$7,464.73 -- Where are the receipts? ? ?
The Sun City Villas Board of Directors gave checks from SCV bank accounts to the following SCV Board Members. This is the third time I am asking for them.
Where are the receipts for the monies spent?
Date Amount Check number Payee
01/14/05 $ 178.00 1151 Wren Rose
04/29/05 200.00 11223 Wren Rose
08/15/05 490.50 11281 Wren Rose
Total $ 868.00
01/21/05 241.69 1159 George Martin
05/13/05 $ 62.56 11229 George Martin
05/31/05 92.32 11239 George Martin
02/28/05 298.57 11183 George Martin
08/31/05 200.00 11294 George Martin
09/15/05 93.13 11303 George Martin
11/30/05 1,340.41 11309 George Martin
12/15/05 140.65 11351 George Martin
01/05/06 $ 450.00 11363 George Martin
01/05/06 150.00 George Martin
02/15/06 297.37 11388 George Martin
Total $3,125.01
01/23/06 497.47 11379 Janice Long
04/28/06 696.59 11439 Janice Long
06/30/06 601.92 11476 Janice Long
12/05/06 701.92 11578 Janice Long
Total $2,497.90
06/30/06 276.81 11506 Marguerite Price
08/11/06 547.01 4017 Marguerite Price
Total $823.82
03/31/05 $ 150.00 1160 Ann Kuta
This is not the total as it does not include the checks for 2007. This is a quick over view. We need to know what this money purchased for SCV.
$7,464.73 of SCV member’s money without receipts? ? ? ? Where are the receipts
Wake up titleholders of Sun City Villas. Do not reelect this Board. It's time for you able and willing titleholders to step forward and run for office .
Open your minds and don't let ignorance lead you. We are in serious jeoapardy of soon to be facing law suits, loss of property value, and exhorbitant monthly dues.
It is unbelievable!
July 24 meeting was illegally run with Emma from Slam who prepared the agenda, writes the minutes, seconded the motions, and adjourned the meeting to an "executive session" when she wanted to cut off me off from completeing another titleholder's question. I pointed out that property management companies are not allowed at "executive session" meetings. Of course, one well intentioned but ignorant member tried to say the property managemenr company had the right to attend an "executive session" meeting. Why were they going to hold an executive meeting after the board had already completed its regular board meeting is another suspiscious act. It is also interesting that Emma announced at the meeting "from now on we will be checking the community to see every one is in compliance, we are pro active so it will be a happy place to live." They want the titleholders to comply but they can't even hold a legal meeting.
The titleholders of Sun City Villas (SCV) will be in serious crisis if action isn’t taken this year! Wake up before it is too late!
Response to Marguerite Price’s open letter, June 26, 2007 to the SCV titleholders re: my requests of the board via letter March, 2007 suggesting six items to which Marguerite addressed
SCV Board Has a Fiduciary Duty to the Membership
They have breached their fiduciary duty, they fail to act in the best interest of the titleholder. They take actions that put the association into liability. They refuse to learn from others who know. They should either resign or be removed.
Civil Codes 1350 to 1378 Fiduciary duty, Corp. Code 309, 723
“. . . .So serious is each board director’s duty to those entrusting their loyalty, that, “Most acts by an agent in breach of his fiduciary duties constitute constructive fraud.” And a careless misstatement may [also] constitute constructive fraud even though there is no fraudulent intent..”#1
A Board of Directors of a deed restricted community has the duty to manage the community’s affairs as a business and not as a social club. It must be responsible and accountable to all titleholders of the community—resident or non resident. It has the duty to give information to the members truthfully and accurately without a convolution of the facts. Its leadership must be in the highest and best interest of all titleholders. This board has failed in all of the above duties.
SCV board signed four separate contracts of which they didn’t even realize they signed two with the Emmons Company when they signed a third with S&L. They had to hire an attorney to clean up their mess at the titleholders’ expense. Marguerite Price claimed it is because the second contract was signed by the previous board and they didn’t tell the new board about it. That’s really odd. The previous board and the current board are basically the same people except for Mr. Anas. Don’t they communicate? They signed a contract with a security company and didn’t even know there was a $4000 penalty to cancel it. Ms. Price claims they accepted without question Emmons statistics on the number of rented units in the Villas. When she did her own check,(which was her fiduciary duty in the first place), she discovered she had been misinformed. The meeting notices, the minutes, and how the meetings are run fail to meet the California Corporate Codes specifications. A property management company is a vendor of the association the same as any other vendor—gardener, pool cleaner, handy man, etc. It is the fiduciary duty of the board to properly supervise the management and not the other way around. There is no end to their bungling of SCV association business. The board illegally authorized George Martin to be the SCV architectural committee of one, thus placing the association into more liability.
