Committee First PostingSunday, January 20th, 2008
Dear Neighbors:
The covenants committee has completed its draft of the covenants and is soliciting additional input from the property owners. We recognized that we would not be able to please everyone, but did incorporate property owners’ concerns into our drafts. Additionally, we used the property owners’ survey as a guide in re-drafting the covenants.
Please note the following rules for consideration of comments:
1) You must identify yourself & your lot #
2) The first 3 covenants will be posted for two weeks, after which another 2 will be posted and so on. Please make your comments pertinent to the posting.
3) You must remain civilized or the public forum will cease and the covenants will be discussed at the annual meeting.
Thank you.
THE COVENANTS COMMITTEE: Liane Kerr, Susan Kitch, Tina Frazelle, Kenneth Uhlrich, Brad Snyder, Marjorie McCornack, Steve McKinley
Note from the Webmaster:
To view the committee’s first posting, click here.
If you prefer to download the file and print it, a PDF file can be downloaded by clicking here.
Comments can be made in several ways.
- First, you can comment directly to this posting on this web site. In order to comment on this page, you must be logged in with a valid user name.
- If you prefer, you can go to the forums section listed at the right and make your comments there. Forums can accept comments without the need to be logged in. Please list your name. Comments that are not identified will be removed by the system administrator.
- If you don’t want to log in, but you still want to add your comments about the proposed covenant changes, you can send an email directly to a committee member. If you don’t know a committee member’s email address, use the contact page here to send an eMail to Liane Kerr.
Thanks,
Don Fink, Webmaster
Posted in The Board, General News | No Comments »
Thursday, January 3rd, 2008
26 December 2007
Dear Members of Hidden Lake Property Owners Association,
I find myself involved in an issue with another Hidden Lake property owner that needs to be resolved privately and outside the association, neighbor to neighbor. I feel that my membership on the Board of Directors might be considered a conflict of interest therefore I tender my resignation effective immediately. I appreciate the understanding of the Board of Directors in accepting my resignation as well as the kind members of the HLPOA who elected me to serve.
Respectfully,
Susan Kitsch
Posted in The Board, General News | No Comments »
Friday, August 17th, 2007
Attn: Association Members
To All;
During the Annual Meeting, it was brought to the Board’s attention by Liane Kerr, Chairperson for the Covenants Committee, the intent of the Committee was to discuss the suggested amendment changes at the Annual Meeting and to not actually vote on them. Your president misunderstood this earlier in my communications from Liane in a separate email and developed the ballot for the members to act upon.
In recognizing this error, the membership at the Meeting agreed with the board to return to the Covenants Committee their recommendations for Amendment review and that I would destroy the ballots which had been mailed in.
During the meeting, a timetable of the first week of December was established for the Covenants Committee to bring back to the membership the suggested changes for a membership vote. I personally would like to offer my appreciation to the members present at the Annual Meeting and those that provided their input and ballots in their absence. I personally want to apologize for this error as we work to reach agreeable updates to the Covenants and By-Laws and wish to encourage all members to exercise their privilege to voice their opinions to Liane Kerr, chairperson, Covenants Committee ( leklawyer@aol.com ).
Respectfully Submitted,
William M. Frazelle
President, HLPOA
16436 N. 46th Drive
Glendale, AZ 85306
Posted in The Board, General News | No Comments »
Tuesday, June 26th, 2007
Hidden Lake Property Owners Association
The President’s Corner
Volume 1, Number 2
April 23, 2007
To All HLPOA Members;
I hope that at the time of this writing, everyone is safe and well. Included within this writing are noted areas of communications I feel need to be brought to the membership prior to the Annual Meeting. Most all of this information is from the recent Board Teleconferences held in February and April. While some members may not necessarily agree with the openness of the Board, your President does feel the need to inform all and let the membership be aware of some of the decisions your Board is actively engaged in.
The current Board of Directors is acknowledging the past resignations of Greg Ogawa, Guy Pierce and Mark Fleenor. Kay Phillips confirmed all these resignations were received via e-mail shortly after the Annual Meeting in 2006.
Recent items brought to the Board are:
- Communicating with Mr. Alsop regarding our past water line connection which Mike Vorst and Bill Frazelle are working on.
- Transfer of Responsibilities with our Financial Institutions and completion of signature cards as of February 2007.
- Kay Phillips has contacted Joe Machock and he will be removing his stored fire truck from the chain link storage yard near the Property Manager’s cabin this Spring sometime.
- The Board has implemented the usage of a standardized expense reimbursement form by the Board, Resident Manager and Property Manager. All reimbursable expenses require prior approval, if possible, from the Treasurer.
- Out of concern for the safety for our Property Manager, the Board is reviewing the possibility of Security and Firearms Training for the Property Manager, in light of recent hunting and trespassing events occurring in the Hidden Lake Subdivision. We have reviewed potential Insurance liabilities with our carrier.
In speaking with some members of the Covenants Committee, the Chair brought the issue of One Lot/ One Vote before the Board pertaining to the situation of two members of the same family holding dual representation on the Board. This issue was placed before Kay and David Phillips regarding their positions and a motion was made, seconded and voted on that Kay and David excuse themselves from voting on any potential outcome of this issue. The floor entertained discussions from both Bob McCornack and Joe Stehling that since David’s term ended January 2008 and that they were not in favor of any type of removal or call for resignation. Opposing opinions offered a conflict with the One Lot/ One Vote under Article Four within the By-Laws and a motion was offered for either Kay or David to resign within 10 days and that neither of them would be entitled to vote on the issue and that the Board would vote to appoint a new Board member which would fill the position vacated through the end of 2007. The vote taken recorded that J. Stehling, no; S. Stokes, yes; B. McCornack, no; M. Vorst, yes; and B. Frazelle, yes. On Feb. 26, 2007, David Phillips resigned and Mike Vorst recommended that Bill Frazelle chair the Architectural Control Committee until the Annual Meeting. To date, the Board has not received any new construction plans from any members wishing to construct on their property.
Recent Board Teleconferences have provided reviews of the new 2007 proposed budget which the Treasurer, Mike Vorst, has raised concerns of the Snow Plow expenses and budget areas of increases and past Boards allowing deficit spending. Additional reviews and comments were discussed and the Board approved the 2007 Budget during the Feb. 27, 2007 Teleconference, unanimously. In consideration of the membership, a survey was sent out, which asked one question of how best to facilitate the increase in dues, which the By-Laws state that the Board may establish the Annual Dues within Article Five.
