Lago Vista Independent School District (LVISD)


In the April 14, 2011 LVPOA BOD public meeting, the LVPOA BODs said they voted not to pursue the Greenshore lease 4/11/2011, but there were several parks in play, and the Board still claims it authorized by the Bylaws to make a decision like this without discussing it with the membership. So, is it really over?

Blaine Standiford, an LVPOA director said recently on his facebook page "We have a long range planning committee that is dealing with that and Cody will probably be the next one, but that plan is in the works. Also, the 9 acres we just bought on Boggy. We have land, the problem is $$$$$." (petition page 2) Note: the March 10, 2011 meeting minutes were approved in this April 14, 2011 meeting.

The March 10, 2011 LVPOA BOD meeting had finally brought some of this to light as well. Those minutes specifically state "The City is also talking about making its resources available to help the POA develop a new hike and bike trail
on the 8.9 acres on Boggy Ford Rd." and in "10.Parks Update – Greenshore, Boggy Ford Property: Greenshore
Park has been previously discussed in Open Forum. The GM presents a conceptualized drawing of the Hike and Bike trail for the 8.9 acres on Boggy Ford. Secretary Standiford states that this trail will be temporary, until the best utilization of the property is determined." It is interesting that November 11, 2010 they had all said the park deals were dead done over, by December they'd met in the COLV Committee about the park lease, and by March 10, 2011 they already have several deals in discussion.

Also, the March 10, minutes say "The City had a Parks and Recreation Committee that had surveyed the community about how they would like to see the City improved. The results showed that the community would like more hike and bike trails, and sports fields." Which is interesting because Nancy Oliver and Deborah Sorchevich went to a August 25, 2010 City Council meeting where the North Lake Travis Log reported Nancy Oliver questioned the validity of the city survey. You can read more about that here.

So here we were at the April 14, 2011 LVPOA BOD meeting and the LVPOA BODs say the one park deal is off. What about the other parks?

As of April 19, 2011, the LVPOA website still doesn't say anything about the other parks. So, I'm reading that literally by NOT assuming it applies to all parks until we see some confirmation. Also, the LVPOA BODs said the Greenshore park deal was "dead" but it really wasn't, 3 times since June 2010. The only way to know if they are sincere is time.

We can learn what is, not argue what we think should be, or blindly accept what isn't.

The board is either uninformed or was trying to mislead us in the April 14, 2011 meeting and in the March 10, 2011 meeting, when they claimed the by-laws authorize them to make a decision without consulting the membership. That statement ignores a whole body of law on HOAs. For another thing, I had to call them out when they denied the things documented on this very website in their own words in their own emails.

I'm not going to type up the meeting minutes, those will be available on the LVPOA website after the next BOD meeting. I want to point out some observations I had based on what I heard. These are paraphrased summaries that might help us fortify our position should we continue having problems with this or any future board.

I did my homework, as did several others acting independently. As for my statements, you can see the same facts for yourself. I was one of several who independently pointed to legal constraints on the directors in the meeting. They are covered in my other post about game changer items from "Texas Homeowners Association Law", subtitled "The essential legal guide for Texas Homeowners Associations and Homeowners" copyright 2010, by Gregory S. Cagle, a legal expert on the subject in the state of Texas. It's available on Amazon My copy has sections marked for me by a retired judge and I listed those sections so anyone who wishes to could mark their copy in the exact same places. He was simply trying to help me understand we have rights, and the board has obligations, he was not acting as a legal advisor. He labeled sections for me to read, use, and share, so I used those points in the meeting, and I posted what we need to read to get started here.  I'm not going to restate all that here but I did read several quotes from the book into the record before my time ran out.

Several of us pointed out the Directors like to focus on the by-laws. They claim the by-laws define their powers. But, the by-laws are one of the lowest levels. There is a hierarchy of legal constraints on the LVPOA Directors power. Above that are the Articles of Incorporation, and the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, which are both organization specific. Above that are common law, state law, and federal law. The by-laws are the bottom and each level is constrained by ALL the ones above it.

Bill Dunham asked them if they'd read The Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions of the POA. They said not recently. He suggested that they do so because he has spoken to a lawyer, who advised him pursuing this leasing arrangement between the City and the POA that would turn the park into a public, non-owner, facility could be tortious event of the POA Board. Bill also asked them if there had been a park sale. The Board murmured but I didn't hear a specific response. Bill asked again, saying someone had told him about an attempted park sale. Then Bill waited. It took quite a few seconds delay, with all of us waiting in silence, but Dave Freeman then said yes, there had been an attempted park sale that fell through. I think his delay in answering is important because after months of asking about it, June 2010 through November 2010, and it being a big topic as recently as the November 11, 2010 BOD meeting where things got very hot on this very topic, why would Dave Freeman need to delay his answer?

Don Wallace., pointed out he'd talked to neighbors and there was opposition to this from those he'd spoken to.

Someone who I did not know pointed out we'd learned in the November 7, 2011 Lago Vista City Council meeting that had the lease deal gone through, we would have been leasing to ourselves, plus 14 families. Note: I was at that City Council meeting. The speaker was correct. The City Council had told us there were 14 families living outside the POA boundaries. There are many lots, but they were speaking of homes with people currently living in them. So, mathematically we'd have been (number of POA members) leasing to (number of POA members + 14 families).

George Pond got a large round of applause for a short speech where he wound up by saying the parks should remain for the members.

Another person, I do not know received a round of applause when among other things, he told the board that we'd be watching you.

Tracy Alexander spoke of writing a letter to the Log months ago about how we are unique, that some people were trying to take our nice area and turn it into a place with glitzy hotels and such. Tracy explained how she'd moved here to get away from all that. But (in the past) some people have told her she should move when she spoke up. So, she asked, if the others want all that why don't they move? Tracy received a round of applause for that.

Stephen Spindler asked them if they were familiar with Chapter 206 of the Texas Property Code. He asked explaining it was his understanding from some, that some on the board thought we had a community burden. (To me the board's answer was indistinct, my impression was Dave didn't really admit or deny he'd been previously saying he thought we had a "community burden". That seemed strange considering it had been a recurring theme over months.) Steven explained that Property Owners Associations were also called Community Associations at the time our Association was started. This explains why the word "community" was used to describe the people whose interests the Association was formed to protect, the members, and not to the entire community.

Jo Anne Molloy, an LVPOA BOD director, spoke up saying this was some board members acting on their own, that she had nothing to do with it.

Karen Wallace, an LVPOA BOD director, spoke up saying they had to be able to talk, basically trying to say that it was legitimate to be discussing items of this magnitude with other entities in private sessions.

Irene Spindler spoke up saying it would it would be ridiculous for them to never to discuss things between the board members themselves, but for large things, they should go to the members before going outside.

There were many items of interest to us, the above was only a sample, there were a number of people speaking in favor of keeping the parks private. I really can't do them all justice here. They have a tape of the meeting if you'd like to hear it exactly, and the minutes will be out on their website after the next board meeting.