My replies to 3 previous questions to me are as follows:

I. Norman McCullough Questions:

Would you vote to stop the Current Board Policy of conducting a Kangaroo Court Hearing (as defined by Wikipedia) that denies any resident the following rights.

1. ) The right to face his accuser in open meeting.
2. ) The right to cross-examine his accuser (or leave it to his/her attorney).
3. ) The right to obtain the information who voted to acquit, and who voted to convict.
4. ) The right to obtain a DETAILED accounting of the money assessed EVEN IF IT WENT TO JOHN LEACH.
5. ) The right to be judged by an impartial body ESPECIALLY if any person has been the subject of any previous NRED complaints by the accused.
6. ) If wrongfully accused of violating a non-existent Code of Conduct, the right to have that person recused from participating in the deliberations ESPECIALLY if asked to do so by an attorney.

My Responses to Norman:  Yes, I would vigorously oppose the kinds of board, attorney and community manager misconduct you have listed. In addition, because of my prior SCA Director experience, I know how to initiate action to accomplish more than to just verbally object and/or be a minority vote against such a series of management failures.

In my opinion, it should have been clear to everyone attending the hearing that (a) you were wrongly charged, of (b) violating a non-existent rule, (c) by a person with no standing under our governing documents (RMI manager not being an SCA unit owner), and (d) convicted in secret of violating a different rule than previously charged during the hearing. Worse still, you were arbitrarily denied access to SCA facilities for 6 months and required to pay hundreds of dollars to reimburse the board’s attorney fees.

Since the board’s attorney was responsible for drawing up the bogus charges, the law firm’s invoice for that task should have been rejected by the board, and the attorney should have been blocked from performing any more work for the SCA Board.

Considering the multi-year disputes between you and Mr. Troia over the many villas reserve funds management errors, the other directors should have voted to require the Board President to recuse himself from the voting. The board and the community owes you a deep apology for such misbehavior, and I trust the next board will heal this unjustified wound to our lifestyle. Honorable people should work together to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again in our community.

II. Dick Arendt Questions:

Would you merely retain John Leach as our association attorney, or would you interview other candidates for the position of association attorney?  If so, why, if not, why not.

In a related question, when requests are made to RMI in order to examine legal fees paid by SCA, only totals are disclosed. Details are always blacked out. I can understand privacy issues blacking out names of residents which are involved, but other than that, I have never understood why we are not provided a detailed summary of what those bills encompass.

My Responses to Dick:  We MUST make a change in law firms.  In my opinion, based on 2007-2008 board experience, the single greatest cause of unresolved disputes and open hostility between SCA homeowners and the board is what I have seen to be extraordinarily bad advice and product from the board’s law firm. And, the attorney’s involvement in helping to author the notorious Senate Bill 174 (and others just beginning to surface) is just another example of his anti-homeowner behavior during the past decades.

I believe the board’s law firm is not competent and has irreconcilable conflicts of interest with the SCA developers, other companies, CAI and numerous politicians. I believe the results show the law firm does not favor SCA member interests over any other interests.

It appears to me that not a single negotiation handled by the board’s law firm in the past decade has been settled to SCA member’s benefits. NOT ONE! As a result, SCA members have lost millions, and the law firm has profited hundreds of thousands of dollars. The seemingly abysmal results by the board’s attorneys during the past decade provide compelling evidence that a change MUST be made to a firm that can be relied upon to win disputes on behalf of our homeowners.

Redacting Attorney Invoices? In my opinion, there is no reasonable justification to redact (black out) more than a unit owner’s name and other personal identification data. The statutes do not specifically prohibit the board from doing it, but it is clear that the only one benefiting from such secrecy are the attorneys. So, such actions should be terminated by the new board. In addition, I would advocate that the personal privacy data be replaced by a case number in law firm invoices so that no redaction could be justified.

In addition, I consider it outrageous that the SCA boards have been doing business with its law firm without requiring a contract or engagement letter containing terms and conditions. How could a board ever find its law firm failing in any capacity if there are zero terms and conditions to protect the association? That seems comparable to writing a blank check to the law firm on a monthly basis. It should not be accepted in the future.

III. Forrest Fetherolf Questions:

To date, more than a year later, the current BOD has not required RMI to implement the approved ad hoc purchasing and contracting group guidelines.  What would you do now as a Board member to correct this issue?  How would you eliminate this from happening again?

My responses to Forrest:  Concerning Failure to Implement the 2009 Purchasing & Contracting Group Report? In my opinion, it is gross negligence by the board to allow RMI to refuse to implement the ad hoc group’s report.  Failure to implement the key recommendations in that report that the Board approved for implementation should be considered a breech of contract. The new board should issue a “cure notice” to RMI and give them 30 days to fully implement those approved contracting provisions or to show detailed reasons on why such provisions are impractical or not feasible.

We need to be mindful that large management companies like RMI can be receiving financial payments and other benefits in return for the subcontractors receiving favorable awards. Since RMI claims to have over 200 HOAs under contract, it is in a unique position to be tempted to engage in such improper activities. I am not accusing anyone of anything improper, but know from many years of being in the purchasing and contracting career area that the only way to preclude improper behavior is to be ever watchful.

And, one way to avoid such contracting misconduct is to delegate to a director the responsibility and authority to oversee implementation of such purchasing and contracting board decisions–similar to how we assign financial management functions to the “Treasurer”. In addition, I have long advocated that a new standing committee for Purchasing and Contracting be established. It would complement the work of the Properties & Grounds and Finance Committees. During the monthly board meetings, the new committee and its assigned director would report to the full board and the community on RMI’s progress.

If there were failures by the Community Manager to comply with the directions, it would be carefully documented by the new committee and taken up in an executive management session with the RMI CEO and community manager.

After such a meeting, an action plan to correct the contract violation would be prepared and quickly implemented. For the long-run, the Purchasing and Contracting Committee would administer the agreement as chartered by the board. Failure to comply with the agreed action plan schedule and tasks would be a breech of contract and a cause to initiate more formal actions.