Other items of importance in the Survey bring up areas of concern by the Lake Committee and By-Laws Committee. Road maintenance issues along with equipment sourcing are major areas of financial responsibility along with and support of our Property Manager, Kris Perrault and the Resident Manager, Scott Jones. Recent information about this survey has been mailed in the Harbinger and posted on both Websites. While we all may respectfully agree to disagree, it is important to let your ideas be known via this survey so we all may have representation and understanding in the development of Hidden Lake Subdivision.
During the Feb. 27, 2007 Teleconference Meeting, the Chair asked all Board Members to provide bios and/ or resumes of interested individuals wishing to be considered for the vacant position. Both Kay and Joe had discussed the possibility with a couple of individuals who declined consideration. The Chair nominated both Dean Ford and Marilyn Borich for the position. Actions during the April 10, 2007 Teleconference Meeting voted to place Dean Ford onto the Board of Directors through the end of 2007. The vote taken recorded that B. McCornack, K. Phillips and J. Stehling voted for Dean Ford, while M. Vorst and S. Stokes voted for Marilyn Borich. The Chair agreed with the majority for Dean Ford to fill the vacancy.
Within the next several weeks, mail notifications for the Annual Meeting will begin being distributed. I encourage all members to review the information packages as well as becoming involved with the development of Hidden Lake.
Joe Stehling, in the past meeting, would like all members to know that tentatively May 22-25 have been set aside for chipping last year’s remaining slash at the Property Manager’s Cabin. No new slash will be accepted or added to the existing pile.
A special thanks for a designated contribution from the following members, specifically for the purchase of a new impact wrench for the Association, Max & Betty Shaver, Michael Hudson, Mike & Bonnie Vorst, Marilyn Borich & Jack Vlk, George & Sandra Stokes, Frank & Jeannie Collins, Trevor & Erica Hatchell, Liane Kerr & Paul Donisthorpe, and Tina & Bill Frazelle.
The Annual Meeting Agenda will be developed with the Board and any information or business from the membership should be forwarded to either me or Sandra Stokes for implementation. I want to thank those of you which have written to me and called about the Corner comments. We hope that all Board members are serving the membership effectively. We look forward to seeing and visiting with many of you at the Annual Meeting.
Please write or call with points of interest or concerns anytime.
Bill Frazelle
wmfrazelle@aol.com
Cell: 602-292-0646
Posted in The Board, General News | No Comments »
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007
Our board president, Bill Frazelle, has recently implimented his “President’s Corner” newsletter. This is an excellent step in open dialog. Please click on this link to view Mr. Frazelle’s first newsletter
Saturday, September 2nd, 2006
My husband and I read the information from Lot 49, Liane Kerr & Paul Donistho. If it is true that the Board and/or Kay Phillips replaced Greg Ogawa and Mark Fleenor by two persons that ran but were defeated by the membership of the homeowners–then that simply shows lack of character by the Board and/or Kay Phillips. The Board and/or Kay Phillips should have e-mailed all homeowners this information and allowed them to vote for their choices for replacement of Board members–especially in lieu of the Annual Homeowners meeting. I feel the entire Board should have resigned that day of the Annual Homeowners meeting since it was very plain and clear that there were many problems with the Board during the last year.
I would recommend that at the next Annual Homeowners meeting an amendment be made as such:
In the event any Board Member should resign during the year, a special election shall be called through the e-mail system at which time homeowners may nominate and vote for various individuals to replace the resigned Board Member or Members.
Linda Harkey, Lots 23 & 24
Posted in The Board | No Comments »
Wednesday, August 30th, 2006
I had an interesting phone conversation with our caretaker, Kris, yesterday. It seems that he wanted to know how to take a posting off my web site, and was looking for help in doing that task. I told him that I would do it for him, but was curious as to why he wanted to remove a posting.
against NeighborMonday, June 12th, 2006
First of all… my wife and I are glad to see that Mr. Fink has spent a good deal of time restoring the Hidden Lake website… being owners in abstentia, we feel that this website will help us to feel more connected to our neighbors in our future neighborhood.
Our first few months as owners found us giddy with excitement, with the prospect of our new property, and the thoughts of beginning the building of our dream retirement home… we’ve even met a few of our neighbors face to face… and we’ve been thrilled with their helpfulness in getting us aquainted with the area and with the village.
Maybe the newness has worn off… hopefully, the neighbors we’ve met so far are more the “rule” than the “exception”… but we’ve been struck by what seems to be power struggles and infighting within small groups of people (some might say groups of small people), whom we’ve never met, who seem to have the ability to tap into our checkbooks and impose local “taxes” on a whim, without adequate notice and discussion among the rest of the HL community and without adequate “representation”. Bloody wars have been fought over smaller infractions…
The following is excerpted from a letter/e-mail that we sent to the gentleman who represented us by proxy at the last general board meeting… I include this only for informational purposes and not to implicate that we were in any way mis-represented at the meeting… that is not our feeling.
***11/07/2005
Dear xxxxxx
I have some concerns regarding some recent events/issues that have come to light in the last several weeks regarding Hidden Lake…
As you may remember, my wife and I are new owners of lot #79 … and we have become good friends with our next door neighbors. As you might expect, we maintain frequent contact with them, and usually the discussion comes around to what’s happening in the “neighborhood”. When it came time for the annual meeting, my wife and I were not able to attend and had intended to give the next door neighbor’s our proxy, since we generally agree on our needs and outcomes. However since the our neighbor’s were also not able to attend, we provided our proxy to you at the neighbor’s recommendation.
Let me say at the outset, that my wife and I are not questioning your ability to represent us at the meeting… in fact we feel that you believe that you are looking out for our best interests… However… we feel that we’ve been blind sided by this special assessment, especially since there was no mention of it on the agenda. Had there been mention of it, I would have canceled my business trip to have been there.
