2 ‘town halls’ on Senior Center of West Seattle’s future: As-it-happened coverage of #1, full video of #2

(MIDNIGHT UPDATE: Right after our as-it-happened coverage of meeting #1, we have added the full unedited video of meeting #2)

We’re at the Senior Center of West Seattle with about 100 people here to hear, and talk, about the center’s future. The issue first came to public light four months ago with the sudden ouster of the center’s longtime director Karen Sisson (as first reported here), who says she was fired over an e-mail (read it in this WSB report) expressing concern about the decision the center is reported to be facing – becoming a “program” of the citywide nonprofit Senior Services, or going independent. We’ll be reporting live as the meeting goes; there is a second session coming up at 5:30 pm for those who cannot be here this early.

Regarding the question “should we stay or should we go,” it’s just been stressed by independent facilitator Charlotte Stuart that “no decision will be made today.” She says they do not want those in attendance to speak about Sisson’s departure.

Her successor, interim center director Lyle Evans, is the first to make an opening statement. Second, board president David Robertson says the board has made a decision “to remain at this time under the current umbrella of Senior Services and to work with Senior Services to fulfill (its) mission … The Senior Center board of directors supports Lyle’s position as interim director” and will work with him.


Senior Services CEO Paula Houston (who fired Sisson) speaks next. “We are very excited that the board has voted to remain with us and to work through the process that we are going to be putting in place.” That would seem to suggest that the first-announced point of the meeting is moot – the question “should we stay or should we go?” – although it came just minutes after the facilitator said “no decision would be made today.” Houston then goes on to say “nothing has been decided … we are just at the beginning of our decision-making process.” We’ll do what we can to get this clarified after the meeting.

One attendee asks Houston to define Senior Services and the center’s relationship with it. “We are a nonprofit … the largest one serving seniors in King County … we also operate (programs such as) Meals on Wheels, caregivers … enhanced fitness. Our relationship to this center is that we operate it under a memorandum of agreement – although the center is its own 501(c)(3) with its own governing body, Senior Services employs the staff, (provides some) funding, and (handles support services) such as IT, payroll …”

3:22 PM: The first member of the audience asks for clarification of that very point. Robertson says “That is not a permanent decision, that is a decision that at this time we are going to stay under the umbrella of Senior Services. There is a task force (that will) study the Memorandum of Agreement … to help develop (a new one). At this time we are staying under that umbrella – I am stressing those words, ‘at this time’. We are looking at a good 12 to 18 months before they have even done their research talking to the various centers and their staff.” (Senior Services runs six centers in the region.)

Nancy Sorensen, a member of the West Seattle center’s board, stands to say she wrote the original contract, ~30 years ago, and offers more background: The center was incorporated in 1972, and bought the building – now owned free and clear – in 1986; the center also has about $200,000 in reserves, she says. She explains the board first voted to secede from Senior Services, then rescinded that decision and decided to gather more information, including talking with the community and looking at budget projections and “whether there is community support for independence or community support for being part of Senior Services.” She summarizes, “the board has decided to remain a part of Senior Services pending further study.”

Will another permanent director be hired? asks another attendee. That’s on hold while the future is determined, is the reply.

Next Q: You all know all about this memorandum – but we don’t – can we see it? Sorensen (photo above) explains that the contract included a statement that the center director could not be determined without consulting the board, and mentions Sisson’s firing (which was supposedly not to be mentioned) was done “in violation of that memorandum of agreement.” She says copies of the six-page memorandum “can be provided.”

Then Doug Garvey steps up and says, “if we choose to go with Senior Services instead of stay independent, what are you going to do for me?”


Houston steps up to reply, “We are going to ensure that this senior center remains a senior center in perpetuity. We know how important this center is to the community.” “How are you going to do that?” someone calls out from the crowd. Garvey steps back up to the mike and says, “We own this building … I gotta say, I don’t trust you. I think we can handle it on our own, that we can be independent … we got a good base here, we got a lot of hard work ahead of us, but we have a lot of great people here who can continue this, and I’m all for that.” Some applause ensues.

