POA Board Elections

This topic contains 17 replies, has 368 voices, and was last updated by  JBots 3 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • Author
  • #6490


    I have entered my name again in an attempt to return Diamondhead to the wonderful place it once was. The distrust of the elected board members and the attitude of board members who think that we elect them to make decisions for us is just wrong. To spend money we don’t have and lock the doors so we, the members, have little if any imput will only make for deeper distrust.

    If the POA members support me I promise the following:

    1. I will impliment the decisions, choices and direction the members want. After all, it is our POA.
    2. I will work to unlock the doors to the board meetings, video, and post them to our web site for those who are unable to attend. Nothing to hide, right?
    3. Take control and manage our POA, not farm out the managment to an out of town company who controls our budget.
    4. I do not own a rubber stamp! Everthing will stand on it’s own merit.

    I want YOU to help me return Diamondhead to the envy of the Gulf Coast.

    Jay Botsay



    Which position are you running for Jay?



    Jay, Thanks for running for the Board.
    Your platform reflects what the majority of POA members want for our community.

    Qualifying ends today. Several good NON-Incumbent candidates have signed up to run—along with certain Incumbents and their hand-picked Clones.

    Maybe we will actually get “change” —- but only if members get informed and then VOTE.

    KICK OUT the Incumbents & their Clones who so love spending other people’s money.



    Do we know who these clones are? I would like to see a list of candidates that WE NEED On the board. Starting with John Fletcher, who esle is running on the same platform and who are thew clones, thanks.



    (better than TV!),

    You will know the CLONES by the ABSENCE of their names when most of us on this site speak of “good candidates”.

    By late this afternoon or tomorrow morning, we will have the complete list of candidates and can start sorting them out.



    Today’s CLONE Update:

    Just heard of another CLONE leaping into the race for a 4-year Board position.

    There are several good candidates already in this race, plus 2 Switcher-Clones (switchers from officer positions where they were “placeholders” for the Incumbent Team?).



    Jay seems to say the right things.
    But does not say what he is running for. Why not say.?
    In tight with Feola? Has Feola always been a good guy?
    He fails to mention the one great fiasco, the golf course extravaganza
    Since this issue is the prominent one that hits every ones wallet.




    Just heard from one of the new candidates: “King Kyger wants to talk to me” —– yes, to anyone (outside of his regular CLONE groupies) whom he thinks he can POSSIBLY control or influence.



    I am seeking the 4yr position. Some of you know I was against incorporation when it was not popular to do so. I have friends who have very different views on somethings than I do, We are still friends. I don’t always have to agree I just have to support the right to disagree and work towards a better end. Some will question my motivation and loyalties. They are pretty straight forward. My children and grandchildren live in Diamondhead I want it to be the place it was. Nothing more or less. I need your input and support to make it happen. Next time you see me flying over in my yellow bi-plane wave I’ll wave back. Let’s make Diamondhead as beautiful on the ground as it looks from up here.

    Thak you
    Jay Botsay



    Jay, Thanks for running for a 4-year Board position.
    We need good candidates like you to give us a CHOICE to elect a more diverse group of Board members. And thanks for being a “Non-Incumbent” candidate who is NOT controlled by the Ruling Golf Clique. As of yesterday, 2-3 suspected “Incumbent-picked Clones” are running against you.

    SOME of the others running for the three 4-year Board positions also look like good candidates. Their platforms and backers will be studied.

    With 7 of the 10 votes on the Board, the current Incumbent group now rules the POA, especially on new Big Spending and ongoing Golf/Country Club subsidy issues. (One Board seat is empty because our “leaders” refused to fill Tommy Schafer’s seat vacated when he became Mayor last summer. This is the 2-year Board position that will finally be re-filled in the June election.)

    IF we can elect “NON-Incumbents & NON-Clones” to at least half of the positions up for election, real “change” can happen.



    Current line up, according to POA this afternoon:
    PRES: John Fletcher, Bob McBee, Joe Murray (Incumbent-aligned).
    VP: Jerry Weber, Jerry Peppenger (INCUMBENT Board member), Rob Reidenauer, Hal Landis.
    SECRETARY: Sharon McCulley, Nancy Sislow (INCUMBENT).
    TREASURER: Michael Schaefer, Bob Marshall (INCUMBENT).
    2-YR BOARD: (elect 1) Chuck Perry (INCUMBENT Board member), Bill Nutting, Uwe Seitz.
    4-YR BOARD: (elect 3) Darryl Davis, Craig Harvey, Donald Silcio, Jeff Chastain, Jay Botsay, Jesse Flies, Patricia Kleinkordt (switched from Secretary), Donald Laird (switched from Treasurer), Paul Montjoy.



    King Kyger is in for a rude awakening if he thinks he can intimidate you! Poor guy, just doesn’t know. (smile)



    POA Incumbents on View:
    At the POA Board Meeting yesterday (April 3, 2013), some Members in the “audience” asked 30+ pertinent and pointed questions. (Such questions and answers, are usually reported only in very cryptic terms in the minutes.)

    Classic answers from the POA officers/Board included the usual lame excuses and “I don’t have that information in front of me…”, PLUS some gems, such as “I had a ‘SPONTANEOUS OUTBURST”, “Just a mis-understanding”, “I mis-spoke”, “I haven’t read it”, and more than one “Wha?”, or “Duh?”.

    Most of these POA “leaders” just don’t have a clue that many Members are dissatisfied with the excessive spending, lack of transparency, and arrogance.

    SEE FOR YOURSELF: The next POA Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 1, at 4:30PM, according to the POA Calendar of Events on the POA website.


    wayne king

    I’m afraid your untruths about the casino coming here as a “Truck Stop” casino will bring some chickens home to roost. Its hard to support someone who will resort to untruths to get their way. That’s stuff the Obama administration does and we all have had enough of that. Of course any justifications are welcome.



    I have to admit that this is the only POA meeting that I have attended.
    The POA meeting was a expertly orchestrated event.
    Despite their attempt to display a congenial attitude their position on a couple of factors was a dead give away.
    I. They are adamantly opposed to relinquishing any of their authority.
    They go to some length to justify the extent of their power by claiming that most any city has a similar organization with an equal amount of control.
    Therefore do not expect the city to capture some of these responsibilities because after all they can’t accomplish what they are already responsible for.
    II. They are very much opposed to letting citizens advertise in any way to run for POA offices.
    This really is an affront to democratic principles and
    that they are willing to do most anything to stay in power.
    This further displays their cliquish network of self importance and the well being of the populace is secondary.

    The Diamondhead taxpayers association has a meeting Saturday April 5
    at the emerald room. Sometimes this group goes a little over the edge
    but the meeting on Saturday is going to focus on the POA election.
    Lets face it if we are going to dislodge any of this current group of elitist
    we are going to need all the help we can get.

    I think our best chance for success would be to agree on one particular candidate for
    Pres, vice pres treas and secretary As a group we would be way ahead of the game if we either pick these individual people or at least limit it to just a few.

    Obviously incumbents are to be excluded.
    Maybe it is not fair or even realistic but none the less I am skeptical of choosing someone who has a very active career especially if is somehow sales related. It is always possible for some of these individuals to look at a public office as a career enhancement.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.