Yes, I understand that, according to the bylaws, the board was under no obligation to issue an agenda prior to the meeting, nor to provide any notice of any planned discussion of a need for a special assessment. HOWEVER… JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO GIVE SUCH NOTICE, DOES NOT MAKE IT “RIGHT AND PROPER” TO AVOID SUCH NOTICE. In my experience with other associations, when the bylaws are originally established, there is a certain amount of implied trust and respect that is afforded to the people bound by the bylaws… In my opinion, this should include providing a reasonable amount of information by which the individuals could make a judgement as to whether or not to attend certain specific meetings. I would also assume this to include those topics whose outcomes directly affect the wallets and living conditions within the bounds of the development. I also expect the outcomes of the meeting (the minutes) to be communicated within a reasonable length of time (30-60 days). I generally give the benefit of the doubt to people I don’t know… I trust them until it has been proven that they can’t be trusted. The same goes for group behavior… I will trust the group until proven otherwise. (Don’t misunderstand my statement… We do still trust you, xxxxxxx).
When that implicit trust exists, the bylaws are generally written “loosely” with respect to such provisions, to allow for a measure of flexibility to accommodate emergency situations. It is when those measures of trust are violated that the multitude of amendments come about, and generally mess up the bylaws (making them long legal documents that become virtually unusable). I don’t believe that it is necessary for the Association bylaws to become cluttered with all the “what if’s”.
Now, let me explain our feelings within that context…
1. My wife and I feel blind sided by the boards decision to require a special assessment for the snow removal equipment. All we received from the Association is a notice of special assessment… no explanation, no discussion (in the form of minutes), no invitation to provide feedback (there are other smart people in the association, not just those that sit on the board). We have only been notified that we must write a check… and that if we are late, that we will be penalized with 15% interest. Now isn’t that friendly? This does not build trust and demonstrate friendship… and we are expected to trust in the board’s decision who is not willing to have the courtesy of advising us that such a decision is pending? Shouldn’t there have been some sort of review committee formed to review the actual needs and options available prior to just gathering this pool of money?
2. If you were not sitting on the board, and were not privy to the discussion at hand, wouldn’t you feel the same way? Wouldn’t you feel slighted if you were provided an agenda that makes no mention of an important topic that was to be discussed… only then to discover that you now owed an unexpected $50,000… (of course, it was “only” $500… the principle is the same). It is not about the money… it is about the principles of courtesy, trust and respect. We think that it is disingenuous to hide behind the lack of certain provisions or requirements within the bylaws to avoid providing important information to the membership.
3. BY THE WAY… I HEAR THAT THE ROAD GRADER IS BACK… SO WHAT IS MY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO BE USED FOR NOW? Again, xxxxxx… I’m not attacking you personally… We appreciate that you were willing to act as our proxy… and that you did provide quick feedback after the meeting, mentioning that the issue of the manufactured housing was over… but you didn’t make any mention of the special assessment (hopefully, just an oversight)… FYI… we were not worried about the manufactured housing issue anyway..
Also, we understand that we hear most of the Hidden Lake news through our immediate neighbors… They are very good about stating what is opinion and what they know to be fact… and we’ve come to trust what they tell us… However, by their own admission, they do not hear everything, and do not know everything. We understand that what we hear may be shaded by their perspective… but so far… that is our only line of communication (by the way, they tend to be very accurate)… so we get 2nd and 3rd hand information by which to make our judgements. This is even more reason for the board to act in a manner that builds trust with its membership… courtesy, respect and trust of the membership. If what we are hearing is incorrect then speak up… don’t hide behind the lack of “rules” in the bylaws.
Bringing back this website can be very helpful in opening the lines of communication with the rest of the owners like us… those in absentia… I’ve mentioned that I would be happy to help Mr. Fink with the website, to the extent that I would be happy to review any articles… and even moderate the forum. If you are concerned with the objectivity of the website… I am happy to work with the webmaster to bring this mode of communication back current. (In fact, I am now working with Mr. Fink specifically in this role.)
Is the board willing to have an objective light shine on the issues and on their actions and decisions?
We hope that we’ve not pissed you off… but instead have given you some insight from our perspective… We want Hidden Lake to be a great place to live by the time we get our place built and get moved out there … We don’t want the HOA to be bound by unnecessary rules that will be put into place to prevent these kinds of practices, when the rules don’t have to be necessary if everyone involved is courteous, respectful and trusting.
*******
That said… we would like:
1. To see the minutes of any meeting forwarded to us (e-mail is fine) within 30 days of the close of any official meeting,
2. To see a copy of the detailed financial statements within 60 days of the end of the association’s fiscal year.
3. Adequate notification (90 days) of any agenda item which has the potential of either directly or indirectly affecting the pocket book, or our ability to choose the dwelling our our choice.
The ultimate role of the HOA is to assure that that the living conditions of our “community” is safe, pleasant and respectful of each others property and property values… In our humble opinion, the actions of the HOA board and their interactions with their neighbors, both on site and in abstentia have far more impact on the quality of life in our community than the prospect of any pre-fabricated housing (even mobile homes with wheels)… any of which would be difficult to see from any of the roads in the division.
Good people are not defined by the kind of houses they live in, but by their actions in the communities in which they live. We hope that the community we chose for our retirement is made up of good people, not necessarily million dollar homes. So far, the neighbors we’ve met face to face are good people… are you people on the board good people or rich home-owners?
Best Regards
Brad & Steph Snyder
Lot #79
Posted in The Board | No Comments »
Tuesday, June 6th, 2006
Several Hidden Lake Owners have called for the recall of the Hidden Lake Board based upon the Board’s lack of responsiveness and general ineptness. It is true that the Board has failed to communicate regualarly, or even occassionally, with the owners who elected it. Only in response to letters from various owners to the rest of the owners did Kay elect to write the owners with a defense of the Board’s conduct. That letter from Kay was carefully edited by an attorney hired by the Board to defend it rather than the owners.
Several members of the Board, unfortunately a small minority, have communicated with the owners and have voted against such issues as allowing manufactured housing in Hidden Lake and substituting the purchase of a used truck with a snowplow for the owner-approved purchase of a backhoe with a snowblower. While their actions are commendable, it is clear that the majority of the Board no longer represents the homeowners, but instead has a self-serving and extremely defensive agenda. Supposedly, the Board is there to serve the owners. That is clearly not the case! While it may be necessary to recall the Board at the July annual meeting, a more fair and less devisive outcome would be for all of the Board to resign and for the owners to elect new Board members. If Board members really believe that they still represent the majority of owners, then each member should run for re-election after he/she resigns.
Mike Vorst
Posted in The Board | No Comments »
Thursday, May 18th, 2006
Not long ago, Kay Phillips sent out a letter to the property owner’s of Hidden Lake, explaining the board’s position on certain issues at Hidden Lake. On the last page, Ms. Phillips mentions that the issue of a newsletter was last discussed in 2000, but until the last year, there was not enough information of substance to warrant the cost and effort.
