Lago Vista Independent School District (LVISD)

 

Surprise! The LVPOA has been working on a park lease!

I admit it, they had me fooled. I thought at the time it was over and done.

It would only take one board member speaking up consistently and doing the right thing to put an end to all the nonsense. But, apparently that isn't happening and isn't going to happen.

The LVPOA board told me on November, 11, 2010 there were no park deals, they were done and over. In fact, they were so done and over, they tried everything they could to make me look foolish for asking, denying anything was going on. But, in the exact same meeting they put in the COLV committee which is the mechanism which was used for the park lease discussions. I heard about it a couple of months later.

At first, I was sure somehow the old deal with the park sale which I'd been told was old and dead, had come back as a rumor with slight changes to sound new.

Same park. Lease instead of a sale. Same people except Blaine added. Blaine Standiford involved. Nancy Oliver involved. Dave Freeman involved. Mayor Randy Kruger involved.

No wonder I thought it was a mix-up. After a few days, I thought I better check. It was true and it was in the meeting minutes.

Here in their own words just - 2 meetings later - following that November 11, 2010 meeting the BOD had created the POA "COLV committee" and already had one meeting and just one board meeting. Here is note 12 from the minutes on line "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING LAGO VISTA PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS January 13, 2011" originally at http://www.lvpoa.org/Minutes/Minutes.html

12. COLV Committee: This Committee's members; Nancy Oliver, Blaine Standiford, Deborah Sorchevich and LVISD Matt Underwood will have their second meeting with the City on Monday. The first meeting went very well. It is Ms. Oliver's desire to work with these two other entities wherein the POA can use some of its land and they can use some of their monies to create new facilities. The City's Mayor and his group have been very receptive and it is Ms. Oliver's hope to have a good working relationship between the three entities.

Blaine's denials from the November 11, 2010 meeting and his denial emails leading up to it, are even more interesting now in retrospect, because we've since discovered he is player in the park lease discussions.

On November 11, 2010, Nancy Oliver was angrily insistent when it came to the COLV Committee. Nancy angrily insisted it had to be formed and snipped at me saying her bit about it. In retrospect I understand why. It was to become the mechanism for the lease shortly. Perhaps she was trying to draw me out, to see what I knew, or perhaps she was simply frustrated. Either way, I knew nothing about a lease at that time, but here it was.

In that November 11, 2010 meeting, Nancy had said this committee was a way to keep the lines of communication open. She had billed this way despite a heated exchange moments earlier on the parks, and I didn't know the lease would occur later. Several of them gave the impression that during the election people had voted for the POA to get along better with the City and reduce misunderstandings so in their mind we needed this committee to do it.

In retrospect, does that make sense to you?

Like many, I wrote an email to say "NO!" on the lease. I had questions.

I sent the same email to all 5 in 5 separate emails because I wanted their individual answers.

If you've been reading these, posts you'll not be surprised to learn that Blaine Standiford, Nancy Oliver, and Dave Freeman never responded. Jo Anne Molloy responded. Karen Wallace sort of responded, in that she wrote me back but didn't ever answer the questions.

It's very interesting considering I had asked was some pretty basic questions as you can see for yourself. Here are the links to the 5 identical emails, the email text is posted below the links

 

At the times above, to the individuals above, I wrote:

I strongly object to a lease or sale, of any POA park. You're being given a chance to respond, please let me know your thoughts. These are valid professional questions which deserve professional answers.

There is some reason the POA BOD is pushing this because the prior BOD pushed it with a secret meeting for a park sale. When that fell through they pushed for it even through the public humiliation the Mayor gave the POA about having an open meeting. When that fell through, the POA BOD continued pushing and wavering through letters to the old BOD until it was declared dead for the OLD BOD, who used wiggle wording about being unable to constrain the new BOD. Note that 3 of 5, a majority, would remain on the new BOD from the old BOD. The wiggle room wording was noted, and it was brought up to the new BOD. The new BOD got really animate about it, first denying then confirming all that was being said. They finally answered the question, and then finally confirmed a sale was dead. In that BOD meeting, November 11, 2010, and letters preceding it, Blaine denied it throughout. Even post meeting Blaine was arguing while refusing to listen to the tape from the meeting he'd just been in, or later to respond to the written time-stamped proof he'd asked for post meeting and was given the very next day. So we've got a BOD which was pushing this while Blaine was willing deny proof that his eyes had seen, his ears had heard, and the rest of the BOD said in his presence. Even after all that about telling us a sale was dead, the new POA BOD was working hard in that meeting trying to make it seem like we were going overboard in asking about it, in the BOD meeting on November 11, 2010. Now, we are finding out the POA BOD was turning around a month or so later and is working to bring up a lease. Obviously, that factual history raises questions.

Specifically in note 12 from the minutes on line "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING LAGO VISTA PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS January 13, 2011:

12. COLV Committee: This Committee's members; Nancy Oliver, Blaine Standiford, Deborah Sorchevich and LVISD Matt Underwood will have their second meeting with the City on Monday. The first meeting went very well. It is Ms. Oliver's desire to work with these two other entities wherein the POA can use some of its land and they can use some of their monies to create new facilities. The City's Mayor and his group have been very receptive and it is Ms. Oliver's hope to have a good working relationship between the three entities.

Now, word is in last nights meeting March 10, 2011, the POA BOD said they could do a lease over shareholder objections in the meeting. That's the POA BOD pushing a lot of times over a lot of objections and now openly stating they would consider going over shareholders heads. That is an interesting comment from a body which expressly exists to execute the will of the shareholders. People push for some reason.

