Reblog: Transparency

Posted on November 22, 2015 by ArrowCreekTruth

I attended the Meet the Candidates night on November 17, and the issue of “transparency” was repeatedly mentioned. A group feels that the current BOD is not being “transparent”. In the last year I have been to many HOA Board meetings and at virtually every meeting Ron Duncan is present with a group of friends. They are repeatedly recognized and are often the most vocal people in the room. Wayne Kruchen is also present with the same result.

I have been appointed to the Communications Committee and Mr. Duncan and Mr. Kruchen are present at virtually all of our meetings. Susan Duncan is actually on the Communications Committee, as is John McGhee. Mrs. Duncan is also on the Communications subcommittee that I chair, so Mr. Duncan knows immediately what occurred at the subcommittee meetings.

I also attended the last meeting of the ACCC and Mr. Duncan was present with several others who were again recognized and spoke. The importance of Mr. and Mrs. Duncan, John McGhee and Wayne Kruchen being present and recognized is that they are involved with the people who are opposed to the purchase of the golf land by the HOA from the FOA, so they are apparently getting plenty of opportunity to express their side and provide input.

The complaint of a lack of “transparency” is never accompanied with specifics, so I wanted to state that it appears that notice of the meetings is being given and people with various views are accorded the right to present their positions. I believe the current BOD is being very transparent and is giving the community plenty of opportunity to provide input to help guide the policymakers to proper decisions.

Harold Albright

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
A Response From Mr. Duncan:

Mr. Albright,

Thank you for bringing this important issue to the community’s attention. However, the above article is short on facts and long on personal observations.

The facts are that the ACHOA BOD became more transparent due to the participation of the very people referenced in this BLOG post. Prior to their participation, decisions of the BOD were totally hidden and only announced at the bi-monthly BOD Board meetings or in the ACHOA Newsletter. Committee meetings were not regularly posted to the ‘official’ ACHOA calendar so that citizens could attend those meetings, even though they are still scheduled between 9 and 5 Monday thru Friday which prevents working families, who compose a majority of the residents of ArrowCreek, from attending. Thus, a couple of people cited above are able to make those meetings and represent the majority that cannot attend. Transparency in ArrowCreek, still has a ways to travel.

Since last April, there’s been a marked increase in the visibility/ transparency of meetings, which has allowed some of the residents to attend the ‘during the day’ meetings. Prior to last April, e-mails reveal that ‘secret’ meetings were held with respect to the ‘elephant in the room (e.g. The acquisition or not of the 475 acres of Non-residential property).’ Those e-mails reveal that in April 2014 Mr. Burkett set up a meeting with Mr. Pestello, Mr. Kenny, Mr. Fox, Ms. Rakusin, Mr. Reeder, Mr. Anderson and Arnold Palmer Golf. Until a request was made by an ArrowCreek owner for these records, this meeting was shielded from ArrowCreek owners view and knowledge. Subsequent e-mails have revealed that the ArrowCreek Club Committee (ACCC) was meeting ‘in secret’ sessions, even though they were supposed to be open to ALL owners.

It’s true that this practice of not announcing committee meetings has improved and we now have greater visibility/transparency. However, the practice of holding unannounced meetings, although less frequent, continues today. A recent example was the very committee referenced in the above BLOG. The Communications Committee, which the author of the above BLOG attended, derived and put forward a balanced schedule of events to get to a vote on the acquisition of the Non-residential 475 acres. Following that meeting the Chair of the Committee took the information to ‘The BOD.’ You won’t find any minutes of that meeting. However, subsequent to that meeting the ACCC announced that they over rode the Communications Committee recommendations and came up with a ‘Holiday’ schedule to have the community vote by late December. The body of work required to support this tight schedule did not and does not match the need for the community to have enough information, or completed documentation, to make an informed decision.

So, have the BLOG named individuals enhanced ‘TRANSPARENCY’ of Committee and Board actions? YES!

Is there still more to be done? YES!

Mr. Steele, Mr. Kirtley and Mr. McDonald are committed to improving that ‘transparency’ as noted at the candidates forum on 17 November.

