Know Your ABC’s: Anyone But Courtney (LeBeau) for the Board
I urge members to vote no on LeBeau, by choosing Anyone But Courtney for a Board seat. The RSFA Board needs a change now (before more damage is done). Courtney LeBeau has had two years as president, and the buck stops here.
Under Courtney LeBeau’s Presidency:
- LeBeau’s Board agenda serves private interest groups and not the entire community.
- LeBeau’s Board doesn’t allow equal access to present opposing points of view.
- LeBeau’s Board is looking to sell the historic Osuna Ranch, purchased with member’s Open Space Funds.
- LeBeau’s Board is trying to push through the highest density project in 100 years (Silvergate). If allowed it will set the precedent for other high density developments, traffic will be horrendous, dark sky policy will be destroyed, etc….
- LeBeau’s Board won’t allow members to vote on critical issues that impact the whole community.
- LeBeau’s Board lawsuit costs concealed from the members.
Ballots are mailed May 8. Please remember your ABC’s and vote for Anyone But Courtney (LeBeau) for the RSFA Board. – Rankled in the Ranch
Sell Osuna? Not a New Idea
At a recent board meeting (and in a recent string of emails), Director Trubey makes the argument that the Association should sell off 20 acres of the Osuna property. The idea of selling off all – or part – of the Osuna property isn’t new; in fact, it was hotly debated in 2016 with the Board considering three potential options. In the end, the Board decided not to proceed.
This time around, selling Osuna is a means to an end: the Board has a number of capital projects (chief of which is the Ranch Clubhouse remodel) that require funding. If the Association can sell off an asset to raise the cash, then a loan would not be required. Signing up for a $8MM loan, however, would require a vote of the full Membership.
Setting all of this aside, and whether you are for or against the idea, let’s assume that selling off a large portion of Osuna comes to pass. The next question on the table would be: what should the Association do with the proceeds of the sale of 20 acres of Association property – whether that’s $10MM, or $20MM, or more? Let’s follow the money. From the beginning.
As Director Trubey reminds us, the 25-acre Osuna property was purchased in 2006. However, what he doesn’t remind us of is that the funds for the purchase came from the Association’s Open Space Fund.
What is the Open Space Fund, you ask? The Open Space Fund was created in 1984, with the purpose of preserving and enhancing the rural character of the Covenant by acquiring undeveloped open space parcels. A portion of annual assessments – 2 cents per $100 of assessed value – were funneled directly into the OSF. That amount was later increased to 2.5 cents.
It took about 11 years before there were sufficient funds in the OSF for the Association to start looking for parcels to acquire. In 2006, the Association used $12MM of the funds to acquire the Osuna Ranch property; by 2012, the Association had acquired seven properties with a purchase value of $16.2MM.
The OSF (renamed the Covenant Enhancement Fund in 2012) continued to build in value until the fiber optic project came along in 2017. The CEF was then renamed – this time to the Fiber Optic Fund (FOF), and a few weeks later the Board allocated the $8MM in the FOF to the fiber project.
Poof. All the money gone. Well, almost. In 2024, the FOF was resurrected as the Capital Improvement Fund (CIF), with 2 cents of the assessment going into this fund. Now we come to 2025, with a new capital improvement project on the table: the remodeling of the Ranch Clubhouse. And – what a coincidence – selling off a chunk of Osuna is suddenly a hot topic again.
But the money from the proceeds of any Osuna carve-up belongs to those that paid for it: the Members. And the Members paid into the Open Space Fund for two plus decades with the money designated for the specific purpose of acquiring undeveloped open space parcels.
So, the money should go back into a fund with that same expressed purpose. Or perhaps it should go towards improving the remaining portion of Osuna. Either that, or here’s another idea for the money: pay a dividend to the Members as a return on their investment. By my math, $10MM in proceeds would just about cover our annual Association assessment fees.
How about that? Zero Association assessments in 2026. An Osuna Assessment Holiday. If selling Osuna is a means to an end, then let’s have a full-member vote to determine the outcome. – Adam Smith
RSFA Board to Consider Lot Split?
I am writing to voice my utter shock when I read that the board is considering selling a portion of Osuna Ranch. The Osuna Ranch is a very valuable and protected asset that the Association owns. To be good stewards of this unparalleled piece of real estate, we as members must insure that we keep it open and maintain its original purpose. Just penciling on the back of a cocktail napkin, I find it laughable that the board is throwing a price of $10 million for 25 acres with valuable zoning and its location in the covenant. Currently, there is a vacant lot on my desirable street priced at $5 million for only 2.4 useable acres. You do the math.
Why now? Is the association in dire financial straits? I know we had to pay the Federal Government over $2 million for the fraudulent PPP Loan. Are we trying to finance the 50′ watchtower that will only look out over the front 9 of the golf course and not the back 9? Quite frankly I am little befuddled about this lot splitting. Is this a land and money grab by insiders?
The association buys a perfectly good asset, has a good tenant with very low maintenance, and the property just keeps going up in value. It smells like a very sneaky development deal that will only line the pockets of few while us members ask WHY? Open Space is precious currency in the Ranch, yet builders, developers, and land speculators will try to wiggle their way and try to vacuum it all up. SAVE OSUNA! – Clement Morey
“Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair.”
