Mr. and Mrs. Berman:

I have harassed no one.  I have asked the Board of directors ( individually and collectively), Board President Ms. Berman, and the CAM, Terry DaSilva, for information regarding the purchase order given to Valley Crest for Rock replenishment.  And, I have requested copies of all records of the transaction that I am entitled to by law, CC&R’s and by-laws.

These document requests include (1) requests for quotation to each of the three suppliers, (2) copies of quotations (which I have received), (3) copies of all communication between RMI and the three suppliers, (4) copies of the minutes where the P&G and Finance committees approved the expenditure, and (5) all other documents regarding this project/expenditure.

Terry DaSilva has only given to me copies of selected material that she and Board President Berman want me to have. They have not given me all of the information that I, and you (as homeowners) are entitled to have–by law.

Landscaping Company Valley Crest’s price was over two and a half times more them the other two  qualified bidders.  One price was under $29,000, and the other price was under $25,000.  Bruno Panek and others in RMI have tried to explain the wide differences in prices by pointing out the differences in the quantities of rock quoted on.

But, that bid failure would not have happened if the request for quotation had been properly written and distributed.  RMI was guilty of gross mismanagement by not preparing a request for quotation that all bidders understood and were able to bid on.  Good business dictates that kind of process. Bruno Panek in his letter to the P&G Committee states ” I am sure that the two other landscape companies did not go out and inspect every area on the maps provided to them “  How could Mr Panek know that two bidders did not go out and inspect the areas, and that Valley Crest did? (Incidentally there are only four landscape areas involved.)

RMI’s RFQ was flawed.  It was just plain wrong.  The request should have been so clear so that all bidders were clearly bidding on the same thing.  Obviously this was not the case.

The fact that the two low bidders were within 20% of each other and Valley Crest was more then two and a half times more the low bidders should have been a signal to prepare new RFQ documents.  The bids should have been thrown out, and the job re-bid. I  have asked for copies of each of the RFQs that went to the bidders.  I wonder why I cannot get this information?

Dave Berman states that the expenditure for hardscape was budgeted for $121,946 in the reserve fund.  He states that Valley Crest’s price was only $71,706 and that price is under the reserve forecast amount.  What Dave does not say is that the reserve requirement was for seven years.  So, maybe the expenditure should have been limited to $17,944?

While I have not threatened to take my concerns to the Division of Real Estate, I did state that ” I intend to take this matter up with the Ombudsman “, and I have done so.  I did not say that I would take legal action.   However, it might be necessary to do that to protect homeowners funds.

I have not reached out to vendors, filled complaints against them, nor have I threatened them with legal action or filed any complaints against them.  I did contact one vendor on a different matter.  Roz Berman (Board President) wrote to me:  ” You are free to avail yourself of the opportunity to make inquires of (then continued with the name of the company and the phone number).  I did not harass or threaten this vendor.  I wonder how Dave knew about that private letter?

I have also asked to see evidence of the rigorous process, the close reviews, the detailed questions, and the full clarification of  this project by the P&G and Finance Committees.  Saying such business processes have been done do not make it so.  I have asked for this information, and so far, it has been withheld.

At the Board meeting when the expenditure was approved there was no discussion of this project/expenditure.  David says that because I did not attend the P&G and Finance committee meetings (where this expenditure was discussed) I should not be challenging this matter.  Mr. Berman is ridiculous and dead wrong.  The board agenda item and its supporting rationale should stand on its own.  One does not have to attend committee meetings to understand such matters.  And, because something was discussed at a meeting, and agreed, does not mean it was done correctly.  All homeowners have a right to know everything about such a large expenditure.

On another point, readers might like to know that I previously volunteered for the P&G Committee, and I am obligated to continue to try to serve our community.

Since Mr Berman has such complete knowledge of what is happening in SCA perhaps he can tell us exactly how many non-members of the P&G and Finance committees attended the committee meetings where this matter was so thoroughly discussed ? David, can you tell us ?

David Berman also has referred to my age in a highly derogatory way.  I can only say that it appears I have gained more wisdom in my years then he has in his.

In conclusion, I have the right and the obligation to question RMI and the Board of Directors whenever I believe they are wrong.  And, they are obligated by law to provide accurate, timely and respectful responses–even if it requires them to admit they made a mistake.  In the meantime, David Berman has no special rights to condemn, ridicule or denigrate any other member’s honest and sincere behavior.

Sonny Sonnenfeld
Concerned SCA Member
Pinnacle Village