NOMA not Representative, Prop A Supporters Charge

By Jorge Casuso

March 5 -- More than two dozen homeowners who support Prop A descended on a meeting of the North of Montana Neighborhood Association this week charging that the group had violated its bylaws and did not represent the interests of the vast majority of the neighborhood's residents.

The protesters who attended the Monday night showdown at the Montana branch library accused the group of betraying its constituents by opposing a ballot initiative that requires an owner's approval before a home can be designated as a landmark or included in a historic district.

"We're very disappointed that NOMA came out in opposition to something that has the overwhelming support of the majority of the neighborhood," said Greg Poirier, a leader of the homeowner movement behind the initiative, which is the subject of an ongoing mail election that ends March 21.

"You betrayed the people who live north of Montana," Poirier told the group's board. "The credibility of the organization north of Montana is gone."

Proponents of the ballot initiative that qualified for a special election with the signatures of nearly 11,000 voters contend that NOMA based its position on a vote by its self-selected board, which includes two Landmarks Commissioners and a member of a conservancy that opposes the measure.

They contend the process violates the group's bylaws and quoted NOMA's Web site, which states it "has no agenda of issues or established positions on any issue, except as defined by a majority of residents in the area.

"The active participation of all residents is strongly encouraged so that all points of view can be presented and a true majority position can be established on all issues," the Web site states.

Proponents of Prop A contend that the group did not seek the opinion of area residents before taking a position and did not hold a public forum to discuss the issue. "This is definitely not happening," Poirier said.

NOMA leader Doris Sosin, who helped start the organization six years ago, said the group -- which has 250 paid members -- was formed to address quality of life issues facing the neighborhood.

"We care about quality of life issues in the neighborhood," Sosin said after the meeting. "All we've dealt with is quality of life issues. We felt we really had to take a stance on something we felt would be detrimental to our neighborhood."

Sosin said NOMA had hoped to hold a public forum on the issue, but that its plans were dashed when the group couldn't get City officials who could help explain the initiative to attend.

"We wanted to have City people," Sosin said. "We didn't have all the answers."

Sosin said she "can't remember who elects the (NOMA) board."

Asked why the group did no outreach to solicit neighborhood opinion on the issue, Sosin said: "I don't know."

Sosin said that the landmarks issue was not mentioned as a top concern in a neighborhood survey conducted by the group last year.

On Monday night, board members also noted that their meetings are public and that they have been attended by proponents of Prop A.

Sosin noted that the letter sent to area residents informing them of NOMA's position on the initiative clearly stated that it was a position taken by the board, not the members.

But proponents of Prop A countered that the board's position had been reiterated in campaign propaganda issued by opponents of the measure without making it clear that it was the position of the board.

Board member Sheila Wells apologized for the way the group's position was portrayed.

"In hindsight I'm disappointed that a disclaimer was not put more clearly that it was the board that discussed it," Wells said at the meeting. "In my heart of hearts, I think maybe you may be right. The majority of people" may support Prop A.

Poirier said homeowners might consider starting a new neighborhood group.