Ron Duncan

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
A Response From Mrs. Duncan:

So Hal Albright, you make the above statement: “Mrs. Duncan is also on the Communications subcommittee that I chair, so Mr. Duncan knows immediately what occurred at the subcommittee meetings.”

I pity your low mores. I was a “middleman” between two conflicting parties. My being on the communications committee or your subcommitte had nothing to do with when Mr. Duncan knew what occurred. My original stance was to wait until things got posted to the Associa website. The one-sidedness of the situation got out of hand. Communication was not a matter of fact. I had to fight off the lies and assumptions. I am still fighting.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in ACHOA, ACHOA BOD, ACHOA Communications Committee, ACT, ArrowCreek, ArrowCreek 411, ArrowCreek HOA, ArrowCreek411, Transparency and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Reblog: Transparency

  1. Bob Kirtley says:

    Mr. Nuszloch,
    thank you for your post. I am on record for wishing the FOA all the best in running their golf course. Along with Mr. Steele, I have never stated that I will ensure that the ACHOA does not purchase the golf courses. My contention, from the first time I spoke on record, was the asking price of $3.3 million for a portion of the assets was unsupported by any independent analysis or appraisal. In addition, paying an additional $1.4 to $1.7 million in interest to a bank made the total a huge investment for the ACHOA. The proposal approved by the Board has no alternatives to the outright purchase of the small part of the FOA assets being flipped to us. The Board is agreeing to (and the FOA is asking for) a total of $4.7m to $5.0m investment and are providing no support for the cost. My contention is the Board owes the ACHOA the diligence in investigating all alternatives and presenting the alternatives to the ACHOA. The FOA only values the asset at 15years x $20,000 or $300,000; seems like a big difference between the FOA lease and $3.3m price. If the terms were more equitable, this is one of many alternatives to explore.

    Like

  2. George says:

    Dale, Dale, Dale I doubt if anyone takes your comments seriously. Everyone knows you are a golf club member and a big supporter of the FOA. You and I both know that since we are both ArrowCreek homeowners since 2000, that the golf club equity members (FOA) ran the HOA Board.
    Names like Burkett, Motherway, Smith, Reeder etc. etc.

    Like

    • FOA Cronies says:

      Same group that filed suit to control the golf course almost 10 years ago. They will litigate again and again; They do not have the owners interest in mind. They are all about control and their private club subsidized by the masses.

      Like

  3. Robert McDonald says:

    Let me make this very clear: I have never stated that I will ensure that the ACHOA does not purchase the golf courses. I wish the FOA well in their financial endeavor but I would like to make it clear that, as it stands now, my household does not support the proposed purchase.

    I believe, as a community, we don’t have a clear picture of the potential financial impact the purchase will have on the HOA and us as homeowners. Additionally golf is a declining sport. As published in the Wall Street Journal in 2014, “For the fifth year, overall participation in golf fell in 2014 as measured by the number of U.S. individuals who reported playing on a course at least once, according to Sports & Fitness Industry Association data.”

    There is no transparency as of this time as to the terms of the deal and no independent valuation of the assets we will be acquiring should the deal be approved. And we lack a business plan from FOA that supports successful operation of the golf course.

    Taking all the above issues into consideration, combined with the unknown futures of golf and the economy, I believe the purchase of the golf courses would be a mistake and not in the best interests of our community.

    Lastly, my candidacy for the board is not solely predicated on the golf course issue. The golf course issue will be resolved one way or another by a vote of the owners of ArrowCreek. After that I want to work to ensure the board is transparent and responsive to the owners’ and residents’ concerns. I want to work to bring the community together, with or without the ACHOA owning the golf courses, to make ArrowCreek an even better place to live.

    Like

  4. Wayne says:

    Mr. Nuszloch,
    Haven’t seen the post card, but it’s from The Better Friends of ArrowCreek, I would give no credence to the statement.
    I know 5 of the 6 candidates. None of them is trying to take over the Board to the detriment of the community. (Don’t know Mr.Toomey). What I have heard from Messrs. Kirtley, McDonald & Steele is that they believe the Proposed Purchase of land strongly favors the FOA against us owners, and that there are other alternatives or better negotiations that should be explored.