How about:
- In spring of 2005, the roads were not plowed when over four feet of snow fell in one storm? How many folks have property up here that might have needed propane?
- Our caretaker Luis quit, and no one was notified. How many folks thought they were getting some kind of service up here, but no one was around?
- Everyone was told that the gate would be locked, but it never happened. When the gate ultimately was not locked, no one was notified that it would not happen.
- New caretaker was hired, no one was notified.
- The grader is no longer available for the caretaker to grade the roads. Actually, what exactly does the caretaker do? Joe insists that he be available for work during normal business hours, but there’s no work to do.
Every one of these issues, in my view, are important enough to warrant an individual letter to the property owners, yet nothing was said. In my case, I live here at Hidden Lake, and had to learn most of this information from outside sources. I found out that we were going to hire a caretaker from a yard boy at RBS in Angel Fire. Later, I was told by a board member that we would not be hiring a caretaker, then one shows up in the cabin. Glad I didn’t go down and run him off!
At least some of the information that’s being distributed by the board is false. Two examples in Ms. Phillips’s recent letter do not represent the truth. In one example, on the last page of Ms. Phillips’s letter, she is discussing the creation of a newsletter. She implies that the board created a web site instead, and she further indicates that she has records that show no activity or interest in the site. First, the site was created by me at my expense, and I don’t remember releasing any records that indicated site usage to her or anyone for that matter.
Another issue that’s a distortion of the truth is in the “Details” section of Ms. Phillip’s letter, item 3. In the third paragraph of page 5, she states that the general membership voted to amend the bylaws to include a 1$ per square foot assessment for any new construction. This is a distortion of the truth at best, and mostly just not true. That decision was made in my dining room at my home among the board members present. As a general member, I was not given an opportunity vote on this issue. We were simply informed of its implementation at the general membership meeting.
When discussing the appropriateness of spending money to inform the membership of relevant news, remember that the cost of postage and the stationery is most likely less than $100.00 per letter. Almost no efforts have been made to utilize email, which would significantly reduce even that meager expense. And, after all, how long can it take Kay to sit down and bang out a quick note via email? My belief is that this board has failed - either through the deliberate withholding of information, or through simple inaction – to adequately inform the general membership of appropriate information. Some of this information could potentially be costly, and all of it is certainly of interest to property owners at Hidden Lake. Whether the information was withheld or distorted, this practice needs to change. If the board doesn’t have time, or is unwilling to provide truthful and timely information to the general population, maybe we should look to folks to run the board who will?
Don Fink
Posted in The Board, General News | 2 Comments »
Thursday, May 18th, 2006
Last July, at the annual meeting of the Hidden Lake Property Owner’s Association, the Board shot one past us in one of the most blatantly dishonest moves I’ve seen to date. The matter of the special assessment for the snow removal equipment was, in my opinion, a demonstration of the board’s disregard for the homeowners right to participate in the affairs of Hidden Lake.
The problem is not that that the board brought up the issue. In fact, it’s my understanding from reading the minutes that the issue was not brought up by the board at all. The probelm was that the board allowed it to continue to a vote without advertising the fact that they were going to do so. In government, this practice is against the law! There were several people who would have attended the meeting and made significant input to the subject had they known that the issue would be discussed and voted upon. Instead, the subject was left off the agenda, and several people elected not to attend because there was no significant information that would be discussed at the meeting.
There are several other issues related to the snow removal discussion that seems odd.
First, the board had clearly not done its research before coming to the property owners. The overall discussion seemed to revolve around a backhoe and a snow blower attachment. In the end, nothing of the kind was purchased.
Second, the minutes say that Kay Phillips said that we needed a special assessment to purchase any kind of equipment. The then Treasurer, Frank Toby, tells me that there was over $90,000.00 available to the board at the time. Without knowing what kind of equipment we were going to buy, how can anyone know that a special assessment was needed?
Third, and this is the point of this article, is why were we discussing assessing someone money when we had not given people the opportunity to be present for the discussion? My point is that a special assessment that basically doubles my dues to this organization is a big deal. I pay dues with an expectation of the amount I’m going to owe, and I believe I have a legitimate say in the assessment of those funds. To bring up the subject of assessing more money when property owners have not had the opportunity to be part of the discussion is simply dishonest.
Did the board openly deceive the property owners in allowing the special assessment? The truth is, it doesn’t matter whether the deception was purposeful or not. The fact is, it happened. Whether it was an open attempt to make an end run around the property owners, or whether it was simply an inability to plan an agenda, the fact was, people were deceived, and money was assessed without the vast majority of the property owners having a say.
Greg Ogawa tells me that I’m wasting my time in bringing this issue up. He tells me that he is comfortable that the board had the legal right to do a special assessment. I guess I shouldn’t be picking on Greg, since he was the only board member who would bother to discuss this with me after the fact. For that, he should be commended. While Greg might be comfortable with the notion that the vote was technically legal, he seems to not be concerned with whether it was the right thing to do.
The fact remains that, without allowing everyone the opportunity to participate in a discussion of this magnitude, the board has demonstrated that it does not care what the general membership thinks, wants, or needs.
So, the members that were present at the last meeting voted to assess everyone else who did not have the opportunity to comment.
What’s the fix?
In my view, the board needs to take two steps to fix this issue:
First, the special assessment needs to go away until everyone has the opportunity to discuss it and arrive at a majority vote. This means that the board needs to either return the money that has been collected so far, or credit that money to the property owner’s next dues.
Second, the board needs to apologize to the property owners who did not have the opportunity to express their views with this important issue. This is not because the property owners need or want an apology, but rather that the board needs to better understand who they work for. They have deeply offended me and other owners with their attitude that they are not accountable, and they need to understand that they are indeed accountable to the people. An apology would be a good first step.
Failing both of these actions, here’s what I propose:
The first action of the property owners at Hidden Lake should be the recall of all board members. There are people who have property at Hidden Lake who are willing to step up and be responsive to the needs of the property owners. By the way, I am not one of those people, so no one needs to worry that this might be just a power grab on my part. I was on the board at one time, and resigned.
If a recall is not the action that the owners believe is necessary, the next best thing is to simply replace members of the board as their term is up. Unfortunately, several of the board members have a long time to run on their terms, and can do a lot of damage in that time.
