Monthly Archives: October 2016

Clarification about Election Letter From RVS Resident

Vince Montoya, the HOA Community Manager, sent out an e-mail blast today about a letter that was sent by a resident of RVS to other residents regarding the upcoming election. The letter was actually very straightforward and the author, Glen Smerage, identified himself as a resident and never said that he represented the HOA. Mr. Smerage provided his address, telephone number, and e-mail address and anyone that wants to can contact him directly.

Some people had questions as to how their addresses were obtained. One possible way is from a mailing list broker. Names and addresses are public information and brokers obtain them and segment them by zip code and many other criteria. Anyone who wishes can purchase a mailing list from a broker.

Surely, like me, many of you receive several postcards a month from real estate agents describing house sales and listings in Rancho Viejo. How did they get your name and address? From a mailing list broker or from County records.

Regarding Mr. Smerage’s offer to act as a proxy for those who do not want to attend the Annual Meeting, this practice has been going on in RVS on an informal basis for years. If you don’t attend the meeting in person but still want to vote, you have to designate a proxy.

In his e-mail Mr. Montoya positions himself as the source of “direct accurate information.” I have statements from residents who reported that prior to the 2014 election Mr. Montoya called them and said that their proxies were not filled out correctly and that he would be more than happy to come to their homes, help them fill out the forms correctly and act as their proxy. That solicitation is no different from what Mr. Smerage did. And Mr. Smerage actually lives here. Mr. Montoya does not.

There is nothing underhanded or nefarious going on.

I should note that I am a candidate for the Board and Mr. Smerage endorsed me. I did not ask for his endorsement, and did not see the letter before it was sent.

Advertisements

Meet the 2016 RVS Board Candidates October 29, 2016 from 10AM – 12PM

Click HERE to download flyer

forum-flyer-sfcc

RVS Open Director Positions

In regards to RVS Community Manager’s email “Notice of Interest – Board of Directors” sent October 4, 2016, I believe there is an error in the identification of vacancy term lengths.

How Many Board Director Positions Are Open? What Are The Terms Of Service?

It is no surprise that given the spate of resignations from our RVS Board this year, 2016, as well as last year, 2015, there is some confusion as to who must run for the open Director positions at the next Annual meeting, and how long will the term of office be.

The terms for Board members are two years and they are elected in alternate years. Three Directors run for office one year, followed by four Directors who run the subsequent year so that some continuity is maintained on the Board. (See By-Laws, 3.3, paragraphs ii. iii, and  iv.)

What Happens When There Is A Vacancy?

According to RVS By-laws:

In the event of the death, disability, or resignation of an Owner Director, the Board may declare a vacancy and appoint a successor to fill the vacancy until the next annual meeting, at which time the Voting Delegates entitled to fill such directorship shall elect a successor for the remainder of the term. (See by-Laws 3.5, 4th paragraph.)

Thus, any Director who was appointed to a vacancy as a result of a resignation will fill the vacancy until the next annual meeting which in this case will be November 15, 2016. At the Annual meeting a successor (who may be the appointee, if s/he chooses to run) will be elected to complete the remainder of the term (which in the case of filling a 2-year incomplete term, means holding office for one year).

Past practice has been that open 2-year Director positions are filled by the top vote getting candidates, and the 1-year incomplete successor term(s) is filled by the next highest vote getting candidate(s).

This is not the first time the question has arisen as to how many positions are open and for how long. 

A Brief History

2014 Election

At the Annual General meeting of the RVS HOA in November, 2014, there were four open Director positions filled:

  • Three 2-year terms filled by Bernie Paiz, Jonnalynn Grover, and John Zipprich;
  • One 1-year term to replace Paul Burguieres’ position (who resigned and was not replaced by a board appointee). Carol Thompson had completed her 2-year term as a Director and was running for a Board position. Since she received the fourth highest number of votes of the eight candidates running, her term was for the open 1-year successor position for Burguieres .

Continuing 2014 Board Members were (1-year term remaining for each):

  • Bonnie Houston,
  • Laura Corbin,
  • Jim Kerr

2015 Election

In January, 2015, we learned of Laura Corbin’s resignation (1-year term remaining of a two year term), and in April we were informed of Bonnie Houston’s resignation (1-year remaining of a two year term).