    Like

  5. Dale Nuszloch says:

    Just received the post card that states Dave Steel, Bob Kirtley and Bob McDonald will ensure that the HOA does not purchases golf courses. These guys are trying to take over the board to the detriment of our community. We have to stop this.
    Dale Nuszloch

    Like

    • Dave Steele says:

      Mr. Nuszloch,
      I have never stated that I will ensure that the ACHOA does not purchase the golf courses.
      I am quite concerned that the deal crafted by the FOA and current ACHOA Board majority to acquire the 475 acres of land the courses reside upon is a very fine deal for the FOA and a very poor deal for the homeowners who are neither owners nor members of The Club At ArrowCreek. I hope that if a majority of the Board is of like mind on this subject following the election of directors, that they can work to correct this situation.
      Please, if you feel the need to make statements on my behalf in the future, try to get my positions straight and spell my name correctly.
      By the way, while I appreciate all the support I am getting from various neighbors and friends in ArrowCreek,I have not solicited support from the sponsors/originators of the postcards recently mailed. I, in fact, only became aware of this latest missive when one arrived in my mail today.
      Sincerely,
      Dave Steele

      Like

  6. bill edwards says:

    Have those that are against the possible linkage of the golf course and the ACHOA put forth a specific plan if they were to acquire said properties? And what might be the cost of their plan? Or are they just sending out fear of increases in monthly fees while not mentioning what their fees might be?

    Like

    • Bill-
      Maybe this has gotten too confusing. Those against the purchase are against the purchase because:

      The now $28 / month per lot assessment only covers the initial purchase loan (with $2 going toward reserve fund). Don’t know actual loan facts yet because none are negotiated.

      An additional $3/ month per lot will show up on your tax bill (paid with 4 payments per year).

      Those against do not want this to be part of ACHOA property. Their plan is to let the FOA continue to run it as their private club.

      If the ACHOA acquires the property because the yes vote is 547 or more owners, the ACHOA will lease the property back to the seller as a golf course for $20,000 / year for 25 years and….

      …with the currently seen terms of the lease currently costing the ACHOA another $160,000 per every 9 holes per year if the lessee determines to shut down holes “for business purposes” (ACHOA is not privy to the decision process but we are supposed to get an “independent assessment” of their dire need to close holes).

      The ACHOA has no say in what holes or how many holes get shut down for how long but still has to pay this $160,000 per 9 holes per year to water it.

      Then it gets complex. If the ACHOA wants to do something else with the land, the ACHOA must give 90 day notice to the FOA so they could say, no, they want it back. So, just pay the water bill for the FOA non-use of the ACHOA land. Just have the ACHOA owners pay that extra assessment, thank you very much!

      If ALL holes get shut down that’s $640,000 per year that the ACHOA would being paying for the privilege of watering dirt and keeping grass green.

      Additional monies would be coming from your pocket for mowing that green grass.

      Additional monies would also be coming from your pocket to address certain fire abatement, bridge repair, viaduct repair, water line repair and other maintenance costs for the opportunity to own dirt.

      Like

      • bill edwards says:

        so then it appears to be advantageous for letting the FOA to figure out how to make it a successful operation and if they go bankrupt then the HOA might take a look at it.

        Like

        • BINGO!

          The current “deal” rips off the lot/homeowners as it is now proposed. My understanding is that the lawyers of both sides are still picking at it.

          Our ACHOA negotiators did not do a very good job of minimizing lot/homeowner impacts. It truly favors the clubhouse renovation for those who want to believe this is a golf community. In their eyes only.

          If ArrowCreek were envisioned as a golf community, the golf course would have been an integral part of it all along. It isn’t. It is adjunct non-residential surrounding area. Look it up in the CC&Rs and Bylaws. Oops. Don’t look at the “draft updated” ones. That’s all being written out. Look at the current ones.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s