A Final Note:
You’ll notice at the bottom of the article that there is an opportunity for people to comment. All you need to do to comment on this article is register, log in, and have at it. If you agree with me, I would appreciate a comment. If you disagree, I would suggest that you make your views known. After all, if I’m the only one who comments, people might think that my views are consistent with the majority of the people, and I’ll almost bet money that my views aren’t the only ones out there.
If you’re a board member, and you want to apologize, or if you don’t believe an apology is warranted, some of us would like to hear your views. Again, if I’m the only one who comments on this web site, folks might start thinking that my views are the only ones here.
Don Fink
Before we start, I would like to refer to the note at the end of this article, and remind everyone that Kris, our caretaker, is not involved in this discussion. Even though his situation has inspired this article, he encouraged me not to pursue it because he is in fear of losing his job.
He told me that Joe Stehling had informed him that he was not allowed to make comments on my web site that were not specifically approved by the board. Let me say this again, in case some of you are just skimming this article. Kris told me that he was not allowed to make comments or postings on my web site unless they were specifically approved by the board.
Now, if I was going to go flying off the handle, this is where I would do it. I would accuse the board of not allowing Kris his basic right of free speech. I would say that they were suppressing the truth. I would even ask why the board was intentionally crippling this young man’s desire to openly communicate with his employers, the property owners. I would ask LtCol Stehling how he could put in a whole career defending our American way, when in the end it comes down to this; he’s got to stifle a few comments from a caretaker at Hidden Lake.
When you think about it, it’s not uncommon for a company to regulate the information that flows out to the public. The government does this all the time. So you might ask, why am I upset about Joe Stehling suppressing comments from the caretaker at Hidden Lake?
The problem is simply this:
The board a Hidden Lake has a history of failing to communicate with the property owners. They have failed at every opportunity to bring honest and true information forward. In our last property owner’s meeting, we sat there for about nine hours trying to bring this information to light. We pondered at the absolute refusal to communicate with anyone at Hidden Lake for several months because of the threat of a lawsuit. We wondered why Kay can’t answer a simple question without going around in circles, instead of providing a simple, truthful answer to pretty much any question (yes, I have it on video tape if you doubt this behavior).
This is a really simple concept, this communications thing. But the board still does not appear to understand. Their answer is to post an Annual Meeting After Action Report where they (Joe Stehling wrote it, but being a board member, I assume he speaks for the board) accused some of us of “animosity, hostility, vindictiveness, and outright rudeness.” Of course, all this activity was met with outright cursing at us from the board, but who’s counting?
The point is, Joe was allowed to post his comments on my web site without review, but Kris is not allowed to speak. I suppose the question is, who does Kris work for? Does he work for the board, or does he work for the property owners. The question is important. If Kris does indeed work for the board, then they have the right to control his free speech in matters related to Hidden Lake. They have the right to withhold the truth from the property owners by not allowing our caretaker to speak. They have the right to feed to you the property owner only the information they believe you should know. Right?….
But if Kris works for the “association”, and therefore the property owners in general, I want to know what he has to say. I want to hear the truth from every person related to Hidden Lake. I understand that Joe sometimes gets a little wrapped up in our dialog personally, and the truth sometimes gets away from him just a bit, but I expect truthful and honest dialog from our caretaker. Consider Kris’s position for a moment. When I ask Kris a question as a property owner, I expect a truthful answer. When he fails to respond, he’s not being truthful, and I simply cannot accept that from an employee of the association. So where does that leave Kris? For those of you who are new to our little community, you might not understand that the caretaker is not being truthful because the board won’t allow it. I ask again, where does that leave Kris?
In the end, I can’t think of a single reason why every person associated with Hidden Lake should not be truthful and honest in every way with every other person up here. As property owners, we have the expectation that the board will respond to our concerns in open and truthful dialog. For those of you who have tried, you know that this has not been the case in the past. Now that we have spent a considerable amount of time and energy trying to fix this problem, I find that the board is still not interested in providing the truth.
I have taken Kris’s comments off my web site as he requested, but here’s another proposal, and I’ll just throw it out for comment. Unless someone can give me a valid reason why a board member should be allowed to post items on my web site when Kris cannot, maybe I should start reviewing the comments of the board or individual board members to ensure that I agree with them before their comments go up. Maybe I should suppress anyone who does not agree with me personally before they post on my site. After all, it is my site, and I do indeed pay all the expense. Does that sound right? Of course it doesn’t! Most of you would be outright annoyed if I started “approving” the comments of individuals before they went up on my site. The dialog would be irrelevant if I attempted to control its content. But that’s exactly what Joe is doing to Kris.
If you think that the board should control Kris’s dialog with his employers, the property owners, then you should join Craig and Pam Morris and thank the board for a “job well done”. If, however, you believe in honesty and openness here at Hidden Lake, then you should join the large number of property owners who believe that it’s time for the present board (newly elected and re-elected people excluded) to move out of the way and let us get on with the honest business of managing our community.
Note: I would like to point out that this article has been posted without the knowledge of our caretaker, Kris. After the phone conversation we had he was genuinely concerned for his job, and asked me not to “get him into trouble” with the board. He was truly afraid that he would be fired if I continued this argument. I would like to make it perfectly clear that Kris is not involved in this issue. He is simply trying to do his job, and get through these troubled times intact. I assure everyone that, when we finally get these people off the board, and get responsible, honest people in place, Kris will emerge an outstanding and hard working employee.
Don Fink
Lot 94
Posted in The Board | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, August 1st, 2006
Lake Report
Dave Phillips reported that the lake was recently stocked. He would like to hear from people who fished, to know if anyone was catching fish. He wasn’t aware of anyone catching any fish for several years. Several people mentioned that the lake smelled and had algae. They asked if the health of the lake had been checked before the fish were planted. David mentioned that the person who planted the fish checked the water’s PH level after the fish were released, but said that the PH levels were okay. He also said that it would take $7,000 to $8,000 to have a full study done on the lake.There was further discussion on other less expensive ways of determining the lake’s health, and how good of an idea it was to have the person selling the fish assessing the health of the lake.A motion was made to form a committee of property owners to research ways to check the health of the lake. Motion carried.
Hidden Lake POA Membership Directory
A long discussion went on about how hard and expensive it was to create a directory. Many suggestion were made from the property owners to do as much of it as possible electronically; via eMail or web site. The board seemed to have an issue with using technology to communicate, but maybe that’s just my opinion sneaking in again. I made a motion that we publish a new membership directory annually. Another property owner had a proposed By-law change that accomplished essentially the same thing, so I withdrew the motion.
