New SLNA board optimistic that the ‘worst’ meeting is behind them

Dennis Hanagan–

The St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association (SLNA) elected a new slate of officers at its annual general meeting in March, but not before what turned out to be, according to one member, the “worst” SLNA meeting he had ever attended.

The two-hour meeting began with the first hour taken up with a dispute over who should chair the meeting. Finally, a vote was held that favoured removing a member from the board of directors regarding non-expletive comments that member had recently directed at another board member.

While the first half could be described as orderly chaos, the second half was more relaxed with candidates for the board talking about their qualifications.

Eleven vied for the eight positions, and from them the positions of president, vice-presidents, treasurer and secretary will be decided at the board’s April meeting.

The new directors are Lorie Crawford, Suzanne Kavanagh, Julio DiGirolamo, Debra Corey, Jacquie Williams, Lorrie William Taylor, Cherril Baker and Catherine Limbertie.

Short biographies of the candidates were available before the meeting. Baker has represented the SLNA on the BIA parks committee, Crawford is a small business owner, DiGirolamo is a chartered professional accountant and Kavanagh was SLNA president from 2008 to 2013.

Limbertie is a former chair of the Market Lane school council and Naylor, who works as a director of business development, wants to broaden the SLNA’s catchment beyond the Front/Esplanade area. Williams and Corey were re-elected to the board.

Members were summoned to the March 25 AGM with a notice stating “the future of the SLNA is at stake … In the last few months there have been several conflicts within our Association.”

Those conflicts involved board members resigning over what was called unbecoming conduct of a co-director. At the meeting the SLNA’s code of conduct was mentioned. There were arguments over the association’s bylaws. Points of order were repeatedly raised from the audience.

Former director Steve Lowden said “this is going to be a tough meeting.” He added “we undertake it sadly” when he spoke of the motion to remove the co-director—who said the motion stemmed from a “trumped up written complaint.”

The commotion seems to centre over remarks made at a board meeting earlier this year that suggested the SLNA pull out of leading the cheerleading section at the Scotiabank marathon because of the amount of work involved.

At the AGM two members spoke over top of each other, confusing the audience, as each declared they had the right to chair the meeting. One woman in the rear row said “I suggest we all leave.” One person did. Another asked, “How can we be a neighbourhood if we can’t get along?”

David Crawford, one of the evening’s ballot counters, said “this is the worst SLNA evening I have ever been at.” Another speaker from the audience worried that people were becoming “enemies … It’s very unfortunate.”

The candidate for board—who filed the successful motion to remove the director—was not re-elected.

In other news, the SLNA will put aside $974 this year for seniors’ activities, perhaps for movie nights, bingo and card clubs or day trips.

A book prepared with help from school children to commemorate this summer’s Pan Am/Parapan Games will be launched April 14 at St. Lawrence Hall.

Lowden said he would like to see more members from neighbourhood housing associations attending the SLNA’s monthly meetings. He said many more could be making the effort but aren’t.

Councillor Pam McConnell is scheduled as guest speaker for the SLNA’s April 29 meeting.

One comment

  1. A REPLY FROM DWIGHT PETERS, PAST PRESIDENT OF SLNA AND CURRENT DELEGATE:

    I wanted to point a couple of things that aren’t correct in your article.

    1/ “The candidate for board—who filed the successful motion to remove the director—was not re-elected.” This refers to me and is not as stated. I did not alone file the motion to the Delegates to remove Maureen. This motion was filed by 4 delegates; Steve Lowden, Debra Corey, Jacquie Williams and myself. You may recall that this info was displayed on the overhead at the meeting and included in the agenda. 2 of the moving delegates were successfully re-elected. I did not initiate this motion and I know that I was the last one approached to sign on so I truly do not deserve all the ‘credit’. I did file 2 motions at a Board regarding the Code of Conduct, one which was similar, but neither was passed by the Board. This distinction was blurred at the meeting for obvious self serving reasons of the affected Director. The reason I did not speak at the meeting was because the 4 delegate movers agreed to designate Steve Lowden as our sole speaker. If I was the sole mover, I would have been entitled to speak. In hindsight, this was a bad decision for me personally as I became the focus of Maureen Walsh’s “defense”. The statement in the story reinforces the incorrect notion championed by Maureen that this was a Dwight vs. Maureen conflict when in fact 4 delegates, all active Board members, had moved for her removal. Is there a way to remove or revise this line to reflect what actually occurred?

    2/ “The commotion seems to centre over remarks made at a board meeting earlier this year that suggested the SLNA pull out of leading the cheerleading section at the Scotiabank marathon because of the amount of work involved.” This point along with many others was made only by Maureen Walsh so it’s hard to understand how it was determined to be the “centre” of the commotion. Steve Lowden’s comments, on behalf of the movers of the motion, did not refer to this at all. In fact, the Marathon decision was discussed at not 1 but over 3 Board meetings to ensure a thoughtful approach to an important decision and the motion passed unanimously. The Marathon decision appears to have been presented, along with a hodge podge of other largely unconnected events, to distract delegates from the real reason for the motion which admittedly was poorly communicated at the meeting.

    I would ask that the appropriate revisions are made to the online story. I do realize that I can respond to these in the Comments section but I do believe that these are important enough factually to warrant an actual revision to the story itself which is what most people will read and believe.

    I’d be happy to discuss any of this with you.
    Thanks Dennis,

    Dwight Peters
    Past President, SLNA