Lago Vista Independent School District (LVISD)

 

Following the November 11, 2010 LVPOA BOD meeting Blaine Standiford continued to deny the obvious, demanded proof of what he'd already heard, so I sent it to him.

When you're reading these, I hope you'll use your active thought processes to ask yourself some questions. Wouldn't an honest broker with no agenda simply answer questions? Are these logical responses to rational questions? Do the responses answer or obfuscate? Why would a new director react so strongly to things that happened before his arrival? Why would a new director confront me after the meeting, after all the facts were out, and I had been proven correct? And so on.

In the last post I covered how immediately following the current November 11, 2010 meeting Blaine accosted me outside the meeting room. He was still denying the park meeting, even though he was sitting right there in the meeting with me when it was all said.

I repeatedly offered to go back inside with him to talk with Dave since Dave was still there. Blaine repeatedly said no.

I repeatedly offered to go back inside with him to listen to the tape of the meeting we were just in. Blaine repeatedly said no.

Blaine asked for proof. I offered to send it to him. I did send it to him the next day. It was the time stamped emails of the private meeting and the open meeting. All of which are both inserted below and linked to the email pdf.

To date Blaine never responded. Wouldn't an honest person see time stamped emails and reply, yes, you were right?

Also, little did I know the park lease would come up a few months later with Blaine Standiford and Nancy Oliver involved which would reopen the issue.

I know the email to Blaine seems incredibly detailed, and most normal people would not need that level of detail, but we had just been through a set of emails and the November 11, meeting where Blaine was denying the obvious as you read above, or in the prior posts. I had also just survived a June through November period where the LVPOA Board of Directors had been denying the obvious and delaying. When Blaine requested proof, I wanted the proof email he had requested to be so fine grained and so explicitly detailed that there could be no misunderstanding. I sent it roughly 24 hours later, on purpose, because I wanted him to have time to cool off and think about the absurdity of his position. That way, either way, apology or not, going forward, I would know who I was dealing with. Following the emails is some important information.

On November 12, 2010 7:14 PM I wrote

To: Blaine Standiford (bstandiford@austin.rr.com)

Subject: You asked for this repeatedly, explanation and proof

Blaine,

For me this issue is closed, as I received answers to what I was asking. I am sending this because you kept repeating that you don't get it and you asked me to send an explanation with proof of the timeline which I have done here.

This is very long and detailed because you did not understand the short forms and repeatedly asked for further explanation. There is nothing to argue. You asked. I stuck to the points you said you didn't get but past statements here are to compare/contrast, not for focus.

The entire real estate profession is based on the ability to let SELLERS work in a relatively PUBLIC way, while letting BUYERS maintain PRIVACY. The supposed paradox both you and the BOD referred to last night is "solved" constantly. This is common knowledge; the BOD members probably used it with their own property. One can easily see this was not used for the past tense tentative park sale item. If this is new information any good realtor will explain it in detail but it's all pretty standard business.

SELLERS GENERALLY WANT PUBLICITY, OR MARKETING, OR AT LEAST AN OPEN LISTING, AND CAN GET IT. They find out what the property is worth in ADVANCE and put it up for sale at that price. They get a realtor, the property gets listed, perhaps an appropriate marketing plan created. It does NOT have to just sit there with a sign. Realtors can call potential buyers to see if they might be interested, and put out ads or perform other marketing tasks. The whole idea is to get the highest bid, or best combination of things, from a buyer anywhere in the world. Without getting into multiple types of listings, and irrelevant details, this happens all the time.

BUYERS GENERALLY WANT PRIVACY AND CAN GET IT. They confidentially offer what they are willing to pay on the publicly listed property. Generally, they hope they are the only buyer; either so they can put pressure on the seller to negotiate down, or simply hoping the property is not bid up with multiple buyers.

The SELLER looks at all the offers, and if they don't meet the asking price, they can take it off the market, wait for additional offers, and only drop the price if they have some compelling reason to do sell.

We were in the SELLER role. As a SELLER, privacy works against us. What happened here is a classic example. If we ever want to sell, the COLV is not the only potential buyer. People all over the world buy property here in Lago Vista, perhaps another party might make an offer. With open listings, sometimes property sells for more than the asking price. In any event, there were statements lowering the asking price on a property all agree does not need to be sold.