Facilitator Stuart next reads a question that was submitted in writing, asking for the advantages and disadvantages of staying with Senior Services. …

Houston said she didn’t know exactly how long the center had been under the SS umbrella. “Right about the time the building was purchased in 1984,” Sorensen says. Houston continues: “The benefits of staying with us .. Right now the staff is part of Senior Services, that means the salaries and benefits all come out of Senior Services. HR is one thing an independent center would have to take care of … There are definitely financial issues that come with being an independent center.” She mentions “the benefits of being with a larger organization” and the fundraising efforts that SS does, some of which benefit the center, which otherwise would have to do all its own fundraising. “You get our advertising – a lot of marketing, a lot of community engagement …”

Another member of the panel, Tim Bridges from Senior Services, says that the center went independent once and then returned to Senior Services, so perhaps someone could offer some backstory.

Regarding employees, Sorensen says they’ve “done a budget analysis for the next three years that would enable the same salaries and comparable benefits” as well as pension/IRA contribution. She says the “vast majority” of funds raised comes from this community, and while it does receive services from Senior Services, the center “pays for those services.” She says the MOA has been “redone over the years” with rights “taken away” from the center, and she mentions “an issue of trust” because of Sisson’s termination.

Bridges retorts that SS pays some benefits and that Senior Services is the “third largest funder” of the center, “after rentals and the thrift store.”

Craig Roberts is next to speak from the audience. He was board president in 1984-1986 “when this center was going through turmoil of the recession” before those years. “We pulled together in 1985 and raised over $1 million … to purchase this building .. I know every tear that was shed at every single board meeting (in those years) … the sweat and tears of this community … no one from downtown gave us money … I would love to see this center remain independent.” He says the MOA as 12 months at a time because Senior Services was chosen as a lifeline “with suspicion .. that suspicion has grown (as SS tries to take over) … I urge this board to remain independent. … (SS) does not know what is best for this community.”

Roberts points to the bingo sign donated by his family (seen below in a WSB photo from its 2011 dedication):

“We raise thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars for this center, and we can keep doing that independently … we don’t need Senior Services of King County to tell us what to do. We can do it ourselves.” Applause. “I urge the board to vote for independence … stop the tactics that are going on with Senior Services … we need to remain independent. I believe with our heart of hearts … (that the community can fund the center).”

Can some questions be asked by e-mail? The Senior Services reps say theirs are on the website. (We’ll find that link shortly.)

3:46 PM: Next to speak is community member Susan Harmon, who mentions her community advocacy has involved fundraising. “One of the things about this that concerns me is the ‘top down’ – that’s not how we operate in West Seattle – we are ‘bottom up’ – we want the voice of the people to be heard.” She says the membership should be meeting and making decisions and instructing the board on what *they* want to have done “and that is the way this has to be handled … any other way is not a way that will work for this community or for that matter any other community.”

Speaking next, audience member John Kennedy, who says he is in the financial-services business and “likes to trace the money.” He said he reviewed Senior Services’ financial reports. He said their report says they received $6 million and passed $6 million back to centers. So, he said, can they have a West Seattle-specific report, and can they trace Older Americans funds down to the center? Bridges says the center does not receive federal funds, and that it is a decision consciously made by the center not to receive governmental funds except for some city money. He says the WS center’s budget is “somewhere in the $400,000 range each year so the money we receive specifically for the Senior Center of West Seattle that comes downtown rather than to (the center) is $30,000 from the United Way,” otherwise, he says, the money they spend on the center is “unrestricted funds that we choose to give to” the center.

Next from the audience, Terry, who says he shows movies here twice a week and says he didn’t realize how great it was until he started coming here a few years ago. He brings up Stop ‘n’ Shop downstairs and its fundraising for the center. He says the “face time” provided by the center is healthy and suggests most people here are sending the message “don’t screw that up.” He also suggests “you’re as sick as your secrets” and asks for transparency – saying he can’t find information on when the board meets. “You don’t want people coming, you don’t want a big huge crowd?” He ends by asking for the personal e-mails of everyone at the table at the head of the room.