There was also discussion where Kay related that several property owners had threatened to sue the board if their contact information was published. The specific number of persons who didn’t want their information made available was not known, or at least I missed that part of her answer. It was also mentioned that most of the contact information about property owners is public knowledge; that all one has to do is go to the county offices in Raton and ask for it.
Later, the By-law was proposed and passed by majority vote, which obligates the board to publish a new directory each year. The preferred method of distributing the directory will be eMail to keep costs at a minimum. The by-law basically says that a directory will be published once a year. Folks who do not want their information published will not be published. They will also not receive a directory (the thought here is that information flows both ways).
Covenants and By-laws Update
Mark Fleenor gave a presentation on updating the covenants and by-laws. A long discussion took place about why the work of several members last year was never addressed by the board. It seems that people did a considerable amount of work on the by-laws and covenants, only to have their efforts ignored by the board.
The explanation gave by Kay was that when the board was threatened with a law suit about the off-site manufactured home, all work stopped on all other projects. To better phrase it, all communication with property owners stopped. Kay said that this was the advice of legal council.
Now, here goes my opinion again, but you really have to wonder about the usefulness of legal council that tells you to shut down your corporation because someone threatened a legal action. Let’s translate that over to a commercial corporation, and examine the feasibility of shutting down for five months.
I’m not an attorney, but I did spend several years managing employees with an extremely hostile union (National Air Traffic Controller’s Association). There was rarely a day that went by that we weren’t threatened with a grievance, an Unfair Labor Practice Charge (which was heard in federal court), or a civil lawsuit. Consider what would have happened if we simply refused to speak to our employees because we were engaged in unpleasant business with one subject or another. I’m sorry but this is just about the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.
Kay said that if this happens again, the board will again refuse to communicate with the membership. This is unacceptable! End of this particular opinion!
Mark Fleenor said that the board was considering hiring a consulting firm to update our covenants. Of course, there was a long discussion of why we were spending money to an outside firm when we had folks in the membership who could and would do that at no cost. In all fairness, the idea of hiring a consulting firm was a proposal before the membership, and not a done deal.
A motion was made to form a committee of property owners to address the work that folks had already done last year and get input from other interested property owners about changes to the by-laws and covenants, then get information out to everyone. Motion carried.
Discussion and Voting on Changes to By-Laws
(These may not be in the actual order, as we’re working from a “pile” of notes here)
Proposal: Creating four board officers instead of three. There was originally the President, Vice President, Secretary/Treasurer. The proposal broke off the Secretary/Treasurer position into two separate jobs. Proposal passed.
Proposal: Setting permanent annual meeting dates. One proposal called for meeting dates to be set for the last Saturday in July. Another called for the meeting to be set for the first Saturday in August. There was some discussion, and the first Saturday in August was set as the permanent annual meeting date. Time and place will be set by the board each year.
Proposal: Current membership list will be maintained and distributed to the membership each year. See the discussion above for more details. Proposal passed.
Proposal: Terms for newly elected board director shall begin at midnight, September 1st following their election at the annual meeting. Some discussion. Proposal failed.
Proposal: Filling vacancies on the board. Currently, when a vacancy occurs on the board of directors, the board will appoint a new property owner to fill the position for the remainder of the normal term of the person who left. With the new proposal, the board will appoint a new board member who will serve until the next annual meeting. At the annual meeting, the membership will elect a new director who will then serve for the remainder of the vacant term. Proposal Passed.
Proposal: All decisions made by the board of directors except for daily operations and emergencies must be ratified within 60 days by vote of the owners. There was a long discussion about this proposal. One owner suggested that we vote to not ratify, and the absence of voting constituted approval.
Here goes my opinion again – I personally support this idea for two reasons. First, I don’t trust the board to do the right thing. They have proven many times over that they will fail at nearly every opportunity. Secondly, I have worked in an environment where union officials needed to have their membership ratify major decisions, and the idea – although somewhat of a burden to the union management – works. It keeps people in check, and it also takes union management (in this case the board) off the hook in controversial situations.
There was lengthy discussion about having to trust the board to manage operations. The proposal was tabled until the by-law/covenant committee could look it over. They will see if the terms used can be further defined to everyone’s satisfaction and we’ll address this again at the next annual meeting.
Election of new board members:
New members are (in no particular order)
- Bill Frazelle
- Mike Vorst
- Sandra Stokes (re-elected)
Existing board members (again, in no particular order)
- Greg Ogawa
- Kay Phillips
- Dave Phillips
- Joe Stehling
It was brought out that Joe would be resigning soon. The question was made that maybe Joe might want to resign at the meeting, so the membership could elect a new board member. The answer was that no, Joe would probably resign in October and the board would appoint its own person at that time.
Now I ask you, would it have been so difficult to resign now and let the membership pick a suitable replacement? What exactly is Joe going to do between now and October that requires him to be on the board? Or, are you thinking that maybe Joe and the board are simply trying to prevent the membership from having some say in Hidden Lake affairs? There’s a comment section at the end of this article. I really would like to know why Joe resigning at the meeting was such a bad idea.
Off Site Manufactured Homes
There was more discussion about off-site manufactured homes. The owners of the property who are proposing to construct a pre-manufactured home were at the meeting, and they gave in impromptu report on their activities.
They are looking at a manufactured home that’s currently being modeled in Angel Fire. It was decided that we would place photos on the home on the http://www.hiddenlakenews.com/ web site, along with other information. From this information, the property owners who care can engage in discussion. The board promised to take a quick peak at those discussions to see what everyone else was thinking.
At the present time, I am investigating different software packages that will allow full-on forums to be placed on this site. There are two packages I’m considering. The first is simply a plugin to the core software that runs the site, but it doesn’t seem to want to play nice with my theme modifications. The second is a stand alone package. It’s advantage is that it’s full featured, and we can do absolutely anything that any other forum software can do. The disadvantage is that people would end up with two sing-ons; one for the forum and one for the comments to these posts.
Why Two Web Sites:
Guy Pierce made an introduction to the “official” Hidden Lake web site. It’s URL is http://www.hiddenlakepoa.org/. The question was put to Guy over why there were two sites. Guy simply said that http://www.hiddenlakenews.com/ was Don’s site, and the new site was the board’s. Of course, he corrected himself and stated that http://www.hiddenlakepoa.org/ was the property owner’s site.