At the April 28, 2015 RVS Board meeting, Laura Corbin was appointed to fill her previously resigned position, and there was no appointment made at that time to fill Bonnie Houston’s position.

Then, we were informed of John Zipprich’s resignation (2-year term) sometime in August, 2015.

As of August 20, 2015, we were informed of the successor appointments of Rev. Dr. Barbara Boyd and Eric Sanders to fill the vacancies of Bonnie Houston and John Zipprich.

So, there was a full Board of seven Directors present at the September 22, 2015 Board meeting.

What did that mean for the election of Director candidates for the November 17, 2015 Annual meeting?

It meant that there were five Director candidate positions open for a seven member Board:

  • Four 2-year terms to replace the expired terms for Houston, Kerr, Thompson (who was the successor for Paul Burguieres’ position), and Corbin (successor for herself),
  • One 1-year successor term to complete Zipprich’s term.

The Election Results of the Annual meeting of the RSV HOA in November, 2015 for the five open positions (in vote tally order)

  • Eric Sanders: 71, term = 2 years
  • Barbara Boyd: 66, term = 2 years
  • Laura Corbin: 58, term = 2 years
  • Jim Bailey: 57, term = 2 years
  • Jim Kerr: 50, term = 1 year — to complete Paul Burguieres’ position which had previously been filled by appointee Carol Thompson.
  • Carol Thompson: 48, not re-elected
  • Marcia Kaplan: 38, not elected

Continuing 2015 Board Members (1-year terms remaining for each):

  • Bernard Paiz
  • Jonnalyn Grover

Upcoming 2016 Election

In Spring 2016 Eric Sanders (2-year term) resigned; Carol Thompson appointed successor for the remainder of 2016.

In June/July Barbara Boyd (2-year term) resigned; no action taken to fill vacancy.

in September Jim Bailey (2-year term) resigned; no action taken to fill vacancy.

2016 current Board members:

  • Bernard Paiz (end of 2-year term),
  • Jonnalyn Grover (end of 2-year term),
  • Laura Corbin (one year remaining),
  • Jim Kerr (successor-completes 2-year term for Burguieres)
  • Carol Thompson (successor for Sanders),
  • Two unfilled Director positions; each have a 1-year successor term open through November, 2017.

How Many Board Director Positions Are Open? 

By my count there are six openings:

  • Three 2-year terms (to replace Paiz, Grover, Kerr/Burguieres’ successor);
  • Three 1-year successor terms (to replace Thompson/Sanders, Boyd-unfilled, and Bailey-unfilled).

Thus, only Laura Corbin need not run for a Director position.

I hope this summation helps to clarify Director openings and terms of office.

Related Content:  Election Results 2014  and   Election Results 2015

At Least Two Board Members Forget What Country They Are Living In

At the September 29th Board meeting, member Laura Corbin brought up the topic of having a Board sponsored candidate forum prior to the election this year. She had previously asked that the subject be put on the agenda but it had been left off. President Bernie Paiz said it was his error.

He then stated that anyone in RVS could sponsor a candidate forum, it was within residents’ rights to hold one and it was possible that the Board would sponsor it. Discussion within the Nominating Committee was suggested. Board member Carol Thompson objected to any candidate forum.

I reminded the Board that residents had held such a forum two years ago and it was well attended although none of the sitting Board members participated.

Within three days Mr. Paiz changed his mind. He stated, “This Candidate Forum is not required by our Governing Documents and is not a sanctioned activity of the Board of Directors. This is a tactic to usurp the elected BOD and override the governing Documents and therefore participation will be discouraged. The only Election requirement is the formation of a Nominating Committee. Candidates are encouraged to supply bios and have the opportunity to address the attendees at the Annual Meeting. I will not be participating in this attempt of coup and strongly recommend that members of the BOD and Nominating Committee not participate.”