The board has illegally authorized George Martin to be the architectural committee of one, thus placing the association into more liability.
“Boards that convene committees consisting of one person could incur a risk that the committee’s actions and recommendations may be found ineffective and unenforceable. Such committees may also pose additional liability for the board that allows it. Omission from the statutes of any provision for the creation of a committee consisting of one person implies that there cannot be a committee of one.” California Common Interest Home Owner’s Guide
“. . .A committee for the control of structural and landscaping architecture and design, or an architectural control committee, shall consist of not less that three (3) nor more than five (5) members.” Cal. Code Regs., tit 10 *2792.28 (a)
The Board insists upon having a representative from a property management company at the open board meetings. Because a property management company is only a vendor of the association, it is very, very poor judgment to have a representative from the management company attend the meetings. Yet this board wants all the power and glory to run things without the willingness to be responsible and accountable. Ms. Price writes open letters in an obvious attempt to discredit me for challenging their management. By Ms. Price’s own admission, she and the board were not doing their job and don’t know what they’re doing. Yet, they want to be on the board and run SCV. Is this the kind of management that is in the best interest of the titleholder?
Marguerite Price wrote; “. . . I am bringing this response up at the board meeting and in front of any and all homeowners because Mrs. Daniels has seen fit to put many accusations against myself, George Martin and the 2007 board on her web page on the internet.”#2
Therese Daniels response; “Accusations” are one issue. Facts about their performance and track record are what is published on the web site. As a titleholder since 1998, I have paid over $22,000 in HOA dues. My mother has lived at the Villas since 1982 and has paid over $60,000 in HOA. We both have an investment here as do all titleholders in the Villas. We have every right and moral responsibility to challenge the management of the SCV board of directors. Telephone calling Marguerite or any of the board is impossible for me. They don’t pick up the phone or return calls. They try to pass it to the management company. Any of you who dealt with Emmons when they were around know that is telephone tag and buck passing. I have written very polite letters to Marguerite Price stating “I would welcome a telephone call from her to discuss some of the vital issues to the titleholder.” As usual, she never had the courtesy to call. It is in the best interest of all the titleholders to challenge the decisions and spending of the SCV Board. It is your money! In the spirit of due political process and free speech I am entitled to get necessary information to all titleholders. However, that is no longer possible, thanks to George Martin’s poison pen petition he delivered to me with 54 signatures (one signature was a tenant) asking me to take their names off their mailing list. This left me no choice but use my web site in hopes that those few SCV titleholders who are connected to the internet would see it, print it, and pass it on to the other members.
Marguerite Price wrote; “Mrs. Daniels States that we “ sabotage your rights”, “brainwash the homeowners,” and Mismanage the association that we try to hide things from you. . .”#2
Therese Daniels response; All titleholders have the right to receive information from each other about association management. Why do they need George Martin advising them to sign a petition to stop any information titleholders may need to know. That should be their independent choice. Isn’t that trying to hide information from you? Is George Martin censoring the information of the titleholders? Telling people to not read or get information from another titleholder is blocking their rights to obtain—perhaps—much needed information. It isn’t hard to understand that whatever George said to persuade some members to sign a petition that was not in the best interest of the home owner to sign— had to be brain washing or maybe slander. Other wise why would a titleholder sign anything against his own best interest? Anything George Martin does with the knowledge and approval of the Board makes the Board part of his actions by condoning them. Getting a titleholder to act against his own interest by preventing information to be received from another titleholder is “Sabotage of the titleholder’s rights” by the leadership of SCV. This is another breach by this board of its fiduciary duty.
