Keep the Spirit of \"OurPark\" Alive

Signatures 67 total

Page: 1, 2

1. 1
   Name: Alison McDowell on Mar 13, 2005

   Comments: I started this petition, because I feel strongly that OurPark should be a community initiative that welcomes input from those who care about this park and will work to make it a reality.

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: Niel McDowell on Mar 19, 2005

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Edwina Zujewskyj on Mar 20, 2005

   Comments: The remarkable turnout at today's (3/20) Egg Scramble indicates ever-growing support for the use and improvement of the park. Involvement in the planning of the park should certainly not be limited to an unchanging group of five.

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Susan Burrows on Mar 21, 2005

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Kate McDowell on Mar 21, 2005

   Comments: I like the idea of having a bigger group.

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Charles Duncan on Mar 22, 2005

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Cheryle Little on Mar 22, 2005

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Kenneth Carpel on Mar 22, 2005

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Elsie Stern on Mar 22, 2005

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Stephen Verner on Mar 22, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Angelina Schalk on Mar 22, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Kiernan Slater on Mar 22, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: Joe Walsh on Mar 22, 2005

    Comments: We need to keep this process transparent. More involvement not less is the answer.

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Kim Walsh on Mar 22, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: Thomas Potterfield on Mar 22, 2005

    Comments: Although I have not participated in FESPP, I am a neighbor of Eastern State Penitentiary, and I am signing in support of Alison McDowell, whom I know as a conscientious advocate for the good of the neigborhood and the community. I fully support the petition.

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: Judith Mester on Mar 22, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Fran Snyder on Mar 22, 2005

    Comments: Board should have rotating membership with limited 1, 2 and 3 year terms.

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Catharine Slusar on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments: I am surprised by the changes. I'd like to know their intention. On the surface they do seem to consolidate power and control over the park to very few hands.

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Carolina Lobo on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: Tom Kehoe on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Loretta Borko on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Mark Brakeman on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Ralph Clapp on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Jane Pap on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Beth O'Donnell on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Andy Campbell on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments: This unilateral move by the board to consolidate their power and make their removal all but impossible is inexcusable. I gladly join with you to make sure OurPark remains our park.

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Vincent Mazzola on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments: Actions taken on March 15 sound undemocratic and sleazy to me!

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Jennifer Horn on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments: The possibility of "lifetime appointments" of select board members are NOT in the best interest of our community - especially when such construct was enacted without appropriate discussion & apparantly voted on only by those who would benefit from such appointment.

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Nicole Geltzer on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: Vivian Figueredo on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: NANCY FELD on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Kelly Trimble on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Thomas Kelly on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Barbara Epstein on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments: Please be an inclusive board and return your by-laws to their original state.

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Michelle Ashley on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Janice Pfeiffer on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Patrick Kavanagh on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: Marcie Lichtman on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: Frank Paiva on Mar 23, 2005

    Comments: Having worked with many nonprofits over the last 15 years as legal counsel or as a board member, I find both amendments troubling and counter to good governance. Regular Board turnover not only keeps the org vibrant but dispells any self-dealing assumptions. Limiting the number of board members to only 5 is unhealthy to the exchange of ideas and failure to be inclusive will alienate potential donors. These amendments should be reconsidered. Good luck. Concerned neighbor.

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Tina Rocha on Mar 24, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: Jean Knight on Mar 24, 2005

    Comments: I hope the playground gets finished in time for it to be of use to my kids ages 4 and 6. A high level of community participation will be necessary for this to happen.

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: Victoria Dougherty on Mar 24, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Jessica Widing on Mar 24, 2005

    Comments: Even Ivy League colleges are smart enought to get rid of tenure - there is no place for this in Our Park

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Chris Sweeney on Mar 24, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: Kevin Compher on Mar 25, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Brandi Howard on Mar 25, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: Helen Booth on Mar 25, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: Beth Darrow on Mar 25, 2005

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Edward Mendes on Mar 25, 2005

    Comments: I am disappointed such organizational changes were made without input...it not only hurts the image leadership, but creates a dangerous precedent.

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Harry Faunce on Mar 27, 2005

    Comments: if FESPP claims that it is a group of inclusion - reducing the board size and adding a permanent board position - does nothing to show that.

    Flag

Page: 1, 2