The Termination [Final paragraph only]

The instructions [to the Pralles] were both clear and reasonable as well as within Wiertsema’s authority. Pralles unequivocal statement is that they were not going to abide by these instructions but were going to work at the schedule and only in the areas that they had suggested. They even went as far as to say they would “clean all the joint-use areas if the monetary offer was right.” (See August 12, 2006 letter.) They were already obligated to clean all of these areas, and their intentional refusal to do this was insubordinate. This is concrete evidence of their intent to disregard and not obey a clear, reasonable instruction from their employee, and therefore it is grounds for termination for cause. Further, Pralles submission of a specious timekeeping record would support a further finding of insubordination.

The Board of Director’s action

The Pralles maintain that [t]he action taken by the Board in firing them was procedurally improper because of the motion made and vote cast by Kel Jacobs. Pralles contend that Kel Jacobs was ineligible to be an alternate area representative because he was a community are representative. They cite Article V, section 1 B of the Bylaws of the WIllow Area Community Organization. However, under section 1 C an community organization representative does have voting privileges, even though they cannot be an alternate area representative. Even if Kel Jacob’s vote were not to count, the issued [sic] would have passed 5–2. Therefore, Pralles’ claim that the board acted illegitimately must also fail.

Defendant, as previously ruled, are entitled to summary judgment.