Letter to the Editor: Olson Says McFarland is a Mar Vista Stakeholder, but...

The following letter was sent to Patch by former MVCC Chair Albert Olson in response to that included quotes from a board member about the stakeholder status of Chelsea McFarland.

It is important to clarify a couple of points in your recent article that used as a source an “anonymous” MVCC Board member. It is unfortunately a rather complicated situation.

First of all, there is no dispute at all as to whether or not Chelsea McFarland is a “stakeholder.”  She most definitely is. The bylaws state:

MVCC Stakeholders are defined as individuals who live, work, or own property within the stated boundaries of the MVCC and those who declare a stake in the MVCC and affirm a factual basis for it.

The last part of this definition is very inclusive, and is at least designed to include a person who is involved in the MVCC through any sort of volunteer or community service.

The difficulty arises when you read the MVCC’s bylaws pertaining to the requirements for those wishing to run for a particular board seat. The seat that was in need of being filled was an “At-Large Director” seat.

The bylaws state that the “Community Director” board seat can be filled by any stakeholder, “who lives, works, or owns property within the stated boundaries of the MVCC and those who declare a stake in the MVCC and affirm a factual basis for it.”

In contrast, the bylaws state that the “At-Large Director” board seat must be filled by any stakeholder “who lives, works, or owns property within the stated boundaries of the MVCC.” 

Clearly the change in definition for the two seats is important, and possibly relevant in this case.

Although there is disagreement as to what each of these definitions mean, it is clear that there is a distinction being made (and this is a distinction that is made in most Neighborhood Councils throughout the city) in the two categories of Board seats, based on these definitions.

Ms. McFarland would most definitely meet the requirements for a “Community Director” seat. Unfortunately, that seat was not vacant. Although there is some disagreement as to what the requirements for the “live, work, or own property” definition actually include, it is clear there is a difference, and because of that, it becomes an issue in our particular situation with this vacancy.   

I have had two discussions with Ms. McFarland regarding this, indicating to her the issues, and the difficulties I have with her possible nomination because of this. I have also been clear to state to her that the bylaws mandate that any candidate submitting a candidate statement is entitled to be placed on the list of candidates, and if she wishes to move forward with her candidacy she is entitled to do so.   

I have also indicated to Ms. McFarland that I admire her talents, energy, organizational skills, and expertise in utilization of our current social media. And I have indicated to her that she would be a terrific candidate for the Community Director seat. I also let her know that based on the many positive statements from the leadership of our Green Committee, I would be very happy to nominate her to be the co-chair of our MVCC Green Committee, a position that can be filled by any stakeholder. 

However, if there is a candidate who has come forward who clearly meets the requirement of “lives, works, or owns property within the stated boundaries of the MVCC” and additionally is a remarkably excellent candidate in terms of her qualifications, background, record of community service and public statements, then it would be manifestly unfair to reject that candidate and instead choose a candidate who, although admirable, introduces a plethora of difficulties in terms of the requirements for the seat. 

The board was presented with a stellar candidate, Yvette Molinaro, who would indisputably be an excellent addition to our board. There is no dispute about her. She has taken the huge step of moving into this public forum and has placed her reputation in the hands of the “appointment process” outlined by the MVCC bylaws. Through that process, she was the nominated appointee. 

Board members should not be voting on her approval based on some hope that if they vote no for her a nomination for “their” candidate will soon be forthcoming.  A no vote for such a nominee should only be put forward if there are concerns about the nominee.

And although there are other concerns mentioned by the anonymous board member [], and those concerns definitely play a part in this whole debacle, it is important to note that the real issue here is that a remarkable candidate for the board seat has come forward - Yvette Molinaro -  and has been nominated by me, as the Chair of the MVCC, and she has sadly been rejected, not because of her qualifications or presentation, but because of the manipulations of a board member who is unwilling to let the process work as it should.

There is room for both of these candidates to serve the MVCC community. There is clearly a distinct path for Ms. McFarland to be an important part of the MVCC community. But it does not need to be at the expense of the appointment of Ms. Molinaro to the At-Large seat on the MVCC board.  

I am hopeful that , which is a very sad moment in my life, will assist in moving the nomination of Ms. Molinaro forward, and hopefully also encourage Ms. McFarland to find a way, if she so desires, to become an important part of the future of the MVCC.

Thank You,

Albert Olson