Community-dining programs run by the center would stay here, even if the center became an SS program, said Evans in response to a written question. Another written question: “Why does (Senior Services) want the West Seattle building?” Houston replies three times, “We do not want your building … Our task force is looking at models to ensure that you retain your assets. We understand that (you) have put (a lot) into making these buildings your own. Whatever model we come up, we are going to make sure you maintain your assets … I can’t say it any clearer.”

What’s it worth? $4 million is the reply, and Sorensen says, “Senior Services says it would not own the building, but it would become part of (some kind of) trust, and be leased back on a longterm basis.” She says the board meets on the second Wednesday of the month, 5:30 pm at the center. And yes, it’s an open meeting, she says.

Next question – why is Senior Services looking for “a new model”? Houston says she answered that in her opening remarks but will answer it again – “some of our major funders” questioned her about the MOA when she came on board about a year ago. (We asked this question in this prior WSB report.) Auditors asked, too, she said.

4:02 PM: Next audience change – would the Hyde Shuttle service change? No, Houston replies. She is next asked how Senior Services came to be, and offers some backstory involving United Way funding. Who is your boss? she is asked next. Senior Services board chair John Norton, a West Seattleite, she replies. (He apparently is not here.) Houston also clarifies that SS is an independent nonprofit, not a government agency.

Next question is addressed to Bridges: Do all six of the centers that SS runs get the same amount of funding? “No, every senior center does not get the same allowance,” he says, mentioning a formula starting “with a minimum of $40,000” and goes from there depending on size and success of a center. “So how much do we get?” asks the attendee, “versus, say, Beacon Hill.” Bridges say he thinks it’s about $128,000 for 2015.

Houston is addressed point-blank, did you step outside the agreement in making a personnel decision (the firing of Sisson)? She says she cannot comment. Next question, from West Seattleite Cindi Barker: Why would the building be put in a trust? Houston says, “That’s just one model, nothing has been decided.” She asks Bridges to reply. “It was just one idea we came up with … if the Memorandum of Agreement were to go away, and the Senior Center of West Seattle as a 501c3 organization would cease to be, the assets, something would have to happen to them … The fear is that Senior Services would swoop in, so (we looked at) ways (not to do that).”

He said the trust would mean they couldn’t take a mortgage out on it or sell it, and a board of trustees would still decide about maintenance of the building but wouldn’t be operating the center. “What that does is, that preserves this spot, a prime location in West Seattle, so that this building … stays a senior center in perpetuity. … That’s just one idea that we’re bouncing around, but it’s one idea that gives the community the most leverage over the building.” He said the idea came up in spring, when Houston “said ‘we may need to get rid of the MOA'” because of what auditors said.

Is the building the major sticking point with the memorandum? asks an attendee. “No,” Bridges says, “(it was that) there is no clear line of authority between the (local) board and the Senior Services board, who … could be totally at odds and it would cause us all sorts of problems with our funders and our insurance, and it’s an unsustainable business practice.”

So why hasn’t it been a problem before? asked an attendee. And is it a problem with all the other centers administered by SS?

Houston says the MOAs with all the centers “is being looked at.” And she says they “got new auditors this year,” precipitating the issue. Did the auditors provide recommendations? she was asked. “(No), other than that we needed to look at a different model.” Bridges adds that the taxes for all the centers are filed “under a group return.” He says the IRS wouldn’t allow this method of operation if it started today, would wonder why separate 501c3s were filing under one return, but that it’s been “grandfathered in” until now.

4:17 PM: One attendee reacts to the earlier mention of the United Way by telling a story about experiences at a corporation years earlier, saying it did not support her co-workers. Bridges says “I share your concerns about United Way.” When he arrived, UW was supporting SS with $1.3 million a year, but that’s down to $500,000 of a $16.5 million budget “and will continue to decline,” and about $30,000 of that goes to the West Seattle center.

