Sunday, September 25, 2011

Board Resignation




Fellow Young Professionals -

In resigning from the CincyPAC Board, I thought you should be aware of the actions of the remaining board members that are designed to drown out the voices of you, the dues-paying members of the organization. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who was appointed to the bench by President Woodrow Wilson, once famously stated, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant.” With that in mind, I feel that I must shed light on the blatantly undemocratic, and highly partisan actions of the CincyPAC Board.

CincyPAC has always prided itself on being a member-driven organization. CincyPAC exists for the sole purpose of giving a voice to its members on issues that affect our city. That is why I so vigorously worked to recruit new members to bolster the dwindling numbers. I strongly believed that Young Professionals needed a sounding board for their thoughts and ideas. I looked forward to the endorsement process and hearing what the membership had to say on the candidates and issues on the ballot this year. 

I was horribly disappointed, though, with how the process evolved. The originally agreed upon process in which dues paying members like you had a 100% say in the PACs endorsement eroded, thanks to petty partisan politicking by several board members, many of whom have pledged their support to specific candidates. I am sad to report that the membership vote in the endorsement process will count for a paltry and inadequate 45% of the overall endorsement score that is used to choose CincyPAC endorsed candidates. In other words, an unelected Board of 12 has decided that they know better than you, and will weight their vote in the process more heavily. I was even more disappointed when a board member suggested that we keep our algorithm secret from our membership and the candidates seeking the endorsement. Even more discouraging was the suggestion that we count the votes first, and once the results were known by the board, the weight of the members vote could be changed to influence the final result.  Does this sound like a fair, non-partisan, open, and transparent process?

Not only were you mislead into thinking your vote actually counted, the candidates who interviewed for the CincyPAC endorsement were lied to about how the endorsements would be decided. How can any group expect to attain a significant and ongoing presence to shape the debate in our city when they lie to the very people they hope to influence?  I fear that the actions of the board have permanently damaged CincyPACs credibility with the leaders of our community.  Who in the future will agree to sit for an endorsement interview knowing that they were lied to about the process and the results are rigged to achieve a specific outcome?

My advice to you as a member is simple. If you really want your voice to be heard, your $25, along with your time and effort, is better spent elsewhere. Bright, enterprising Young Professionals are more than capable of making decisions for themselves on political candidates and issues. There is no need for your opinions to be filtered through an unelected board who sees themselves as intellectually and politically superior to the very people who they seek to lead. This kind of elitist attitude has no place in Young Professional circles, and only serves to weaken the advancement of our common goals. 

Republican? Democrat? Charterite? Something else? Donate directly to the candidate of your choice. Volunteer your time directly to ballot issues that you support. These are much better and more effective ways of making your voice heard than allowing your voice to be muffled by a self-perpetuating, Soviet-style group of ruling elites.  

Sincerely,

Aja Roberto

24 comments:

  1. guess it's too late for me to get my money back, but I won't join again for sure. Years ago, Women in Communications asked me to judge something for them with a group- we did. The President came back to us and asked us to 're-think our choices and look for more diversity'. I told them if they wanted us to look for diversity, they should have told us who was black and who was hispanic and who was white on the subject line and also told us that was a top priority. I refused and resigned. You've done the right thing too. Thanks for letting us know!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You go Aja! I knew I smelled a rat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Finally, someone who is strong enough to not only stand up for what they believe, but also refuses to bow down and stand silently next to those who encourage participate in the corruption that all too rampant in politics. Way to go Aja.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've recently moved to Cincinnati and I'm glad I read this because now I won't have to waste my time with CincyPAC.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sounds like sour grapes. Young right winger doesn't get her way and takes her ball and goes home. Someone better call a WWWHHHHAAAAAAAAmbulance for this crybaby.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I always suspected but could never prove that this groups was anything but "non-partisan". I'm glad to see the light of day shine on all of this garbage. The last commenter calling a Board member out as a Republican as if that's a bad thing just proves the point. C-ya CincyPAC!

    ReplyDelete
  7. is it partisan or just high-school style inner politics? I was asked to apply to the board, but after a minor disagreement with one of the board members was dropped from consideration.

    Unfortunately I find the YP scene in Cincinnati to be a small group of self-congratulators who put personal politics and favors ahead of other things.