Guy also mentioned that “Don’s” site allowed for open discussion and that the new official site never would.
I would have made a proposal here, but I promised Guy that I would never get into a feud over web sites. The proposal has actually been made several times to the board, but never with a reasonable response from them. In the past – and the offer still stands – I have offered exclusive space on my site for the board’s use. While I have never received a response other than Joe Stehling saying that he didn’t want to participate in a web site who will only “bitch” about the board, and Greg Ogawa saying that he really didn’t have time to look at it, my offer still stands.
The difference now is that, in the future, if the board decides to move their activities over to my site and save some money (this site is done entirely at my expense), I’ll ask someone like Guy Pierce or an acting board member to administer that portion of the site. That keeps my workload down, and gives them free access to put up whatever information they want, when they please.
Move to Impeach:
At the very end of the meeting, a motion was made for a vote of no confidence, and ultimate removal of the current board. This motion was seconded. During the discussion, several members pointed out that this move was as underhanded as the actions of the current board, since so many people had left the meeting and therefore had no opportunity to participate.
After lengthy discussion, the motion was withdrawn, and the statement was made to the board that this was a wake up call. If this motion would have been put to a vote, the motion would have certainly carried and the board would have been removed.
Their performance is unacceptable to a large majority of the property owners, and changes will occur. Since no provision to remove board members exists in the current by-laws, and Roberts Rules don’t specifically support removal, the by-law/covenant committee will look at amendments that provides for such an action.
A word about Communications:
It was my concern at the beginning of this meeting that the board has failed miserably in communicating with the property owners. They have been somewhat deceptive at best, and downright dishonest in other cases. I truly believe that the majority of all problems with the performance of the board come from this one fault in their culture.
They have seriously failed in reading the desires of the property owners. Those of us who reached out to challenge them on this and other issues are regarded as a small minority of the property owners, when in fact we are made up of a very large portion of the membership. We comprise enough of the population that changes are inevitable. We will do what we need to do to bring about positive change to the behavior of this board. Whether that involves removing the remaining folks who simply don’t get it, or whether it means educating them to our perception of their responsibilities, I for one don’t care. So long as we bring about the changes that correct the behavior I’ll be satisfied.
Unfortunately, at the end of the meeting, my impression was that not one of the old members of the board got the message. Whether we simply let their terms run out and not re-elect them, or whether we enact by-laws that allow for their removal is yet to be seen, but changes will take place.
It is also my sincere desire that we can get back on track and move forward with only the usual amount of hate and discontent. After all, this is my home here at Hidden Lake. It’s my only home, and I deal with these issues each and every day. Personally, I’m tired.
Don Fink
Posted in The Board, General News | No Comments »
Monday, July 31st, 2006
The Annual Hidden Lake Propertry Owner’s Meeting, Part 1
As I start to write a summary based on our notes from Saturday’s meeting, I am beginning to discover that it will take a very long time to get it all down. This meeting was long, it was unpleasant for some, and some very important business was handled. I therefore have the problem of scheduling enough time to write this up properly, and still get on with other obligations in my life.
I have therefore decided to write it in sections, and publish the information as I get it written down. That way, you can at least read the parts I have so far, and not have to wait for it all at once. I apologize for this inconvenience, but at least you can see it as it’s written, and not have to wait for a long time for the official minutes to tell you what happened.
Background
It’s important to point out that the actions that took place on Saturday were not single, isolated incidents; nor were they arbitrary on the part on individual owners. They were the result of a significant number of people who were increasingly dissatisfied with the behavior of the present board’s management of Hidden Lake. Many of us have decided that enough is enough. While several property owners have actually sold their properties up here specifically because they don’t feel a need to deal with the politics of an out of control board, others of us have decided that it’s time to take back the board and require it’s behavior to be in the interest of the property owners.
The Meeting:
Saturday, July 29th, was the annual Hidden Lake property owner’s meeting. Like meetings in the past, this one was filled with lots of spirited discussion, but unlike meetings in the past, this one looked like it was going to go all night!
There were many seriously dissatisfied owners at the meeting, a few who were not all that worked up, and a few who were just trying to figure out what was going on. Before you read further in this article, you should know that I was one of the seriously dissatisfied people, and therefore will probably slant my writing in that direction, even though I try to be factual in every way.
You should also know that this report is by no means an official report. These are not minutes. While I have most of the meeting on video tape, I’m writing this from memory in order to get it out quickly, so I may miss a couple of points, and may be just plain wrong in others. Please don’t take these comments as the absolute record. Having said all the disclaimer stuff, we’ll move along.
The First Hour
The meeting started with a few words from various people; Joe Stehling gave a good report about Firewise, I gave a brief talk about fire department issues, and county commissioner Bill Conley talked about a few things that are of interest to Hidden Lake folks.
According to Bill, the county is looking at placing dumpsters at one of two places; maybe both. The first location is at the spot along Highway 120 where it turns to dirt. The second location is at the Black Lake Fire Station, along Highway 120 near Angel Fire.
Mr. Conley is planning to meet with some state officials in the next couple of weeks to discuss the possibility of improving Highway 120 from the Moreno Valley to Ocate. The obvious reasons are that it would result in an important improvement for the people who live in the area. Commuters (yes, people commute to work every day on that road) would have a safer, more effiicient road, and tourists from Oklahoma and Texas would enjoy about an hour less travel time when coming to the Moreno Valley. Tourism is an important industry here.
He reminded us that locking the gate at Hidden Lake is not an option since the roads at Hidden Lake are public county roads.
Mr. Conley also gave us some advice: If we’re planning to seek political action, consider doing it as a unified group. He says that groups like property owner’s associations get more attention when they act as one rather than as single individuals. Important words to remember as we move forward, especially in light of our current level of hostility.
After Lunch:
The Roads
We moved right into business. Joe gave a report about the roads. Essentially, we’ve done nothing for the roads this year, except to have a contractor come up just prior to this meeting and grade some of them. The cost of that grading will be about $3,000.00. As for the rest, Joe says that to repair the roads will cost about $30,000 per mile. Being that we don’t have the money, he elected not to do anything.
It wasn’t clear if the price Joe was quoting was to bring the roads up to county standards, or to simply repair them. My impression was that he was talking about bringing the roads up to county standards, which means to lay down several inches of road base.