He’s asked about city funding. About $88,000 a year for the West Seattle center (not included in the money that comes from Senior Services), according to Bridges, but a lot of it is “passthrough federal money” – the city “signs the check,” but the money originates with the feds. Responding to another question, he reiterated that this center “is unique” in not getting much governmental money. How much does SS get for administration? 17 percent of the expenses of each program, Bridges replies. The attendee clarifies, of, for example, $500,000 from United Way, how much does SS take for administration? He says they don’t take it off the top, but rather charge it “on the expenses going out.” The attendee then says it sounds like being a “managing agent” of a condominium, as much as anything.

Next question: Why doesn’t the board take government money? Sorensen says, “The board hasn’t taken any steps toward not accepting government money. … Quite a number of the services, programs provided here are paid for by government grants of one sort or another … they’re marked for (those services), and those would continue regardless. The center here has been successful in the support from the community in terms of growing itself and providing other services beyond what government services have been, so 83 percent of the budget (here) is locally raised in one way or another, whether through facility rentals, donations, other sources.” She reiterated that the building is owned free and clear, “to have this with no debt on it is a huge accomplishment.” She said the total budget for the center is about $650,000 a year (different from the number Bridges mentioned), “from all sorts of sources … there has been no effort in avoiding obtaining money from any source that’s available.”

Karen Sisson’s husband Doug Sisson speaks next. “Senior Services gives this money to the center but hasn’t mentioned that they charge the center $100,000 a year to be part of their organization” and says that the center would be able to apply for more than it can apply for now, because it wouldn’t have conflicts with other centers.

Moderator Stuart is now wrapping up. Sorensen says people could see the 3-year budget projections worked out for the center if it chose to go independent. One person says, “Why do you care if West Seattle opts out?” Houston replies, “We believe that all the senior centers are an important part of our organization and our network. We want to have a presence in West Seattle … and all the parts of the county where our services are. But if this community decides that Senior Services is not an optimal organization to be part of, we are going to continue the services in this community … community dining, enhanced fitness, Meals on Wheels, Hyde Shuttle, it’s going to stay.”

If you have questions and/or want to hear this information firsthand, there is another version of this meeting at 5:30 pm, upstairs at the Senior Center. Meantime, you can send questions/comments to interim director Evans at lylee@seniorservices.org.

–Tracy Record, WSB editor

*************

ADDED MIDNIGHT TUESDAY NIGHT: To cover the second meeting, we recorded it on video in its entirety:

A few toplines from WSB co-publisher Patrick Sand:

*Smaller turnout, about 30 people

*Some questions about how people get onto the West Seattle center’s board. Its president Dave Robertson said people apply, and then the sitting board votes on who to accept. It was suggested that the board should have someone from the general Senior Center membership; another attendee said it worked that way, once. Robertson said the board would be open to that type of change.

*Issues of trust emerged again, with the contention that Karen Sisson’s firing was at the heart of the lack of trust in Senior Services.

*Toward the end of the meeting, there was a direct question about the board’s position on staying or going. Robertson said that right now, the majority of the board wants “more information.” He acknowledged that the board is split right now between wanting to await that information from Senior Services’ task force, and wanting to secede. A majority vote eventually will decide. Robertson said board members had many discussions, including closed-door meetings, about it, and while they’re staying with Senior Services right now, that doesn’t mean they might not eventually decide to go their own way.

(Again, the board’s next meeting is Wednesday at 5:30 pm, and it was confirmed in the first meeting that it’s an open, public meeting, all welcome.)

31 Replies to "2 'town halls' on Senior Center of West Seattle's future: As-it-happened coverage of #1, full video of #2"

  • Joe Szilagyi November 11, 2014 (4:53 pm)

    Bridges says the center does not receive federal funds, and that it is a decision consciously made by the center not to receive governmental funds except for some city money.
    .
    Sorry, why is this?

  • raisinghand November 11, 2014 (5:39 pm)

    i was in the thrift shop a few days ago. made a donation to help WS separate. now, i do not use WS Senior Center – yet – but everybody i seems to want them to separate. some folks at the thrift shop, according to what they told me, believed they would be voting as a group today to stay or go. they all wanted to declare independence.

    why weren’t they told a new agreement was reached beforehand? I am baffled. and irritated that people are not being clearer and consistent with messages to the people who count. i think i am going to have to stop reading these senior center stories.

