Lago Vista Independent School District (LVISD)

 

Following the November 11, 2010 LVPOA BOD meeting, I saw Karen's email, and I tried to show her what I'd faced in that meeting so others wouldn't have to face it going forward

In prior posts I covered the runaround I received from June 2010 to the November 11, 2010 meeting itself, how I was attacked for speaking the truth, and how immediately following the current November 11, 2010 meeting Blaine accosted me outside the meeting room. Karen was new, and mostly quiet in the parts of the meeting I was concerned with. In that meeting I was told I'd received an email from Karen Wallace that explained the books question. As I explained in a prior post, I'd not seen it, and the issue was resolved there.

I normally thank people for answers. That was my initial intent for responding to her email, simply thanks. However when I went to click send, I realized I had seen others attacked like I had been. It hit me in my reply I could both thank her and attempt to do a pay it forward for someone by explaining to Karen what I'd just endured. The hope was the next time someone else came before the board and was attacked unfairly she would recognize what was happening and do the right thing.

It would only take one board member speaking up consistently and doing the right thing to put an end to all the nonsense. I didn't know if Karen was that person or not, but it couldn't hurt to try.

When this email was written, the park lease discussions had not come up yet. So, I thought after months of dealing with the board I was through with the LVPOA Board of Directors for a while. Still, trying with Karen might help someone else, so I did try.

November 11, 2010 6:58 PM Karen Wallace answered one of my questions. I've explained in earlier posts, I didn't see it before the meeting. I mention it here only because the reason I started my reply was at first to thank her for resolving it. It was a busy time, and it took me a couple of days to actually read, and reply to her email even though we had discussed it in the November 11, 2010 meeting.

On November 13, 2010 8:24 PM, I wrote:

I just saw your note. I didn't see your message until now. I did not see Dave's Thursday email, or Blaine's second Thursday email, until Friday. I was online Friday. I had a lot of email and simply didn't see yours.

The Tony idea/books issue was addressed in the meeting really well. My main point on that part was to get the answer to Tony's idea. They explained the confusion; and his idea was evaluated, it won't work, and the reason makes sense. All is good on that. Just to close the loop with you, I've marked that one ISSUE CLOSED really well on that one.

I was a little disappointed with some distractions in the meeting 11/11/10 but things worked out ok in the end. I did like the new meeting interaction style, but I could see there were a lot of straw men thrown out 11/11/10. There were at least three big ones. I mentioned the below in the sincere hope you saw what I did, recognize distractions are a problem, choose not go down that path.

1) It's common knowledge the entire real estate profession is based on the ability to let SELLERS work in a relatively PUBLIC way by finding out what the property is worth in advance and putting it up for sale at that price, while letting BUYERS maintain PRIVACY. With multiple bids sometimes property sells for More than the asking price. Yet, you heard yourself in open session, 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 11/11/10. I knew about the private meeting having occurred several hours before the published request for a public one. Dave agreed that my statement about the meeting was true on 11/11/10 while agreeing that meeting had occurred prior to the request for a public one. Yet even after Dave went on the record 11/11/10 confirming exactly what I said, some in that meeting continued to try to ridicule me for speaking factually. The point isn't to beat up on the past but to learn from it. The supposed buyer/seller difference, which some on the BOD tried to ridicule about in the meeting on 11/11/10 is "solved" constantly by the real estate industry. Most who have sold a home or lot know it from personal experience. I believe a board should take at least as much care in selling organization property as they do with their personal property. ISSUE CLOSED but straw man noted.

2) A few months ago the prior Board was asking the COLV for public park sale meetings. On 11/11/10 they attempted to ridicule me for asking about public meetings for any future sales going forward. Why? Because I asked for a written policy going forward to cover any future park sales? So, they can ask for a public meeting after a private meeting fails, and that's ok, but if it's asked for in advance for future transactions to assure transparency, it's foolish? Uh-huh. ISSUE CLOSED but straw man noted.

3) I emailed regarding the status on a potential park SALE with a question regarding Tony's idea in the books. Then, on Friday I read from within a note sent to me Thursday, that I need to run for Director if I am interested so much, adding perhaps I should complain about a park purchase I never mentioned. There is a huge difference in buying additional parks, and selling or reducing the number of parks. In fact, it's pretty obvious that any shareholders like me, who the BOD knows are interested in parks, would applaud a purchase, but boo a sale. The writer knew that. Also, all remaining from the prior board know I'd told the prior board several times – I'd said I shouldn't need to be on any BOD to get the products promised by any company, or to ask questions of it, especially where I am a shareholder. I won't apologize for standing up with others to get what we paid for. As a member I am not limited by time, nor do I have any conflicts of interest, but as a board member, I would. ISSUE CLOSED but straw man noted.

Notice a pattern? There were more similar but I think I made my point. Besides, it all worked out in the end with an overall good meeting. I'm simply using examples to point out the there was a concrete level of distraction present. I do not want to redo those closed issues; they're closed and done away with.

Everything I asked has been answered and is closed now. But I do I hope you saw what I did, recognize the meeting was good but the distractions are a problem, then choose not go down that path.

I've always only wanted to get involved in the bigger items, and the issues that hold some special interest for me. There has just been a multi-month period covering several big items, I think finally the last of those are closed now. Going forward, I won't attend every meeting. But, I will plan to attend to compliment or complain as appropriate. I've had some issues with some at times, but I've been going after big things so it makes sense there would be conflict. That does not make them bad people, only different opinions. The distractions are annoying though. I like most of what they've done. I anticipate I'll like most of what's done going forward too. I hope you enjoy your time on the board. I hope you, and the board have a really good run, all of us are counting on the BOD to protect our shareholder interests.

Brad

End of Email

Of course at the time I wrote that, I thought at the time it was over and done. I didn't know about the LVPOA and City park lease discussions which were to come up shortly. That's a topic for another post.