History has proved we didn't have to sell – yet, his words, Dave has said they dropped the asking price from $1.6 million to $950,000. That is a seller discussing a drop of $650,000 with a potential buyer on a property the POA has admitted it did not need to sell, without public notice to see if anyone else anywhere in the world might be interested in paying the asking price, perhaps even more. That was prior to any public notice or discussion according to the BOD in several communications including last night. A public meeting was requested. Discussions stopped for the prior board. The prior board said it could not constrain the new board. I asked the new board if it was dead for them. Asked and answered. You didn't understand so here we are. The point is that this clearly shows the shareholders could be better severed in the future, if going forward, things were handled another way, the way the real estate industry does it every day. (All stated last night in your presence.)

You are focused on the past. I was and am using it simply to compare and contrast. That said, you repeatedly said you wanted proof regarding the timeline. You were present on at least two occasions where BOD members confirmed exactly what I'd said in the order I said it. You are the one who is disputing the BOD statements - even when they told you in your presence and even when a witness explains they heard the same things but didn't understand what they meant. I took what they said at face value. I simply repeated to you what they said they said. They told us both all the same things. Really, you are arguing (through me) with them over what they say they said and did. I keep parroting what they are saying, they say it in your presence, and you still insist it is not true. All of us are telling you the same thing from different viewpoints. We disagreed on whether it's a good idea or not, but all of us agree on the same facts of what happened and in what order.

1) Listen to the tape of the meeting you were in last night 11/11/2010 which covers the prior events. Several board members covered it, Dave in detail. You will also see I tried to explain the above differences between buyers and sellers but was cut off. I did get part in though. Besides that part is pretty basic common knowledge.

2) If you remember "Meet the Candidates Night", most of the prior events were discussed in your presence. Perhaps that was taped too.

3) Below are two emails.

3.1) The bottom one is the private acknowledgement which is Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:39 PM, which is several hours earlier than the public announcement. It stated meeting(s) had occurred and it was prior to the public announcement. None of the prior BOD has ever disputed that this was before the public announcement. (I say meeting(s) meaning I don't really care if it was phone, email, or in person, or whether it's one or more events. That level of detail doesn't affect the basic knowledge privacy generally works against a seller, and the basic facts in this specific case prove it was working against us then in practice no matter the form or number of exchanges. The idea was to learn from history and do better going forward, not to beat up over details.)

3.2) The middle one is the public announcement which is Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:07 PM, for public meetings.

I am sending this because you kept repeating that you don't get it and you repeatedly asked me to send an explanation with proof which I have done here. Everyone already agreed to the facts and everyone confirmed it again, last night, so I don't get the rationale for proof but you asked. So, here you go.

This was long but hopefully it is detailed enough to fully explain things for you as you asked.

At this point, if you are an honest person you will review the tape, and the proof, and will admit my facts were correct all along, and desist in calling me a liar in the future. Regardless I am not going away for future items. I'll compliment where appropriate. I'll ask questions or make points where appropriate. For me this issue is closed, as I received answers to what I was asking during the meeting and also in the emails from you and Dave which I read today.

Sincerely,

Brad

Blaine section ends, Proof Sections begin

From: Dave Freeman [mailto:djfreeman@austin.rr.com]

Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:47 PM

To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Subject: Fw: Invitation to Joint Public Meeting

Importance: High

I thought you'd like to see this.

----- Original Message -----

From: Deborah Sorchevich

To: rkruger2@austin.rr.com ; 'Bill Angelo' ; dgloris@aol.com ; cdmitch@austin.rr.com ; khunt11@austin.rr.com ; 'R Bohn'

Cc: 'Dave Freeman' ; 'DAVE SHAFFORD' ; 'GARY GATES' ; 'JO ANNE' ; 'Nancy Oliver' ; 'news'

Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:07 PM

Subject: Invitation to Joint Public Meeting

Good afternoon

The LVPOA Board has asked me to send a formal request for a public meeting to the Lago Vista City Council. I have attached a copy of the letter. I have not yet had an opportunity to get the hard copy into the mail; also, I do not have email addresses for Mr. Bradley or Mr. Smith, so I apologize for not including them in this email. I will mail a hard copy to all concerned.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards

Deborah

Deborah Sorchevich, General Manager

Lago Vista Property Owners' Association

P.O. Box 4766

Lago Vista, TX 78645

www.lvpoa.org

Phone 512-267-2895

Fax 512-267-9580

End Dave/Deborah Email, Begin my section

THESE TWO (ABOVE AND BELOW) WERE NOT ORIGINALLY ATTACHED TOGETHER, THEY ARE COMBINED HERE FOR CLARITY. The below email is a complete snippet from a longer back and forth regarding Lagopalloza. There was no need in having you slog through an old thread of back and forths on Lagopalloza to get to the timestamp where this was referenced. If that does not satisfy you, ask Gary, Dave, or any on the prior board. None of us are arguing the basic facts. These two emails definitively prove the timeline as does everything you've seen and heard. No one suggested anything nefarious, just not looking out for shareholder value.