Marguerite Price wrote: “I don’t know if she realizes that by placing six pages of negative insinuations and guess work on her web page she is doing what she can to sell people on the idea of not buying in the Villas and by so doing, depreciates the value of the villas.” #2
Therese Daniels response; It always amuses me to hear how many people think they are experts in real estate who are not now nor ever have been in the business of real estate. If Marguerite knew anything about property values she and her cohorts would not have amended the CC&R’s with a rental restriction. I am currently an active and licensed Realtor. I practiced real estate in Los Angeles (where the big money is) for over twenty of the past thirty years. During that time I negotiated large and complex transactions, earned millions of dollars for clients, became a certified property manager and managed hundreds of units, donated hours to community service. My calling attention to the bad attitude and management of SCV on my web site will not depreciate the value of SCV since potential buyers don’t even know the web site exists. However the ignorant and malevolent decisions made by the board that affect the titleholder’s pocket books and their property rights which must be disclosed to potential buyers does affect the value of the Villa’s. My web site gives SCV titleholders information about the board and its long track record of bungling titleholders need to know. Remember if they do what they are doing to me for challenging them, they will just as readily do it to you.
Marguerite Price wrote: “1. Reduce the monthly HOA dues to under $200 per month.
Paying HOA dues of $246.24 per month--$73,259.40 goes into the reserve account each year. Paying only $200 per month only $27,059.40 goes into the reserve. . .assessments for any major repairs such as painting all units. . .And God forbid anything should happen to the pool.”#2
Therese Daniels Response: In the last three years, the exteriors have been painted and given a new face lift, the roads have been slurried, the trees trimmed, the pool maintained, etc. How much more does SCV have to spend on major maintenance? The life of all those projects should be good for the next five years! However in about four years the dues went up from $180 to $246. That is about a 36% increase. The cost of living has gone up—but not by 36%. The $200 figure in the letter was a suggestion. It was a “point of departure” to open discussion, which they refused to do. It’s not just about a reserve fund—it’s also about perpetual over maintenance. ( For the nit pickers and hair splitters who will challenge 1%, six vs. ½ a dozen, blue vs. blue green, let me say I know the numbers are not accurate to the penny. They are rounded off and approximated as nearly as I could.) Accounting is not my field but here are a few areas of the Board’s spending that could be added to the reserve fund to reduce the monthly HOA. By the way, whatever happened to the missing $12,000 the Board was dickering with the Emmons company? If we got an independent accountant and checked really close, I bet we could find other ways to build up the fund without more cost to the home owner. The numbers below could reduce the HOA to $212.00 a month. If we looked a little harder, we might even find other ways to save expenses. Numbers below are based upon the year.
Emmons Management (not necessary) 18,516+
Monthly extra charges by Emmons 3,842
Unnecessary Lawyer’s fees--approximately 5,500
Karen Nye + plants titleholders didn’t like 5,000+
Security contract 8,400
Total $39400
39400 – by 12 = $3283 per month -- 97 = $33.85 per titleholder per month
$246.46 – 34.00 = $212.00 per month
27,000 + 40,000 = 67,000 + $12000 missing = $79000 to add to the reserve fund.
#3
Marguerite Price wrote; “2 & 3 Cancel services of new mgmt company and manage Villas without added cost of unnecessary mgmt company. We on the board are all retired and thought by volunteering for this board we would oversee the work of the management company, supervise the work of the gardeners. . .Make final decisions on contracts and handle maintenance problems. None of us feel we have the expertise to handle the finances, nor do we have the knowledge of the various laws pertaining to a retirement community. . .They know the laws, whatever we run into they have been there before and can best advise us how to proceed.”#2
Therese Daniels response; By Marguerite’s own admission, they are retired and don’t know what they are doing. (They should remain retired) Under California civil and corporate laws it is the fiduciary duty to over see all vendors—including the property management company. If they, by her own admission don’t know what they are doing—then how can they professionally over see the property management company? Is this a case of the tail wagging the dog? The cover page of the management contract with S&L, who want to refer to themselves as “SLAM” has a major mistake on it and one minor mistake. The mistake continues throughout the language of the contract. Neither the board nor “SLAM’ realizes it. Yet, the Board states it is better to use a management company. The Board is telling us it is capable of overseeing contracts, after it has already bungled four contracts at the expense to the titleholder-- and fails to see the mistakes in Slam’s contract. How safe are the titleholders of SCV with this kind of flaming ignorance? They want to “over see contracts!” What is wrong with this picture? They want you and me to believe they know what they are doing. We have to accept everything they say as Gospel. They take the posture we are dummies who don’t know. “It ain’t necessarily so.”
