Back at the Ranch: Vote For the Candidate, Not the Party

204

Golf Club v RSFA

During the Candidates Forum presentations and Q&A session at the RSFA’s Annual Meeting last week, the two-party Golf Club v. RSFA issue in our HOA was obvious. 

There are three candidates representing the GC and only one of them gave numerous specifics, directed the audience to his campaign flyer and website, before listing 10 principles of what members could count on from him as a Director. He even bravely said that he was in favor of stable or lower assessment rates. The other two showed they had very limited knowledge of the issues facing our HOA beyond the GC. Our Association has suffered from electing Directors who only cared about their GC and neglecting all the other issues we face. We must not let this happen again. 

During the Q & A segment, six questions were asked and each candidate gave a one-minute response.  The most revealing question asked, “How would you handle the conflict (of interest) between the GC and the Association?”  Two GC Party candidates denied there was any conflict, totally ignoring the fact the GC has stated it does not have the money for their proposed GC remodel and will need that money from the rest of the RSFA Members. The current GC President and GC candidate, went on to complain the GC had spent $80 million and the RSFA has spent $0!  I would like to see the evidence supporting that claim. 

As a Director I voted to encumber the Association to build their GC’s Clubhouse. I am happy to support GC Members’ interests, but I expect they respect the interests of all RSFA Members. The GC President claims that the Association has treated the GC unfairly and this will be remedied by electing him to the Board, despite his statement at the meeting that he is unaware of any conflict between the GC and the RSFA (???!).

GC Financial Realities 

There was no mention of the three facts underlying the financial situation at the GC:  Over the last decade, the GC has struggled with a declining membership base, rising costs, and the burden of an underutilized $12 million Player’s Club with millions of unpaid debt.  Let’s hope the new GC Manager can successfully deal with these negative trends, because the GC Party solution seems to be to get money from the Association and renegotiate the Operating Agreement that already provides for their getting the golf course land rent-free. There are lots of other noble uses vying for RSFA Members’ funds, including fire abatement on the hundreds of acres of Association “open space” land surrounding our homes.

Understanding the CDRC aka the Art Jury

The four candidates answered two questions about the CDRC, and it was apparent that only one candidate understood the actual authority of the CDRC, or the difference between the Board’s February 7th Oversight Letter to the CDRC (the “smack down letter” as it’s called on the street) and the March 7th Board Resolution that was narrowly passed 4-3 without Member discussion and input.  The Same three candidates spoke about CDRC “autonomy” or independence, an incorrect concept crushed by the Feb 7th letter and a recent legal opinion.  These three Rip Van Winkle Candidates must have been just waking up, dreaming of being on the Board and missed that kerfuffle.  No minor issue here.  

No PC, No RSFA 

Under the PC, the Board’s CDRC is obligated to enforce the PC. Without the PC, there is no RSFA, no CDRC, no architectural protections, and lower property values.  Before our HOA becomes a utility (fiber optics), a restaurant, a golf club, riding stables, and a park, the RSFA needs to do its fundamental job of enforcing our CC & R’s.  Ask any Member living next to a party house, a neglected nuisance property or other eyesore. The Directors must also hire employees, and establish proper human resource procedures to protect employees as well as the volunteers upon whom we rely to function. 

Conclusion

After listening  at the Candidates Forum, the audience and I knew there was only one GC candidate who wants to represent both parties here in the RSFA (the GC Party and the Non-GC Party).   He offered specific ideas instead of vague generalities, and he also has taken the time and effort to educate himself on all the issues we face. That is the candidate that we can vote for to safely protect the GC, the rest of the RSFA Members, and party on!  Vote For the Candidate, Not the Party.

 


Discuss this article in the Association Forum.