The $1.6 Million is from Dave. The $950,000 is below and you heard it last night available on tape.

The entire real estate profession is based on the ability to let SELLERS work in a relatively PUBLIC way, while letting BUYERS maintain PRIVACY. This is not novel. My point was if the idea of a sale comes up again, there is no reason to limit ourselves or reduce our asking price to accommodate one buyer, the COLV, when realtors or listings have matched other Lago Vista properties with buyers from all over the world. I believe if the POA decides to sell a property, we should be selling to the highest bidder. That is pretty standard business logic.

This was sent because you asked for it. It's a closed issue on my end as I explained above at top.

End my section, Begin Gary Gates Email section

From: Gary Gates [mailto:ggatessr@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:39 PM

To: B Waite

Subject: Re: We'd prefer to continue to support local businesses but for some, soon we may not have that option

Thanks for your thoughts. Confidentially the Board has had a second wake up call from all of your efforts. The City is collecting money from developers for Parks. They have spent the money no one knows. The city has no idea what they will be doing about parks. The Board is starting to force the city's hand by asking for a PUBLIC MEETING with the city and council. Mr. Kruger says OK, but wants the meeting private. We are saying no way, PUBLIC. We offered to sell the city Green Shores Park , under used and next to city property for a Fair market value of around $950,000. Thant would go a long way toward building a new Activity Center . Mr. Kruger said no, not interested, but the POA should give the City Bar K of a $1. I think you see why more folks need to get involved. Stay tuned about the PUBLIC meeting in early September if it comes off. See you tonight.

Regards,

Gary R Gates SR

Addressing snipped

Deborah's email contained an attachment, an letter image of the invitation to the meeting. Because the emails are in line text, the attachment became the last page when the email was converted to a pdf. It is the last page of the pdf that contains all of these. You can view it and these emails here.

End Gary Gates Email section.

I did keep Gary's emails confidential until it was clear enough time passed that the LVPOA Board was still not releasing the original meeting information. In the same timeframe we could not confirm the park sale was dead, since they were pursuing a public meeting and not saying. I hoped the public meeting would be a public discussion as to whether to sell or not and that the earlier meeting information would come out there. That way, it would be all in the open.

Another reason I eventually broke confidentiality is because Gary was saying confidentially they were trying to get it out in the open, but they had many chances, and didn't. They have a website, or they could have put it in the meeting request, so it could have come out many times in many ways.

Gary and the Board used the secrecy to say one thing in public and another in private. For one thing there were Letters to the Log, where Gary spoke against us in public while complimenting us in private, which conflicted with statements he was telling us privately.

As I've said all along and you've seen above, once the private meeting blew up, a public meeting was requested. It took a while to get the City of Lago Vista City Council's reaction.

Mayor Randy Kruger shut down the above request for a Joint Public Parks meeting, on July 20, 2010. It was reported here in the North Lake Travis Log.   No mention was made of the earlier meeting.

Notice Mayor Randy Kruger was willing to meet in secret but when it became public he would not meet. Only a few months later when the lease came up, he would meet again in private in a COLV Committee meeting. That lease was reported in the January 13, 2011 LVPOA BOD meeting minutes, but the lease is another story.

At that point, I knew I was holding information that materially affected all the other shareholders because I believed the deal was not dead and there would be no open meeting. Events proved I was correct when it resurfaced as a park lease. Information which was not only not being communicated, but was being denied, or when questions were asked it seemed they were distracting around them instead of answering. So, the primary obligation was to all the other LVPOA shareholders in my opinion, and that obligation outweighed the confidentiality of some emails.

I sent two email threads to the North Lake Travis Log, one on 7/22/2010, and another on 7/23/2010, but the Log didn't run the story. I've not linked to those emails because their decision is ok with me, I didn't even ask why because I felt it's their ink and paper which makes it their decision. I mention it only because it is relevant to my breaking confidentiality here and also because people keep asking me why I didn't go to the Log with this information. But, I did go to the Log and it wasn't covered. I did not go to the Austin American Statesman, simply because I live in Lago Vista, and I didn't think of them.

I handled it by emailing the prior and current board and by telling people personally. Had I not done so, the LVPOA Board of Directors would be denying this meeting ever happened to this day as evidenced by the fact Blaine was denying it in emails leading up to the November 11, 2010 meeting and even after as I have explained in prior posts, and this one.

As you can see from the email, I thought I was done. However, the park lease discussions would come up a few months later with Blaine Standiford and Nancy Oliver involved in the COLV Committee which would reopen the issue. That's a topic for another post.