1. The villa’s was successfully run for many, many years without the use of a property management company. It can be done so today. There are no new management problems in the 2000’s.
2. If this board claims they can’t do the job without the services of a property management company, then they should resign or the titleholders should remove them from office. Why should the titleholders be made to pay for their incompetence?
3. They did not—I repeat—did not volunteer for the board. They campaigned to be elected. They clearly desired their positions on the board. When they took office, they entered into a fiduciary relationship to the titleholders and breached it ever since.
4. I am very knowledgeable on the subject of deed restricted communities and have repeatedly offered my services verbally and in writing. I am also knowledgeable about contracts. Is there any particular reason they failed to take advantage of my offer?
5. I not only offered my services, I offered them resources written by California’s foremost authorities on deed restricted communities. I sent legal and scholastic articles to them and all the titleholders. I included the bio of one of the best experts who has the distinct honor of one of her books chosen by committee to be included in the permanent law library of the California Supreme Court. They rejected all the information.
6. It takes no special training to manage SCV. Any one knows how to call a roofer, a gardener, or a plumber. Keeping a list of vendors doesn’t require a property management company, it requires a rolodex. The finances can be handled by a simple book keeper and an accountant. A secretarial service can handle the paper grunt work at half the cost and no intimidation to the titleholder.
I have read the contract SCV Board signed with S&L Management Company. SCV Board sold the SCV titleholders down the river. There is nothing in that contract in the best interest of the titleholder. There are several items in the contract which are legally questionable and may put the association in liability. This contract is written purely
the association in liability. This contract is written purely for the benefit of S&L Management and ultimately creates an adversarial position between the titleholders, the board and the company.
The Board bragged they saved about $4700 a year in management fees by hiring SLAM.#3. S&L is only charging a monthly fee of $1150 which will go up 5% each consecutive year. They didn’t tell you about “Exhibit A” (a list of 23 items of everything extra the titleholders will have to pay!) Here are some of the additional charges to SCV that will easily bring SCV’s monthly cost to $1600 to $2000 or more a month. “Exhibit A” attached to the contract has listed items of extra charge-- All of it at the price of the titleholders. Here are just a few:
* Processing returned checks $ 45.00
* Special mailings to membership cost + $75,00
* Word Processing 7.50 per page
* Additional meetings or meeting exceeding 1 hour 75.00 hr.
* Site inspection with landscaper at Board’s request 75.00 hr.
* Scanning and e-mailing invoices for approval 20.00 Per scan
* Collected late fees-50% association & 50% SLAM*
*(this puts the board in partnership with the management company)
#4
Take a look at some of the terms in the contract. SLAM takes no responsibility for any of its actions. What is SCV paying them for? What benefits to the titleholders do they bring so the Board doesn’t have to do so much work—so it thinks.
page 3. 2. Fiscal Services:
2.1 “. . .SLAM shall not be responsible for any discrepancies between the budget and actual expenses, the budget being an estimate to be used only as a guide. The budget is to be adopted by the Board prior to distribution.#4
Page 4 3.3
“. . .SLAM shall also purchase on behalf of the Association such equipment, tools, appliances, materials and supplies for the property maintenance of the Community. All such purchases and contracts shall be in the name and at the expense of the Association.” (What has SCV done with all the equipment George Martin, Woody, and the others have bought in the past three or four years?)#4
Here are some quotes from Villa Appalling written by a legal expert about property management companies:
“After more than a decade of research we are of the opinion that management companies are not worth the money they charge. It is a waste of homeowner funds.”5
“Most management companies are not interested in doing it right as much as they are keeping the projects going and chasing their checks. If they finish the project, you won’t need their services anymore. Management companies usually use a smorgasbord of vendors who provide the largest kickback and who will “play ball” by the company’s terms. . . .”#5
“When the industry (referring to management companies) say that boards are “confused” by the law and its constantly changing nature, it is really because the industry wants them to be. If board’s are confused, then they will have to hire management companies, thus relying on the industry to interpret law the industry creates. These laws were designed by the industry to protect boards, not homeowners.. . .”#5