    Personally I am looking to make a difference with others who are beyond Student Council style groups. Let me know if you find one.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We need to get ALL of our acts together. If we want the city to be a better place for all, these games and under the table actions need to stop. I like the idea of a collective YP voice to support candidates/issues, but not this way. If any of these claims are untrue, I urge the accused to speak up. Otherwise...shame on you all!

    Justin Buckner (not anonymous)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I pulled a copy of the campaign finance report for the group from the BOE this morning while walking to the office. If this list is indicative of the size of their paid membership then it's pretty pathetic. I guess it might make the Board members feel good to puff their chests and boast about how infuencial and important they are, but the numbers say otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Aja went from sane to C R A Z Y. It saddens me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Look at all of the posts to those opposed to Aja. Not a single one deals with the facts. They're all full of childish name-calling. That says a lot about where the PAC is going, and I don't want to be a part of it any more.

    I'm not posting with my real name because its apparent to anyone who has been following this in person or on the net that it's the intent of the cincypac board to smear people who disagree with them. It saddens me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The fact that Aja place a sickle and hammer in the CincyPAC name speaks volumes about both her agenda and maturity.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Again, no comment about the issue in question, just more personal garbage. That continues to speak volumes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. CincyPAC's official response to criticism regarding its endorsement process. http://ht.ly/6FhIu

    Now Aja just looks like a spoiled child who threw a temper tantrum when she couldn't get her own way.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Again, more personal attacks. Nothing new. What a waste of $25.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Brad Beckett's ConscienceSeptember 26, 2011 at 12:39 PM

    Go back to Coast and the Blue Chippers Aja.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't understand how Cincypac's response changes anything. The organization has not clarified whether or not the membership knew about the endorsement procedure changes. It also weighs the "scores" at 35% but do not say how those scores are decided. I assume it is based on the "core values" but how exactly are the responses translated into scores?

    ReplyDelete
  18. The response says nothing. It addresses nothing. The membership knew nothing of the procedure changes. As a member, I can tell you that I did not receive a single email informing me that my vote counted for less than half a vote. I challenge any CincyPAC Board member to prove otherwise. Show us where you notified the members of their miniscule vote share. Certainly you can produce an email that you sent to your members right?

    And as I understand from people I consider to be very reputable sources, the 35% scores are voted on by the Board only based on candidate responses to questionnaires. There is no member input on the scores. That puts the Board in charge of 55% of the total process. Member-driven my rear end.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What exactly is the 'controversy' here" CincyPAC handled endorsements in the exact same manner that they always have in past years. Ms Roberto is obviously mad because she didn't like the outcome. This isn't Burger King Aja, and you don't always get to have it your way.

    ReplyDelete
  20. First off, your reading comprehension skills are lacking Fran. From CincyPAC's admission of guilt:
    "The CincyPAC board voted and approved changes to the endorsement process this year..." If it was done in the exact same manner as you suggest, then what are these changes they're talking about?

    Second, If this was Burger King the customer would always be right. But it's CincyPAC, so the customer (dues paying member) is always a moron who is unworthy of deciding what to order for his or herself.

    When I pull into Burger King and order my value meal, I expect that I'll receive 100% of it when I pay my money. If I received 45% I'd be pretty pissed, and would probably take my future business to McDonalds.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Stop your whining Aja, it makes you look like a bitter loser. You tried to turn CincyPAC to the right and you lost. Get over it and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Shawn Baker's Probation OfficerSeptember 27, 2011 at 5:26 AM

    The comment immediately above this perfectly demonstrates the sham that is CincyPAC's "non-partisanship". There is no room for anyone with diverging points of view. March lock-step andbuy into the group-think or you'll be shunned. Here's an organization that touts "diversity" as one of its core values, that has not a single Republican voice on its Board. Credibility - vanished.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is more entertaining that a soap opera. Can't wait to see how it ends. Seriously though, I suspect there is a little truth on both sides. Aja stated her position, and CincyPAC responded. It should have been left at that. Both sides are starting to look petty and undignified.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If you think any of these comments reflect CincyPAC or it's board members you did not read their united response statement. Please read it at cincypac.com. It is what it is. No drama.

    ReplyDelete