the Skinker-DeBaliviere Community Council (SDCC) approved a motion to enlarge the board of the proposed Nina Place Redevelopment Corporation from eleven to thirteen members and to change the process by which members will be chosen. Under this motion, the. Council will appoint seven board members directly, and the Nina Place Block Association (NPBA) will “elect select” six. The motion, representing a compromise between the NPBA and the SDCC. was passed unanimously.

Since November the Council and the NPBA had been at odds over the selection of board members. The NPBA wanted to elect four of the eleven board members directly. and the Council wanted a joint Council-NPBA nominating committee to select all eleven. The controversy became evident in October when a Council-appointed Nina Place Task Force recommended the creation of a not-for-profit redevelopment corporation. The task force composed of Roy Bell. William Bolden, Willis Lloyd. and Ed Walsh also recommended an eleven member board of directors that would “reflect a balance between genuine neighborhood representation and the necessary expertise critical to any redevelopment process.’*

The process recommended by the Task Force for selecting the board was: “1) The Skinker-DeBaliviere Community Council will select four directors from the Skinker-DeBaliviere area. 2) The owners and tenants of Nina Place will democratically elect four directors. who reside or own property in the Nina Place study area. 3) The remaining three directors. which will be selected by the SDCC and Nina Place directors. should be comprised of individuals with technical experience critical to the redevelopment process. 4) Overall, the board’s membership should be constituted so as to include one attorney and at least one representative each from the banking community, construction industry, and the real estate field.” This process was endorsed by the NPBA and rejected (at the November meeting) by the Council.

Instead, the Council requested that the Task Force rethink the board selection process. In response the Task Force presented the NPBA-endorsed method and two alternatives in a November memorandum to the Council. “A second -approach suggested by Renni Shuter.” reads the task force memorandum, “advocates the establishment of a seven member nominating committee to select a slate of eleven directors to be approved by the SDCC. The nominating committee would be comprised of four SDCC board members and three representatives from the Nina Block Association. In addition, four of the nominated directors would be owners or tenants from Nina Place with the remaining directors composed of Skinker-DeBaliviere residents with the appropriate technical knowledge and expertise.”

And the third approach suggests that the SDCC directly appoint all eleven board members.

At the November 12 Council meeting. Willis Lloyd. president of the NPBA. read a letter detailing the Association’s reasons for objecting to approaches .two and three. The letter reads, “. . . The Nina Place Block Association . . . maintains the position that the Block Association alone has the authority to designate persons to act as its representatives . . . Therefore, its elected officers have rejected the idea of a nominating committee . . . to determine its representation to the Redevelopment Corporation.”

The Council, however, decided to appoint a nominating committee over the NPBA’s objections. Ed Walsh. president of the Council, immediately appointed Renni Shuter. Brad Weir, Shirley Polk, and Roy Bell to the nominating committee. The NPBA boycotted the nominating committee. Despite the boycott, the nominating committee composed of four Council members produced a list of eleven suggested Redevelopment Corporation board members: Roy’ Bell, Jim Gamble, Jim L’Ecuyer, Sandy Rothschild, Cleo Alexander. Donald Royce, Tom Scatizzi.. Willis Lloyd. Ethel S. Adolphe. Doc Netterville, and Pat Kohn.

This list was presented to the Council at the December 10th meeting. Willis Lloyd then read a letter from the Nina Place Block Association: “‘This is to inform you that the Nina Place Block Unit will hold an election the first week of January for the purpose of selecting its four representatives to the soon to be formed Nina Place Redevelop. merit Corporation. “. . We also hope that by that time the council will have Selected its four representatives in order that the eight Directors• can then meet jointly for the purpose of deciding upon the three technical experts. . .

It is clear from this that the NPBA was still acting on the October 5th memorandum and ignoring the Council-appointed nominating committee.

The Council’s last decision at that meeting was to accept the four Nina Place representatives recommended by the nominating committee pending their approval by the NPBA. The other seven nominees to the board were accepted unconditionally.

And that is how matters stood Monday, January 14. when Skip Coburn asked the Council for a few days in which to work out a compromise with the Nina Place Block Association.

After discussing the need for haste, the Council voted to schedule a special meeting for Tuesday, January 22nd.

In the week between meetings, three options for selecting the corporation board were proposed. These were recorded in a memorandum from Skip Coburn to the SDCC board of directors. dated January 21. 1980.

The first option (Option A) required the SDCC to drop one of its seven nomin• ees so that the NPBA could hold an election to fill five positions on the board.

Option B. developed by the Chairman of NPBA. Willis Lloyd. allowed the seven SDCC nominees to remain. and required the NPBA to “select elect six directors. one of which would clearly represent Cornerstone’s [a non-profit redevelopment corporation formed by Grace and Peace Fellowship which is presently involved in the Nina Place area] interests.” This option placed a two week time limit on the election selection process.

Option C. suggested enlarging the board to twelve members, and contained various stipulations to prevent a tie.

In the discussion at Tuesday’s special Council meeting. Willis Lloyd said that the NPBA favored

Option B. Shortly thereafter Renni Shuter moved

Option B with two amendments to a vote. The first amendment stipulated that anyone selected or elected must be a property owner who owns a building in the area. or an occupant residing in the area, at the time of the election. The second amendment added a proviso that if the NPBA • were unable to elect/select its six directors by midnight. February 13th, the SDCC would then select all thirteen members.

After rescinding a December 12th decision based on an eleven member board. the Council unanimously approved

Option B as amended.

Originally published in The Paper, February 1980.

Read this article in the original newspaper issue.

Archival transcription note: The continuation dates a prior Council action December 12, while the earlier text says December 10. The printed discrepancy is retained.

Original source: SD_Times1980_02.pdf, printed page(s) 1, 7; PDF page(s) 1, 7.