    • WSB November 11, 2014 (5:47 pm)

      RH, as noted later in the narrative, it appears they voted to secede, then rescinded that, deciding to stay for now, with a final decision maybe some months down the line, and that is what they’re seeking input for. No one had ever represented to us that a decision would be made tonight, just that they wanted to hear the community’s thoughts – TR

  • coffee November 11, 2014 (5:46 pm)

    I wish West Seattleites would get off of the Karen firing bandwagon and really focus on the actual well being of the center. Face it, there will be no results of her firing, that is protected by HR laws. Focus on the center and what can be good for our community. If the center pulls away I sure hope that there are some deep pockets because I can’t even think how much payroll and benefits alone will cost. Membership at what 20.00 a year surely can’t cover all of those expenses.

  • Raisinghand November 11, 2014 (6:26 pm)

    The ladies in the thrift store are the people who matter. They were confused and spreading bad info.

  • Joanne Brayden November 11, 2014 (7:28 pm)

    I am glad that there was a good crowd for this meeting.. and equally glad that crowd asked some good questions.
    .
    I have one… if the senior center was independent, could it contract with Senior Services as it does now for specific services it could not provide locally?

  • I. Ponder November 11, 2014 (7:38 pm)

    I do not use the center except for shopping at the thrift store. Here’s my take on this, based on the article.

    It’s been established that Sisson’s firing was “in violation of that memorandum of agreement.”

    How is this being reconciled? What recourse does the board have beyond secession? What recourse have they sought and what happened?

    Senior Services CEO Paula Houston is playing games because she believes she can get away with it. She has shown she is not to be trusted.

  • judydcash November 11, 2014 (9:00 pm)

    I went to the first meeting, learned a lot that I didn’t know about the Senior Center. For example, @coffee, I heard that more than 80% of the Center’s funding is from private sources, NOT the Sr Services agency. @Joanne Brayden: yes, Sr Services said they would contract their services to an independent WS Sr Ctr. They didn’t say for how much (if there is more to pay if not directly part of their system?)

    Something to note: one of the WS Sr Ctr Board members says they have numbers/graphs for a proposed budget sans Sr Services for the next 3 years- perhaps they will have copies at tomorrow night’s Board meeting at the Center(Wed 11/12, 5:30 pm, Calif & Oregon)? Does it include a Development planner? That Board meeting is open to the public.

    This decision affects West Seattle for future generations, since the Center owns the building and land. The Center is a great Community gathering places for active seniors- as close, affordable, varied and fun as it gets!

  • Pibal November 11, 2014 (9:25 pm)

    So many questions to ask of SS and ourselves…
    1. Is the auditor’s report available? Have the issues identified in the recent auditor’s report been identified in previous auditor reports? If not, why are they being identified now? If so, why are they only being made an issue now?
    2. What process and who decides if a violation of the MOA has occurred? What are the enforcement and accountability provisions?
    3. Government funds are supposedly not accepted, yet “most” of the $88 K in city funds is pass through federal money. Please explain the disparity.
    4. Why does West Seattle only receive $30 K of the $500 K United Way funding?
    5. A decision to secede was rescinded. Why? Was an emotional reaction part of the secession decision?
    6. What criteria and weighting system have been established to reach a decision on whether to remain or separate? Why will it take 12-18 months to reach a decision?
    7. How important is trust to the West Seattle community and the local Center? What effect will a perceived lack of trust have on local fundraising?
    8. Does the board believe they have the right people and right skill sets? Does the community believe that as well?

    For me, the current state leaves me tremendously wanting. If the decision is made to go independent, I couldn’t write a supporting check fast enough. One person’s opinion…

  • Mike November 11, 2014 (9:59 pm)

    I’m curious about this auditor’s statement/report/advice. Has anyone actually seen it? It would be nice to have a copy online. The fact that an auditor mentions or questions something is not evidence that that something is wrong or requires radical action.