“If you believe that the company can or will protect your association, before you hire them, ask who pays in case the association is held liable for any of the management company’s acts or omissions. The management’s company answer is predictable: The association pays because all we do is what the board tells us to do.”# 5
Marguerite Price wrote; “4. Repeal the rental restriction amendment. This was explained at a previous board meeting. There are 97 units. At this time 13 are rented, 2 are for rent and 6 are for sale. The only time a problem would arise is if 4 of the six units that are for sale, sold and became rentals then we would to put the rental restriction amendment into effect. Again may I remind you that this was voted on by the homeowners. I wrote Mrs. Daniels a letter and explained this to her.”#2
Therese Daniels response; Marguerite’s argument is misplaced. It fails to justify the existence of a rental restriction amendment. Whether or not the number of units are at the rental restriction cap is moot. The issue is; there is a rental restriction amendment to the CC&R’s which is now a legally required disclosure to all potential buyers. Sellers must disclose to potential buyers there is a rental restriction along with the very excessive, increasing HOA dues, 55+ only restriction, and loads or other restrictions. How many 55+ only buyers do you think there are? How many other 55+ communities that offer many more amenities are competing for their purchases? How attractive do you think all these disclosures are to potential buyers who may still believe in the rights to private property? Bad board decisions are what depreciates the value of the Villas. SCV isn’t exactly the most desired location in California where people are flocking to live. Furthermore, the rental restriction will become grist for any current titleholder who needs to rent his unit over the rental restriction quota. There is also the issue of association liability if the rental restriction interferes with a titleholder’s need to sell or rent his unit and can not because he would be over the quota. There is also an issue of violation of a private property owners’ Constitutional rights. Most shameful of all is a silent but very real dirty little secret. Bigotry is the motivation for this amendment. What a can of worms with HUD that can open. Ms. Price claimed at a meeting last year that 80% of the titleholders voted for it. That is not so. According to the information I have, the actual number of votes for the rental restriction amendment was only 47.
I also challenge the legality of that amendment since I have good reason to believe proper legal procedure was not followed by the board, Emmons Company, or the attorney retained prior to sending that ballot to the titleholders. An investigation needs to be made regarding the methods in which they used to obtain this amendment. I am seriously considering challenging it in the Riverside County Superior Court along with a petition to the Court to remove this board for repeated breach of fiduciary duty.
Marguerite Price wrote; “5. Cancel the Villas membership with SCCA.. . .Since Mrs. Daniels doesn’t live here she has no idea who might benefit from the activities that are offered. Excersize classes, the swim club, lawn bowling, horse shoes, shuffle board, paint and ceramics classes, the travel club, bridge and pinochle. People came to Sun City to retire and have fun things to do and no have to travel too far. Quite a few Villains do take advantage of what entertainment is offered.#2
Therese Daniels response; I live in SC Core about 2 miles away from the Villas. Out of 4762 units in the SCCA Core approximately only 500 people actually use the obsolete facilities.#6 Most S.C. residents don’t want anything to do with SCCA Campus. Truly, the activities of the campus are not what attracted people to Sun City. Marguerite doesn’t seem to have a handle on reality. 4762 people have to pay $246 a year so the minority can use them. Out of 97 titleholders at the Villas approximately only 6 or 7 actually use those facilities. The rest of the 90 or so are penalized so those chosen few can have their fun at the expense of others. Many of the activities at the SCCA Campus could be held at the Clubhouse. Canceling Villas membership with SCCA would save $246 a year now. That means you are currently paying $20.50 a month + $246.24 = $266.44 a month or $3197.28 a year for two associations. SCCA and SCV can raise your dues up to 20% a year without your vote. I heard it said at one of the SCV board meetings I attended last year that the board plans to raise the dues 15% a year. That means between the two associations you could be paying as much as $600+ a month in HOA dues or $7200+ a year within the next three years! Is that O.K. with you?