I wasn’t sure why we don’t simply repair the roads, and not worry about “county standards”. The county isn’t going to take over these roads anyway, so what exactly are we doing here? In the meantime, since the $3,000.00 grader job a week ago, the road that I drive every day to my home has portions of it that has no road base. It’s just dirt.
By my elementary mathematics, and based on Joe’s comments, it will take about 18 years to go over all the roads at Hidden Lake. Fortunately, there will be a different group running things here shortly, and the hope is that we can get back on track; doing what’s reasonable!
There was a long discussion about what causes the roads to go bad. One homeowner pointed out that small vehicles travelling too fast causes washboarding; that it wasn’t the large vehicles doing all the damage. This discussion then moved into why we were charging an assessment for people building homes if it wasn’t the big trucks causing the damage. While the discussion centered around the idea that small vehicles traveling too fast was actually causing the problems, I must admit that I am not aware of a “washboarding” issue here. I’ll make a point to look more closely at the roads to see if there is evidence of significant washboarding.
The real point of the road damage is that damage happens for all sorts of reasons. We need to be able to repair them and move on, and so far we’re failing at this task. Again, there were changes at the meeting yesterday that will most likely solve this problem.
Minutes From 2005
Approved the minutes from last year. Not much to report there.
Kay’s Motion To Limit Speaking Time
Kay made a motion to limit our speaking time to 1 minute to keep things moving along. Discussion seemed to reflect that we meet only once a year, and we should take as long as we needed to make our point. Motion failed.
The Frank Collins Presentation
Frank Collins gave a discussion outlining the chronology of purchasing the “30 year old dump truck”. While Kay corrected him several times; that it was “snow removal equipment”, it seemed clear to at least me that it was a “30 year old dump truck”.
Essentially, Frank outlined compelling reasoning that the board had clear instructions from the membership to purchase snow removal equipment in the form of a back-hoe. The specific model and year was left up to the board. The special assessment was set for $500.00 per lot, which would potentially raise about $50,000.00. Instead, the board purchased a “30 year old dump truck” for around $65,000.00!
It’s important to mention that the board did indeed know that their instructions were to purchase snow removal equipment in the form of a back-hoe that would suppliment the grader. This was specifically outlined in their original notice of assessment to the property owners.
I will contact Frank in the next few days to see if I can have permissin to print the entire speech here for everyone to read. His points were well made, and based on verifiable facts.
While there’s been no credible reason for the decision to change the type of equipment purchased, the board did produce a list of pros and cons for one piece over another. The list, in my personal opinion, seems to be flawed in several ways, which is probably in part responsible for the flawed decision on the part of the baord. That’s another discussion we could have later. For now, we’re talking about the meeting.
Shortly after Frank’s speech, one owner asked the Board to resign, based on their mishandling of the “30 year old dump truck”.
After this presentation and disussion, a property owner made the motion that a committee of three be formed to review the “30 year old dump truck”, determine its value, and make a recommendation to the owners to either sell this equipment in favor of a more suitable machine(s), or keep it. The motion carried. The committee will be formed and report back to the membership. Expect a special ballot in a couple of months.
New Property Manager
Kris Perrault was introduced to the membership. He is our new property manager. Some of the work that Kris is doing, including significant improvements to the cabin inside and out, new septic system, and a new roof over the garage to replace the one that was improperly installed when Luis was here.
Kris and his wife Emily have been working hard to make a home for themselves in our community. They appear to be deeply rooted in the Angel Fire community, attending church on a regular basis, and socializing with many friends in the area.
As many of you know, I have been critical of the apparent lack of good business sense in keeping a caretaker up here in the past. While I still have that opinion, I appear to be in the minority. When I was trying to remove Luis in the past, I was doing so based on work performance, not because of my opinon about the usefullness of the position itself. It therefore should be no surprise that I support Kris and his efforts here at Hidden Lake. He is working hard and, in my opinion, is performing the tasks asked of him in an outstanding fashion. Would I have hired Luis in a personally owned business? No, I wouldn’t! Would I hire Kris? You Betcha! In a flash. If we are going to have a caretaker, this is the guy.
Some other property management issues
During the caretaker introduction, some other interesting issues came up. It was brought out that Joe Stehling had authorized the tree thinning contractor to take/purchase a significant amount of diesel fuel. Kris says he was ordered by Joe to dispense the fuel. Joe says that he knew nothing about it. It’s important to mention that the contractor was working Joe’s property at the time. Kris also expressed concern to me at the time it happened because he was concerned for the property owners’ resources, and didn’t know what to to. I advised him to follow Joe’s orders. I sat on the information because I knew there was no one on the board I could report it to that would give it any credibility, and I didn’t want to get Kris into hot water for no reason.
Another property owner expressed dissatisfaction that the tree thinning contractor had been given permission to drive their equipment across his property on an old logging road. He said that his information says that Joe Stehling had given the contractor permission to drive across. Joe said that he knew nothing about it, which puts the responsibility back on Kris.
You need to know that this is one of those portions of the report where I am somewhat predjudiced. I have here the problem of, do I believe Kris, or do I believe Joe? All I can tell you is that I work with Kris on the fire department. We do things that are potentially very dangerous in our volunteer firefighting efforts. Would I go into a burning building with Kris? Well, yes, I would. If I’ll do that, it should be no surprise that I believe him to be a truthful and consciencious young man. Do I believe Joe? I believe that Joe wants to tell you the truth, but I have on occasion known Joe to get the truth a little confused. I won’t go into a “Joe smashing campaign here”, I’m just relating my personal experience.
End of Part 1
This ends part 1. I’ll get to the rest of the story later today. Look for one, possibly two more parts shortly. I have left this story open for comments, so if you dispute my view of things, feel free to make your comments. If you agree, feel free to comment on that too. This web site is open to everyone to use, and folks need to know what the rest of the owners think.
Don Fink
Posted in The Board, General News | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006
This year’s property owner’s meeting is going to be important. There are many issues that need to be resolved if the Hidden Lake Property Owner’s Association is ever going to be a useful organization. Many property owners are very dissatisfied with the operation of the association, and have proposed changes.
If you agree that changes are needed, or if you disagree, now is the time more than ever for you to make your voice known! If you are planning on attending this year’s meeting, great! You’ll be a part of the solutions. If you’re not planning to attend, please send someone your proxy so that you can still be part of the solution.
Thanks,
Don Fink