  • Diane November 11, 2014 (10:06 pm)

    so glad I was able to go to 1st meeting; absolute wealth of information, much as result of questions from members, and comments from longtime members; and I stayed for 2nd meeting; well worth it; even more revealed with questions/comments from members

  • Suzanne Duffy-Kane November 11, 2014 (10:07 pm)

    So where is the recap of the 2nd session of today’s Town Hall meeting? I attended both and the tenor of each was quite different—fewer attendees, a panel that appeared to have edited their ‘rough draft’ responses from the 3 pm session. XO

    • WSB November 12, 2014 (12:38 am)

      Takes a while to process video and it’s been a long day. I could not stay to repeat the as-it-happened chronicling for meeting number two, but my co-publisher Patrick Sand went back and recorded #2 on video, which has now been added at the end of the story above, along with a few notes from him.

  • Jan Jarrell November 12, 2014 (7:48 am)

    Well, @IPonder, given the gag order put on the meeting yesterday forbidding discussion of Karen’s completely arbitrary and totally wrong dismissal after a quarter century of devoted service and the rescinded decision to break from SS so they could devote the next 18 mos to studying the situation, (read: completely sweep it under the rug) I’d have to say that she HAS gotten away with it.

  • JoB November 12, 2014 (8:02 am)

    i agree with Jan that she has gotten away with it
    what i want to know is why

  • Kara J November 12, 2014 (8:48 am)

    Being a fairly new West Seattle resident and not having the background of living here for a long period of time, I found the meeting well conducted by the facilitator and a wealth of information from both the audience and forum, especially Nancy Sorenson/attorney who stated she has had some 30 years involvement with the WS Senior Center.

    “Pibal” makes some excellent points – especially #2.
    Seems to me this issue needs to be addressed and resolved. If there was a violation of the MOA with Karen Sisson’s abrupt firing, then do we not need to know BEFORE moving on. It was a non-talking point last night yet seems to be a topic on many minds.

    If legal action is being considered, how would the outcome affect SS??

    MORE!!! informational meetings.

  • coffee November 12, 2014 (9:09 am)

    Jan You are completely out of line making that statement. You clearly do not understand HR laws and issues. They cannot be discussed, period. Nobody knows what the real issue for the termination was. We do not know if there was other issues, and this “email issue” was the straw that broke the camels back. And you also clearly do not understand that everyone on the board has a full time job, so studying the implications of removing from Senior Services is and has to be done with a very through process. There are laws, rules, financials, programs, personal, etc. to all be looked at. Surely you understand that the payroll alone is a huge volume and needs to be studied to make sure that the center can actually support that alone. As a president of a non profit board, I know for a fact that there are many things that have to be looked at. Its not as simple as everyone thinks it is. Nobody has gotten away with anything. I have followed this closely, and emailed board members, and asking questions and received answers.
    So far, it appears that the law is being followed, the board is doing due diligence to make sure that the actual center can support the community with the same level of service without Senior Services assistance.
    It is a reasonable statement to request that people stop the Karen, Senior Services, and board finger pointing. All of the board members are doing this with no pay, and on their personal time. This is a business decision, which doesn’t happen quickly.

  • iggy November 12, 2014 (9:26 am)

    Good comments, coffee.
    Throughout this entire situation, I keep thinking that this needs to be about Senior Services, not about Karen.
    I have always been a fan and supporter of the West Seattle Senior Center. However, I think it would be a mistake to separate from SS solely to keep Karen as Exec. Director. Karen will not be there forever. Some day she will retire. Then what?
    History has shown over and over in public and private sphere that it is a mistake to rely on one person with no succession plan. I’m sure the board is considering whether the West Seattle Senior Center could be self-supporting without Karen, amazing as she is.

  • Seattle Senior November 12, 2014 (1:27 pm)

    @Coffee, telling Jan she was out of line was, out of line. A very Oppression 101 comment. Her point was about trust being broken by Senior Services and the obvious lip service and drawn out timeline to drown the community voices. Very valid points. Your HR points are old news.

    – The reason emotions are running high is because community members feel they are being wronged and feel more herded than heard. They deserve to be heard, it is THEIR Senior Center. THEY are the clients.