What happened in those three days? Carol Thompson — who Mr. Paiz seems unable to stand up to — set him straight about what could occur in RVS according to her rules. The tip-off is the phrase “non-sanctioned,” a favorite of hers. Every time residents have held any meeting not specifically sponsored by the Board she has labeled it illegal and non-sanctioned. To Ms. Thompson and Mr. Paiz, communication in our community is a one-way process. The Board tells us what to do and residents have to abide. Why are Ms. Thompson and Mr. Paiz, whose terms are up, so afraid of interacting with residents and fielding questions from us?

Most people vote by proxy and having candidates present their views at the annual meeting is laughable. Less than 10 percent of residents attend and most people have already voted by proxy. We need to hear the views of prospective Board members before the voting, not afterward. We need to know what kind of people they are and if they have the best interests of residents as a core value. This is especially true this year because:

  • In the first nine months of 2016 three Board members resigned. They were ill prepared for serving on the Board.
  • We are grappling with several complex and costly issues — irrigation, road and trail repair, and the County’s new solid waste recycling program. Our assessments are increasing substantially this year and may do so again because of these issues.
  • We need Board members who have an opinion as to how we can maintain our infrastructure and prevent home values from declining while avoiding frivolous expenditures.

According to Mr. Paiz and Ms. Thompson, having a candidate forum where candidates can present their views on governance and answer questions from residents is considered a usurpation of Board prerogative. Presentation of views and questioning of candidates is part of any election process. A coup Mr. Paiz? You and Ms. Thompson were not paying attention during civics class in high school.

I have been told several times by Ms. Thompson and her followers that if I don’t like how things are run in RVS, I should move. Rancho Viejo is in the United States, which is still a democracy. Mr. Paiz and Ms. Thompson prefer dictatorship. Perhaps they should move; there are a multitude of countries that could accommodate their views.

There will be a candidate forum this month held by concerned residents of our community. A date and time will be provided shortly and all candidates are encouraged to participate. Six positions are open on the Board this year although there is some behind the scenes manipulation by the Board to reduce that to five.

RVS suffers from enormous apathy. I’ve heard from several residents that they don’t get involved in politics. It isn’t all politics; it is also a pocketbook issue and it’s your money that the Board is playing with. Look at my recent post about out-of-control legal expenditures. Despite my requests for the past two years, the Board has refused to furnish residents year to date expenditures in the annual meeting package, claiming they only have to provide the following year’s budget.

We need to get rid of the dysfunctional, dictatorial Board we have now and infuse it with some new blood. We need to end the tyranny. Please, if you care about your community, your assessments, and your property values, consider running for the Board. If you wish, you can post your bio here on the blog.

Board of Directors’ Squabbling Results in Over Budget, Out of Control Legal Expenses

The 2017 budget was presented and approved at the September 28 Board of Directors meeting. Our assessments will be increasing, attributable mainly to the County mandating curbside recycling which will increase our costs by $8 a month per household.

The allocation for legal expenses was increased by 300 percent — from $3,000 in 2016 to $9,000 in 2017. Why? Because that is about what the Board has already spent in 2016 and in their wisdom they want to continue wasting our money on unnecessary expenditures rather than finding ways to cut back. One of the major causes of the runaway legal expenditures is the dysfunction of the Board. Three members have resigned mid-term. A very expensive dispute resolution involving Jim Bailey and the other Board members occurred in July. All attendees signed a non-disclosure agreement. In mid-September Jim Bailey resigned.

At the September Board meeting I asked if the legal costs of the dispute resolution were the cause of the legal budget being overspent so drastically. President Paiz said it was. I asked how much that unsuccessful dispute resolution cost and Paiz said he could not tell me because it was confidential. He said he would have to ask Lynn Krupnik, who received payment for the dispute resolution, if it was “OK to release the information.” He stated that it would cost $250 to get an answer, Ms. Krupnik’s hourly rate. Apparently she does not bill in anything less than hourly increments. All RVS residents pay for the attorney’s services and we have the right to know the amount paid to her. While the content of the dispute may be confidential, the cost is not.

Rancho Viejo North has a legal budget of $2,000 and it usually goes unspent. Why does Rancho Viejo South spend so much more? The North has a Board composed of rational people who solve disagreements without involving an attorney. Our Board likes to waste residents’ money on their internal disputes and asking for legal advice from Ms. Krupnik on ridiculous things. Our Board does not represent the interests of residents. They are a disgrace.