Trumpets Group Leader Reveals Truth

April 8, 2008 by THE VOICE.

Kathy Matson has released the following email to all SCA residents this evening. As one of the leaders of the Trumpets Working Group (primarily managed by Patti Shock, Jose Madrid, David Berman, Bob Sansing and Board President Mike Dixon) Kathy’s heartfelt report to current board members and board candidates may be critical to our future lifestyle.

In this report Kathy Matson illustrates why “cooperation–not confrontation” is not the best style to use when dealing with major SCA business issues.  SCA members must always press for openness and truth. We can not afford to accept anything less.

Many of you may not know Kathy. She has lived in SCA for just a few years. She is a retired senior manager from the Las Vegas Division of the Internal Revenue Service, and she exhibits strong moral values and ethics.

Kathy is also a co-president of the SCA Women’s Club and she knows how important it is for this community to find the right company to operate our restaurant and catering facilities.

“ From: “Kathleen Matson” <kdmatson@cox.net>

To: “Michael Dixon” <mikedixon70@earthlink.net> ; <nelsonorth@cox.net> ;<laniex@cox.net> ; <rozberman@cox.net> ; <rrberman@cox.net> ; “Rana Goodman” <rana0527@aol.com> ; “Bella Meese” <bellameese@embarqmail.com> ; <kaycd@cox.net> ; “Robert Frank” <bobfrank@cox.net>;<SBCheri@aol.com> ; <rcooper2@cox.net> ; <barrandmare@yahoo.com> ; <hr1955@aol.com>
Cc: “Kathleen Matson” <kdmatson@cox.net>; “Joe Madrid” <marjam@cox.net>

Subject: Fwd: Input on Restaurant Working Group

Date: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 8:23 PM

This is to the Current Board Members and all Candidates for the Board

After the restaurant working group meeting on Monday last, I was talking to three of the Board members about, among other things, being vocal and contentious. Some said that if you state your opinion and the rest of the group does not agree then you should support the group and quit being contentious.

I have been thinking a lot about this and recalling that I did just that when I voted against retaining Patty Shock on the Working Group when she volunteered to leave due to a conflict of interest. The group decided to keep her and while I did not agree I was in the minority and I quit saying anything about it and went along with the majority.

As people in the community began to tell me that Patty was more closely involved with LuvRules that she indicated I did not pay much attention, after all the Group had voted to keep her and I was a team player. The rumors began to get louder and more contentious, yet we continued with Patty as Chair and did nothing, despite the growing clamor that she was “in bed” with LuvRules and “the fix is in on this”.

It was not until a resident showed me the proof that the man behind LuvRules was living in Patty’s house that I pulled my head out of the sand and really looked at the issues. I began to think about some of the decisions that were spearheaded by Patty and some of the things she said. After one of the top four dropped out I emailed her to ask if we were going to bring the #5 contender into the mix. She discarded my idea and said that there was too big of a gap between four and five, even though we had talked about (but not voted on) the plan to bring up the next contender if one dropped out.

Patty sat in our review committee meetings and repeatedly stressed how much money LuvRules had to spend on this place. This was reiterated by the member of the committee who accompanied LuvRules on their tour. It was not until I found out about Patty’s relationship with David Moore, CEO (his title) of LuvRules, that I went to the Group and, through our Yahoo web page, expressed my concerns and again asked Patty to step down.

This came to pass, but the damage was already done. When we got to the financial phase of the process we discovered that LuvRules did not have any money, and they never did have any money to finance their proposal. They out and out lied to the committee and Patty was part of the lie. Her actions, or lack of action, prevented other contenders the opportunity to make a legitimate bid on the restaurant.

My regret in this was that I was not more vocal and perhaps contentious and forced the issue of Patty’s conflict when it was first brought out. Maybe we would have gotten to the truth at the earliest stages of the process and the group would have gone in an entirely different direction.

Contention has it’s place and unfortunately is sometimes the only way change is brought about. I think everyone remembers, or they should, that if there was not contention (great contention) we would still have Trumpets. We were on the verge of signing a new lease and if there was not such contention around the issue it would have happened.

The end result of this is that I believe the Restaurant Group process has been irrevocably tainted and flawed. I hate to say this but I think it should be started over with better controls over to who the request for bid is sent. Patty controlled at least part of that process and I do not know exactly what she did to inform potential bidders.

Someone else (RMI?) should control and monitor the process. I know the space has sat vacant since September 2007 and I realize the desire and need to fill it but I do not know if we have the right candidate(s). One thing I do know is that the process was skewed and the results tainted and I think that it is simply not right.

How I wish I had been more contentious, and I greatly respect those in the community who are, right or wrong, they make us think and look at all sides of issues.

You may share this with anyone or do whatever you want. I felt I had to point out to the Board and the Board Candidates the serious problems I see with what happened.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Matson
Trumpets Working Group Co-Chair

kdmatson@cox.net
cc: Joe Madrid - Working Group Co-Chair

Kathleen Matson“

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | 3 Comments »