    – Your bias and the way you phrase things sounds like someone with a desk at Senior Services and not a concerned citizen. Coincidence? Either way please read the Senior Services Mission, Vision and Cultural Competence Statement again, it can be found at: http://seniorservices.org/WhoWeAre.aspx

  • coffee November 12, 2014 (2:05 pm)

    Seattle Senior, I am not working for Senior Services, nor working at the Center. I am however a donor to the Senior Center. I have however followed closely. I would also like to point out that Jan STILL brings up the HR points. I also would like to point out that the continued pointing at Senior Services is not listening to their side. Her comments are one sided as she is clearly saying that the only way is to separate from Senior Services. There is a lot more to this story, I am sure of that, and I do not know the full side of the story, but its clear that everyone seems to think Senior Services is some evil group.

  • Seattle Senior November 12, 2014 (2:20 pm)

    Great job West Seattle Blog on such thorough coverage and to the West Seattle community for being so involved.

    – I no longer live in West Seattle but how this situation is developing as an important indicator of the direction and attitude that Senior Services will be taking across the city and across all of its programs. It is also an important story outside of West Seattle.

    – The Senior Services CEO used this format to make the West Seattle Community feel like you were heard so that you’d stop asking all those pesky questions. Some people seem surprised that you actually want answers to your questions and concerns. Your genuine concern was answered with lip service and condescension.

    – – Ms. Houston actually told you to your faces last night that her and her board weren’t going to include you or any other senior center representation in the “task force” (go to exactly the 1:00 hour point in the video). You will need to make your voices heard in a way that circumvents her arrogance.

    – My suggestions for my brothers and sisters in West Seattle as a next step:

    1. Meet to draft a document of your concerns and priorities and give the document directly to the Boards. Both the Senior Services Board and the West Seattle Senior Center Board. Of course ** a copy to the West Seattle Blog and other purveyors of truth. **
    2. When you draft this meet as a community without the board, interim director, senior services representative or anyone else there who will quiet your voices and edit your concerns.
    3. Format your list in a way that requires each candid and concise point to be answered.
    4. Demand answers and give a clear timeline for a response.
    5. Demand a voice in this new “arrangement” that apparently will take 12 – 18 months for the “task force” to research options for. They can’t research options if they don’t even know the concerns of their clients.
    6. Demand an audience and response from the decision makers, the Senior Services Board and Senior Services CEO. Not even one representative from the Senior Services Board showed up last night including those on the “task force”. You don’t even have their contact information.
    7. Include an ask for what Senior Services specific plan is to rebuild the trust that was lost.
    8. Coordinate with the other Senior Centers and their communities and figure out a way to get your collective voice heard loudly!! When the time comes after you clarify your concerns it will be time to protest, blog and write in a very public way. Organize and demand to be heard.

    – *** Don’t wait for the “task force” to seek you out. The CEO and her partners next to her in this meeting comprise the “task force” along with a couple of Senior Services Board members. Do you trust them? If so, tell us why?

    You could also just sit back and see how this plays out. Your choice.

  • Seattle Senior November 12, 2014 (2:35 pm)

    Coffee, you make some very good points.
    – It does sound a lot like demonizing of the folks at Senior Services and that is unfortunate because SS does such amazing work for the people of Seattle. Thanks for pointing that out.

    – I also don’t think it is wise to separate from Senior Services but I do think that the Senior Center should have a say in its governance and future. Ms. Houston needs to rebuild trust by genuinely listening and responding. The lack of transparency and the absolute isolation of the SS Board (no contact possibility at all) is very concerning. They keep saying all the contact information is on the website. There is no way identified to contact any board member or group.

  • alice November 13, 2014 (7:49 am)

    Thank you, coffee for being the voice of reason on ALL of your points! As an attendee of the first Town Hall Meeting, I found Nancy Sorenson’s behavior appalling. Not only did she monopolize the mic, she made statements about the future business model of the Center when that has not been decided yet. As stated by Senior Services, a task force has just been formed and met only once, to date. This task force will explore possible models, confer with the senior centers and the communities to see which option will be best. This process of exploration will take 12 – 18 months. As if misguiding the audience wasn’t enough, Nancy Sorenson chose to defy the rules of the meeting by repeatedly mentioning Karen Sisson and her termination. Apparently attorneys don’t feel they need to play by the rules like the rest of us. Clearly, the SCWS Board has a big job ahead of them in evaluating the pro’s and con’s of the proposed model when presented to them by Senior Services. I, for one, appreciate the efforts of the SCWS Board and believe that it is made up of smart, thoughtful people who put the interests of WS seniors first. On the other hand, it is clear that Nancy Sorenson has another agenda – to promote herself and move Karen Sisson back into power.