I don't hear any POAD speaking publicly against this. If you've got points, let's hear them. If you are in favor of this, or against it, what's your reasoning?

In addition to any comments you may wish to make, I'd like to know specifically what does the POA organization gain, what does the individual POA shareholder gain, what do you personally gain?

This email and any response may be shared.

Sincerely,

Brad Waite

End of Email

On Monday, March 14, 2011 10:37 AM Jo Anne Molloy responded, it was the answer I wanted to hear, but it didn't answer my questions on the benefits.

We sent the card to see if the membership thinks this is somethingthey may want us to pursue. When I ran for office, there were twothings I was told over and over. Please keep our parks private and do not put in user fees. Unless I hear from a large group that wouldlike to see that changed. I will vote as I promised to protect thosetwo wishes.

Jo Anne Molloy

On March 14, 2011 2:20 PM I responded, "Thank you!"

On March 14, 2011 12:43 PM Karen Wallace responded, kind of, but it didn't answer my questions on the benefits.

Brad, I don't know what has happened in the past, but can we just look forward from now on? Can you please let us know why you object to the lease? That's what I'm interested in hearing. Thanks! KW

On March 14, 2011 4:49 PM I responded with many reasons, a couple of pages of them, the entire list is in the email.

On March 16, 2011, at 5:01 AM I'd not received a response. Normally a couple of days is ok, but this lease was coming on the heels of all the items before, which was now June 2010 through March 2011 with denials and stonewalling as a matter of course with several of the other Directors. Karen is new, so that is not her fault. However, I had originally asked questions that she never responded to on March 11. She had asked for more information about why I objected to the lease. I had provided it to her and had not heard back about my original questions or where she stood on the park lease, so I asked again,

Karen,

I responded to your question with the expectation that given the courtesy of more input, you would respond to my original questions. In your reply, you never responded to any of my questions from my initial email. Not one. There are no questions in my reply only factual statements. However, based on your response, I added two new ones to the others I'd previously asked. I copied the original questions from bottom to top for your convenience and now they are numbered. You're being given a chance to respond, please let me know your thoughts. These are valid professional questions which deserve professional answers.

Word is in the last LVPOA BOD meeting March 10, 2011, the POA BOD said they could do a lease over shareholder objections in the meeting. That's the POA BOD pushing a lot of times over a lot of objections and now openly stating they would consider going over shareholders heads. That is an interesting comment from a body which expressly exists to execute the will of the shareholders. People push for some reason.

1. I don't hear any POAD speaking publicly against this. If you've got points, let's hear them. If you are in favor of this, or against it, what's your reasoning?

2. In addition to any comments you may wish to make,

2.1. I'd like to know specifically what does the POA organization gain?

2.2. What does the individual POA shareholder gain?

2.3. What do you personally gain?

3. I had asked each POAD the above in a separate email but in your email you said "us". Are you responding for all, or only yourself?

4. Do you still agree the POA is an independent organization - a shareholder owned and financed entity responsible to the shareholders, not to the greater good of the COLV?

This email and any response may be shared.

Sincerely,

Brad Waite

On March 16, 2011 7:08 AM, Karen responded that she'd been very busy with work, and her son.

On March 16, 2011 7:13 AM, I told her I felt family comes first.

On March 17, 2011 3:27 PM, Karen replied, "Thanks again for your comments. I will take all of this into account. I have not made any decisions. I wantt (sic) to see what the will of the members is. That's how I will cast my vote (always taking into account that what the members want is legal, ethical, etc.). KW"

I was shocked to hear that answer because we'd discussed keeping the parks private when Karen was a candidate. She had principles as a candidate, but was answering as a weathervane here. A weathervane director is worthless because it forces us to be involved constantly with petitions, emails, letters, and similar, not to mention all the one on one conversations with our neighbors. Candidates are asked questions. A candidate should stand up and say what their principles are. If elected, they should vote accordingly. That is especially true if they were asked and answered the same question they are voting on now as a director, when they were campaigning. This should be a no-brainer. But, Karen was asked a set of direct questions because I was trying to find a candidate who understood principles. Karen answered, and got votes based on her answers when campaigning, and still became a weathervane when the park lease came up for discussion. The vote has not occurred, but the point is she campaigned saying she understood some principles, and now was ignoring them in her answer. To see what I mean: read her candidates answers (9/29/2010,9/30/2010) here, for her once elected (11/9/2010) read more here. Read what she is saying now (3/17/2011) here.

On March 18, 2011 5:43 PM I responded

You said you would take into account ethical. The LVPOA BOD represents OWNERS who own the land, parks, etc. It has been documented 3 of 5 LV POA board directors lied to us. It is never ethical to lie to owners, simply because they are the owners. If a Director lying to owners isn't unethical I don't know what is.

There is documentation that 3 of the 5 LVPOA board members, Freeman, Oliver, and Standiford have lied and misrepreseted to us, including about the current park deal, you were a witness to much of it, copied on some of it at the time, and have had more forwarded to you recently. All the LVPOA BOD candidates were asked before they were elected, and some gained votes based on the fact they said they understood, if they understood what being a Board of Director on a shareholder owned company is. If this were a trial there would have been a conviction long ago.

I thought I was voting for someone who would represent Board of Director slot using common business principles. Few businesses would nationalize their assets. Do you see Exxon asking the government to please, please nationalize their wells? If you want to be a weathervane, then that means we can't rely on representation, it means we have to get up and take action constantly, rather than allowing those who represent us to do so.

Again, I know you have other more important things on your mind. I hope your son gets better.

Brad

The vote on the park lease has not occurred yet. Many of us are still fighting this, there is another BOD meeting in a few days. That's a topic for another post.