My Most Idiotic Question Yet

So we have a fellow board member who will.not.let.an.old.issue.go.

The issue has long been resolved, but she wants to see some communication that she is never going to receive.

She had lots of power on a prior board and resents that she is not allowed in everyone's business now.

Is it possible to make a motion that will end her ongoing, repetitive, time wasting complaints?

A discussion with the President didn't work, and despite ignoring the issue, she won't let it go.

Is it appropriate to make a motion as follows (not the actual facts, but similar):

"I move that all Board issues concerning the red car discussed at the January 2017 meeting, as well as the way that matter was handled, are considered resolved and that all further discussion of this issue, whether during meetings, via emails or through any other manner of Board communication, will end."

We have an agenda. She will bring it up ad nauseum, insert it into other issues, and constantly email about it. I know I'm expecting a miracle. I doubt any motion would shut her up on this.

Does not sound like it's resolved. You may want it to be because there was some kind of resolution. That doesn't mean resolved for everyone. Quite simply I would ask what would be the final solution this person wants that would satisfy them. Work from there. It may be something simple or it may be something not possible. It's still worth listening to as a final nail in the coffin.

Something just tells me this was a resolution pushed onto something than worked on together. Usually decisions like that, resolution is not satisfactory. Next time make the person feel like they are part of the resolution process even if their resolution isn't agreeable. Letting them see the process and why their resolution doesn't work often relieves the anxiety to get to what is needed to resolve.

Thanks. What she wants is none of her business and she has been repeatedly told that the matter is between the President, Secretary and a specific homeowner. She keeps insisting it is her business, simply because she is a board member at large, even though the issue was resolved many months ago. No one else on the board wants to allow her access to the information. She likes to critique all of the communications sent out by any board member, and she was not allowed in the loop in this case. She won't let go.

Exactly Janet. Had a feeling there was something missing in this puzzle. They should have been informed and kept in the loop.

Janet -- are you referring to CCIAO (we are a pre-CCIAO association and did not opt in to the new laws so are supposed to be following only those in section 117) or the Colorado Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act? (I've been quiet in board meetings, because I don't feel educated enough to counter either side.)

Quote: What she wants is none of her business and she has been repeatedly told that the matter is between the President, Secretary and a specific homeowner. She keeps insisting it is her business, simply because she is a board member at large, even though the issue was resolved many months ago.

Unless this is protected information concerning an employee matter or an issue in active litigation, your irritating board member is entitled to this "business information" --as is every single owner in the association. The board member, however regarded by other board members, is doing what she was elected to do--represent the people who elected her with loyalty and care.

If something is said to be "none of my business" and between the "President, Secretary and another owner", my antenna automatically go to Code Yellow! This kind of secrecy only fuels the fires and the inquiring board member will remain persistent. Something smells here of collusion and coverup. The matter is desired to be resolved but one board member believes otherwise. The optics are bad even if there has been no wrongdoing, and the board is fueling the fire by not providing the information.

No board members can vote to put a gag order on another board member for asking for information that she is entitled to have in furtherance of a fiduciary duty to members.