Dear Editor:
Transparency, consistency and objectivity are minimum standards all dues-paying members deserve from their homeowners association. A lack of transparency, a lack of consistency and conflicts of interest in any public entity can lead to the appearances of impropriety and to an environment of mistrust.
At a recent board meeting of the Walden Lake Community Association, there was a motion to vote on whether the press should be allowed to attend and report on board meetings for residents who otherwise could not attend.
Treasurer Karen Olson, stated with her “no” vote, “… Our bad PR is bad enough …”
Fortunately, the “yes” vote carried the day. I hope this letter serves as an example of why we need more transparency, more consistency and more objectivity —not less. The good news is that a minority on the board agree whole-heartedly and practice it without supervision.
In mid-July, there was an ad-hoc overflow meeting of more than 300 residents in the hot sun at our community center, starving for information regarding what the golf course owners may be planning and what it may mean for their homes and community. Voices from the crowd asked, “Is anyone here from the board of the Walden Lake Community Association?” The response was, “(President) Jan Griffin has said that she was advised by legal consul to play ‘Geneva.’”
Just a few weeks later, the attorney for the WLCA reiterated this in front of a crowd at the John R. Trinkle Center. He told resident the WLCA represents the community deed restrictions pertaining to common areas and such. The golf course is private property. The golf owners will need to first approach the City of Plant City. Until then, he recommended the board members not comment on hypotheticals.
Although I may not have fully agreed with the position taken, I understood it and could accept it.
I find it difficult to accept the following behavior that has come to my attention. Just last week, I had several of my neighbors tell me that one owner of the golf course met with board members Aug. 22, to discuss his plans. They also said one of the three board members in attendance was denying any such meeting occurred. I called the WLCA and asked the following questions;
1. Was there a meeting with golf course owner?
Answer: Yes.
2. Am I on speaker phone?
Answer: No. (Karen Olson subsequently said I was.)
3. Who called the meeting?
Answer: Mr. Steve Mercer
4. Who was at the meeting?
Answer: Subcommittee members. We have 13 subcommittees.
5. What subcommittee?
Answer: Community Involvement
6. Who is on the subcommittee?
Answer: Jan Griffin, Karen Olson and Jim Chancey. Jan was out of town but asked for a stand-in. She did know of the meeting.
7. What did they discuss?
Answer: Not sure, no minutes were taken. We are not required to take minutes if a specific head count is not met.
8. Did they discuss plans?
Answer: No
9. Did they receive any paperwork that said proposal, project, renovations, maps of where homes may go, etc.?
Answer: Well, he did submit a few sheets of paper.
10. May I get a copy?
Answer: No.
If this reads like I was pulling teeth, it certainly felt like the person I was speaking to and others now listening on speaker phone were obfuscating. Frustrated, I asked if I could take the association’s attorney up on his offer to speak to him, and I was told, “No.”
It was at this time that I felt I had no other alternative than to write this letter and attend the Sept. 16 WLCA board meeting to convey the gist of it to the board in advance, should they want to offer a rebuttal.
My objection to the board is this: If your attorney advised you to “play Geneva,” why would you entertain Mercer’s Aug. 22 meeting while choosing not to attend the meeting in July of more than 300 residents? Adding insult to injury, it also came out at last night’s board meeting, that Griffin had been “summoned to attend a planning meeting” with Mercer last June.
When asked what was discussed,Griffin said she had been advised not to comment. As I explained to Griffin and the board, much of this information is already circulating in the public domain, and there is now developing a lack of confidence in the board as a whole. I suggested several steps to remedy the situation and begin a path to restoring confidence in the WLCA:
1. Because Jan Griffin had met with and reviewed plans in June and did not disclose to the community, did not meet with the July gathering and now entertained a meeting with Mercer again, she has lost the confidence of the community and should resign or step down.
2. Because Karen Olson first denied that an Aug. 22 meeting ever took place when first confronted by informed residents — and subsequently denied she received documents showing where homes may go and where they may not — Olson also has lost the confidence of the community and should step down.
3. I would propose the WLCA discuss setting term limits at the next meeting.
4. I would propose that members of the WLCA issue disclosure statements that would prevent any potential conflicts of interest on any significant matters in front of the board (i.e. other family members on other sub-association boards, business interests, any special community/golf perks, etc.).
This community will be facing some serious challenges in the not-too-distant future, and having confidence in transparency, consistency and objectivity will be important. I am sure the WLCA and your neighbors would love to know what you think.
Don Marshall
Walden Lake
