By the way, for folks unfamiliar with the way the internet plays and how blog websites work, if a blog is not signed, it is the writing of the blog webmaster or owner. If a blog has a byline, it is usually a guest writer. There is nothing anonymous about it. I introduced myself as the webmaster/owner of arrowcreek411.com and passed out a handout for the website at the ACHOA BOD meeting on 2/15/2015. The site was intended as a place for the ArrowCreek Community to get information about and around ArrowCreek and the surrounding area, for comments, recommendations and activities.

I was asked to provide more detail behind the blog entitled Outrageous Behavior of ACHOA Board and Associa Sierra North. There was a flier with Associa Sierra North’s letterhead from the ArrowCreek Home Owners’ Association Board of Directors (ACHOA BOD) handed out by ArrowCreek Security personnel at the front gate this last week. FACT. The Governing Documents Committee drafted such a flier. FACT. However, a new first paragraph was added after the committee drafted it and before it was distributed at the gate. FACT. The paragraph accuses a “named” yet “anonymous” group of campaigning against a YES vote using “limited regard for truth telling,” “misleading comments and misinformation.”

Use of words like this cause anger, frustration and divisiveness throughout the community. First, a member of the ArrowCreek Homeowners Association (ACHOA) is singled out; intentions maligned, and personally lied about on the contracted management company, Associa Sierra North’s ArrowCreek website and Nextdoor. Then this initial paragraph smears an ArrowCreek group. How can an “anonymous” group be named Concerned Neighbors of ArrowCreek (CNA) in the same sentence and still be anonymous – Especially since it provided its charter to the ACHOA BOD in 2015 in accordance with the NRS!

A NO vote is not pushed by CNA, contrary to the ACHOA BOD handout first paragraph and elsewhere on-line. The CNA handout [written after the Town Hall based on Town Hall provided information but before the BOD changed budget numbers that occurred after the community questioned some of the derived numbers at the Town Hall meeting] has a different set of pros and cons for a yes or no vote than the set given by the ACHOA BOD handout. Then the CNA handout advises the community to vote after considering the issues. No ridiculing or name-calling is done by CNA, yet the ACHOA BOD handout and certain board members bully the “opposition.” CNA and other owners want their concerns addressed not dismissed. CNA has not defiled the ACHOA BOD. It has questioned the motives of certain individuals. Those individuals do not answer the questioned asked but retaliate by defaming the owners asking the questions.

Community members are interested in hearing the ACHOA BOD answers to the questions raised that have been ignored up to this point in time. Private emails to the BOD via the management contractor Associa Sierra North have gone unanswered. Publicly published questions get the same response. Instead of answers, the questioners are treated to name-calling, abuse and condescending ridicule by one or more board director(s) and their clique following. It has been literally impossible to reason with them. Their minds are made up and they will not hear anything said to the contrary to their belief system: Anything contradictory is a lie or a maligning insinuation.

If someone other than a board member authorized or approved the first paragraph in the handout provided by the management contractor, that alone is objectionable. Only elected Board directors can direct the management company to put out such material. The contracted management company has made it known many times through the years that they work for the management of the association, the BOD alone, not the community.

By including the first paragraph in the ACHOA BOD handout, some body or some bodies are not the duly elected officials acting in the best interest of the community. The concept of getting a YES vote returned is commendable. That is totally 100% done in the handout without the need of the first paragraph. So why was it deemed necessary and by whom was it deemed necessary to add that first paragraph? Personal vendettas and bullying are not to be tolerated, especially for an ACHOA BOD member who is supposed to be representing the community at large. Why should the ArrowCreek Community expect whoever did this to act in the interest of the community for anything else? Somebody needs to resign over this behavior.

This defamation has gone on for over two years. It has to stop. This community needs to be a “happy place” for all owners, whether they just want to be left alone or whether they are members of The Club at ArrowCreek.

Susan Duncan, Webmaster