Marguerite Price wrote; “Mrs. Daniels seems to be upset because some of you do not wish to hear from her.”#2
Therese Daniels’s response: With all due respect, it is not upsetting to me if some people don’t wish to hear from me. Civilized people agree to disagree all the time. They do so agreeably. This board used George Martin to demonize Therese Daniels and denies responsibility in having done so. This is literally a case of “let George do it.” If some people don’t want to hear, let them call me, write me, or say so when they see me. They don’t need be talked into signing some poison pen petition at the behest of George Martin. The question is, would any of them really have even cared if George wasn’t out doing his dirty work? The question is, if titleholders were not brain washed by the whispering campaigns about me, would they have been so willing to sign that petition? Still, another question is, if titleholders really knew their legal rights and how associations are properly run, would they have signed that petition? What is really weird about this is; Marguerite is trying to suggest SCV home owners are totally satisfied with the way the Board is running SCV and love to pay excessive monthly dues that will go up every year, love to have their properties depreciate, glad to see sale’s in the Villas halt, and their rights violated by bad board decisions. The titleholders don’t want anyone presenting information to help them. She is insinuating, all the “resident titleholders” think the board is made up of five infallible card playing saints. How stupid is that? The issues I am dealing with are the very essence of private property ownership and the cost of economic survival in the 21fst. Century. Ms. Price is suggesting home owners don’t want to know about that????
Marguerite Price wrote;“.First I wish she had listened to what I said when I mentioned the percentage of homeowners that signed the petition. I said when I mention the percentage of homeowners that signed the petition. What I said was RESIDENT, RESIDENT HOMEOWNERS.” 2
Therese Daniels response; that I wasn’t listening is a false accusation by Marguerite. I was listening. I take notes. Marguerite Price did not say Resident Homeowner. I repeat. She did not say “resident homeowner” By claiming 71% of the “resident home owners” is a convolution of the truth that gives her the last word-- she thinks?? Even if she had said “resident”, it is moot. Ms. Price makes an issue about my not being resident of the Villas and therefore—though she hasn’t actually come out and said it to my face-- suggests I shouldn’t be permitted the same privileges as the resident titleholders. It was especially apparent when the board thought I might run to be elected last year. The first thing they claimed “must be a resident to serve on the board.” I could have moved into my mother’s residence if it was important enough for me to run. The reality is that recent amendment to the association bylaws is illegal. They can not prevent a non resident from running for or serving on the board merely because he doesn’t live there. If the Board feels that resident titleholders and non resident titleholders don’t have equal rights in this association then, would Marguerite like to discount my monthly HOA dues since I am a non resident? All titleholders-- resident or not-- are entitled to the same rights, courtesy, privileges, information, and opportunities. Is Ms. Price distorting and convoluting the facts again? What the board doesn’t know is I lived at the Villas for almost a year in 1998 after my father passed away and my mother nearly died. That is when this association was very well run without the necessity of a property management company and the dues were only $180. The only thing that has changed since those good old days is the quality of the people on the board. Other wise the villas has the same maintenance, landscaping, and management problems it always had since was built.
The board needs to recognize it isn’t legally correct to continue making an issue over residents vs. non residents. Here’s what is written in the California Common Interest Guide by D. Vanitzian
“Aside from elementary arguments regarding the labeling titleholders as “absentee”, “resident”, or “non resident” and, but for the private nature of the property owned, the treatment of these so-labeled titleholders if disparate from those un-labeled titleholders could raise issues not only of equal protection, but of a “talkings.”#1
“. . .titleholders’ rights vest on purchase. The issue is not one an association’s “intent” to disenfranchise, it is an issue of the association’s creation of a class. Sub-class, or underclass of titleholders who, by virtue of their purchase in a common interest development are each given “equal share” on vesting. . .”# 1
Marguerite Price wrote; quoted from me “. . .some remain silent out of fear of negative repercussions from the Board.”
Therese Daniels response: There are several residents and non resident titleholders who are very unhappy with the management of SCV who had agreed the March letter should be sent. Some asked me not to put their name on it. Out of respect for their request, I excluded their names. A couple of them helped pay for the printing and postage so the entire burden wouldn’t be on me. If these titleholders who asked to not have their names included didn’t fear the board, they would have gladly kept their name on the letter. After seeing what George Martin a past board president, did to me with all five current board signatures on that petition, I now know why these people fear the board. Actions speak louder than words. It was pure malice on George’s part to circulate that petition.
This is a good time bring up the Angelo Longo controversy. Angelo Longo was not only informed about the letter to the Board in March, he was given a copy of it prior to my listing all the names. He very clearly gave me permission to use his name. Otherwise, I would not have included it just as I omitted the others who didn’t want their names. After certain residents who are either on the board or very friendly with the board called him and admonished him for it, he denied he gave me permission. I have had many conversations over the years with Angelo about his own disgust of the board calling them “housewives”, “crazy” and “old ladies”. Was Angelo talking out of both sides of his mouth? ? ?