  • soundslike November 13, 2014 (12:34 pm)

    it sounds like some people are taking sides because they are closely affiliated with some board members. coffee? you aren’t affilliated with somebody on the board somehow? as in work? family? you sound just as biased and pigheaded as others.

    the city had a closely controlled meeting format. Classic, actually. Discussion topics were CONTROLLED!

    that is the CITY setting the agenda for the WSSC members. And is that not contrary to the purpose of the meeting’s intent? Input is only allowed in as much as the city determines. Stinky strategy. Agenda’s are to be respected. It was not set up fairly. Even with the mediator present, but the people who wanted the meeting DID NOT GET TO CONTROL THE AGENDA with the topics allowed. That’s a power play people. Learn.

    I would not be so quick to insult the attorney, alice. she had the nerve to be contrary to the city’s mandate by interjecting and offering possibility NOT ALLOWED IN DISCUSSION?????.

    People with issues around “authority” generally castigate those who are professionally trained. Don’t put down attorneys because it might very well be the profession which saves the senior center at the end of the day. Mark my words.

    This is municipal politics. Try to buck up.

    • WSB November 13, 2014 (12:54 pm)

      Correction: Senior Services **is not part of the city**. It is a freestanding nonprofit. The Senior Center is not part of the city, either. Nobody involved in the Tuesday meetings was there on behalf of the city. Some city funding is involved with operations, but that is the case for many if not most Seattle nonprofits. – TR

  • soundslike November 13, 2014 (6:32 pm)

    Wow. I was off base. I thought it city – for years. However, let’s face it. The “community forums” controlling tactics used are the same as city’s “public feedback” forums from my observation.

    The point remains. An attorney may very well make the difference in the end. Some attorney somewhere will either write them out of the MOA or rewrite another because they are compelled to. The difference is which legal advisor will do it. How any of that relates to the firing element is just going to remain a sore spot forever and a day.

    I suppose I could be wrong about that too. But maybe not. People will probably forget in 12 months and it will just get rewritten. I think I will likely forget it. I kind of hope so. ;)

  • HANK November 14, 2014 (6:51 pm)

    I’m fairly impressed. I have to admit a great job was done controlling the direction of the discussion. The people attending were told what they couldn’t discuss, including the actions of Paula and the topics of discussion. The topics of discussion were predetermined. One person, I think his name was Doug pointed out the omissions of Senior Services Downtown regarding the financial status of one Senior Center. Nobody cared. How’s that honesty thing working out? Why didn’t Senior Services say the other center was already operating at a loss? The attendees were told the board of directors in West Seattle would lose their power and become advisors to Senior Services. Nobody cared. The attendees were told the board of directors would draw out the realignment plan for 12 to 18 months. Nobody cared. The attendees were told the board of directors did not go through an election process… it was a nomination process. Nobody cared. The attendees were told a review was being conducted and no decision had been made.
    Here are the facts as I see them:
    1. The decision has been made. West Seattle Senior Center board of directors will become an advisory board of Senior Services downtown.
    2. People will lose interest soon. The “review board” WILL draw out the process for 18 months.The approach reminds me of what I have heard parent’s tell their kids. “I’ll think about it.”
    3. West Seattle contributions will be put in the “general fund”.

    West Seattle seems to have something Senior Services wants. As G.W. said- “Mission Accomplished!”

  • Elise November 15, 2014 (12:45 pm)

    Oh dear. I did not realize Paula Houston was – the Paula Houston. I knew of her years ago while working for the county – she IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

  • john kennedy November 16, 2014 (11:54 am)

    Who owns senior services?

Sorry, comment time is over.