Marguerite Price wrote; “. . .She feels there is a possibility that Marguerite Price, George Martin, Wren Rose and Jan Long may be dishonest. . .”#2
Therese Daniels response; “Me thinks, Thy Protest too loud?” Let Ms. Price show me where in my letter of June 11, 2007 that I hinted, suggested, accused, or speculated as to the honesty of the above mentioned board members in their use of money they received from SCV. Is this another distortion and convolution of the truth by Marguerite Price? I merely asked for an explanation and receipts of the checks that were written by SCV Association to these people. She still hasn’t produced receipts. She tells me to deal with S&L. Where in my SCV documents does it say I have to deal with a vendor? That is the board’s job—not mine. Ms. Price is chairman or president of the board. It is her fiduciary duty to deal with me. Her explanation of what she did with the money makes me wonder. If SCV is paying S&L to do the grunt paper work, etc., why on earth does the office need all the equipment Marguerite Price recently bought. Has the board no regard for the titleholder’s money? Do they think they can just continue raising the monthly dues and make the titleholders pay, pay, and pay? They have an attitude they are above question and do no wrong. Is it any wonder I challenge the competency of this group.
Summary
This is not about a popularity contest. It is business. SCV titleholders are being harmed by the management of the current Board. We are entitled to have better representation. It is our money, investment and legal rights that are in jeopardy. They have bungled over four contracts we know of, distort reality, fail to follow proper procedures running meetings, taking minutes, sending notices and appointing committees of one. Their only solution to anything is to hire property management companies who also fail to give proper advice and raise the monthly dues. One property management is the same as another. They went to the same school and operate under the same laws.
The information in this response needs to be read by all titleholders in the Villas. However because of George’s petition, I am only sending it to the titleholders whose names were not on the petition. If you agree all SCV titleholders should have better management, then give a copy of this response to your neighbor who didn’t get this statement, call me, or send a letter to the board asking them to terminate the management company, rescind the rental restriction and/or resign. If they had any integrity, the would resign voluntarily. They were elected by the titleholders and they can be removed by us. As much as they want you to believe so. they are not the only five titleholders in the Villas who could serve on the Board. I can not say it strong enough. It this isn’t the first time in SCV history that inept boards were removed from office by the membership. It is you, the title holder who pays the ultimate price for bad management. It’s time we protect our assets and take control of our own destiny.
Sources of Information
1. California Common Interest Development—Homeowners Guide by Donie Vanitzian
2. Open letter written by Marguerite Price and read at the June 2007 Board Meeting
3. Villa Voice, past minutes, copies of SCV contracts, and SCV bank statements
4. Contract between SCV and S&L Management Company
5. Villa Appalling ,Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living, Vanitzian & Glassman
6. 2002 Survey by a SCCA committee on actual number of people who use SCCA facilities.
?
A copy of the open letter and Smiling George Martin's statement were promised to my mother since Therese wasn't at the June meeting. Marguerite Price did not even have the courtesy of ringing my mother's door bell and handing the letter to her. My mother found it on the ground at her door step. Since her front gate is always locked, it had to be thrown there. Is this any way for a Board of Directors to do business with titleholders?
wall of Shame
signatures on petition circulated by George Martin
* George Martin Elyce Elyra Ardine Young
* Jeanie Vasquez Hilda Jensen Laura Keyes
* Judy Smith Janice E. Long Marjorie Chase
* Marguerite Price Angelo Longo Janice Bell
* Pat Flecky Judy Appell Toyoko Shafer
* Ann O Dubois Diana Ward Anna May Welsh
* Dollie D. Learn Frieda Prushansky
* Lione S. Ried Vernon Anas Shirley Burger
* Arthur Ortiz Edward M. Gross Kathie Atwell
* Marie Southard Luela Schuelky Barbara M. Neiier
* Jacquelyn Stephener Stephen Eliseudo Katherine Helms
* Wren Lane Marvan Hothan Liz Busch
* Dorothy Gray Marion Woods Eula Comyns
* Roger Hirth Edward Kuta Rosemary Allinson
* Gwen Long Lillian Diefenndorf Vaela Johnson
* Mary Kuenzie Helen Smith Alora Lee Bobzien
* Carolyn Smith Nancy Conz Robert Roner
Help stop child abuse--support the Museum of Innocence--go to www.museumofinnocence.org