This quote by Dhar Mann, is a good reminder for those in positions of responsibility and leadership, and also for those of us who are about to vote for our new representatives in this month’s Board of Directors election. Trust in our leadership has been sorely lacking in recent years. Actions taken by the Board both individually and collectively have fractured any sense of trust that the members had in them. We need new directors acting with integrity, honesty, transparency, and in the best interests of ALL members to rebuild trust in this community.
How did we get to such a low level of trust between the members-at-large and the Board of Directors? Between the golf members and non-golf members? Many would point to the Cost Sharing Agreement (CSA) back in 2019 as the catalyst. Along with that was the increasing number of golf members on the Board, who seemingly always voted in the interests of the golf club and not the broader membership. After the CSA, the restaurant losses skyrocketed (from $300k to $1.6M) and the Board repeatedly refused to perform an audit to find out where our money was going. Why wouldn’t anyone running a business look into a glaring anomaly like that?
Then came the Golf Course renovation and the illegal grading scandal of 2021, and the resultant coverup of information that was kept from certain Board members. Those who tried to perform their fiduciary duties were silenced, bullied, and shut out. This led to the lengthy Bill Strong lawsuit which sought to shed some light on what was really going on behind closed doors. That effort ultimately fell short and we never discovered who was responsible for directing the unpermitted grading and no one was held accountable. This tarnished the image of RSF, hurt our credibility with the County, resulted in increased costs for the project and put the Association at significant financial risk. Yet the only people who suffered any consequences were members trying to get answers or demand accountability, who were repeatedly bashed by a Board director in publicly circulated posts or emails.
On the heels of that opaque ordeal came the PPP Loan scandal. Once again, members who tried to ask questions, request financial documents, or find out who was responsible for the poor or potentially criminal decision-making were obstructed at every turn. Again, members were denied copies of requested documents, and called out by name in Director Trubey’s or Director LeBeau’s emails to the entire membership. This is surely not a way to gain trust among the people that you are supposed to be “representing.” It had its intended effect – to bully members into not asking further questions and to shut them up, as well as marginalize them amongst their neighbors.
And who can forget the PPP Loan town hall at the Golf Club? Members were invited to come and ask the association’s attorneys (who we paid for) how all of this happened and why we were kept in the dark about it for nine months after the DOJ notified our Manager. Concerned members with valid questions were shouted down not only by their own Board members, but by a raucous group of golfers swilling wine in the back of the room behaving more like frat boys on Spring Break than respectful neighbors. Again, it appeared that these golf guys were there to play the heavy and keep the Board from having to answer any hard questions. This spectacle was an embarrassing failure of leadership. In the end, the Board promised to research how this happened and hold those accountable, such as the banker or lawyer who wrongly (and illegally) advised the RSFA. But they never kept their word, and there’s another breach of trust.
Shortly after these two back-to-back debacles, our Manager, who was at the helm during both of these fiascos, resigned. She was a nice person and well-liked by many, but there were clear errors in operation or judgement that led to both of these events. An independent, properly functioning Board would have asked for her resignation or dismissed her. Where’s the accountability? Instead, our then-President inconceivably gave her a bonus — a nice fat check for over $400k of OUR money as a parting gift on her way out the door plus a going away party. Why would anyone give such a generous severance check to someone resigning on the heels of not one, but two, grossly mismanaged incidents that cost ALL of us members a lot of time, money (including fines), and embarrassment for our community? That looks a lot more like cover-up than leadership.
The latest action that has piqued the interests of the skeptics is the sudden proposal by Director Trubey at the April Board meeting to sell the Osuna Ranch property. Even the Osuna Committee and its Chair were caught off guard. Mr. Trubey waited until the very end of the meeting to casually bring it up under the vague Directors’ Comments topic. It was evident this had been discussed in advance with a majority of the Directors in violation of Davis-Stirling Law. Without advance warning or member input, the Board voted unanimously to look into Mr. Trubey’s initiative. How’s that for fostering trust?
There are numerous other examples of questionable or poor leadership:
- The Board refused to hold a member vote on the $8M restaurant renovation. When the renovation was first proposed four-five years ago, the cost estimate we were given was $2-3M. We were told they needed to get further down the road to the construction document phase to get better cost estimates, and then at that time we would be allowed a vote. This Board is not honoring that promise.
- At least two valid petitions have been submitted to this Board requesting a member vote on major issues in this community – the $8M restaurant project and the proposed Silvergate project. The Board has refused to acknowledge these petitions and hold a vote, something that seems to violate our by-laws. Instead, they foist the RSFA lawyer on us (whom we pay for) to explain in legalese why their petitions are irrelevant. It’s pretty hard for the average member to refute a lawyer’s statement.
- With respect to the proposed Silvergate project, members have repeatedly asked for time to present their views to the Board or to conduct a town hall meeting, but all requests have been ignored. In response, the Art Jury voted to engage a land use attorney to advise them on zoning issues. Instead, the Board took control of the process, hired their own “independent” consultant attorney, and passed on their findings to the Art Jury. The Art Jury’s independence was co-opted by the Board’s interference and the matter was closed.
- The Protective Covenant created an Art Jury that is separate and independent from the Board of Directors in order to remove the opportunity for undue influence from Board members. Yet some Board Directors continue to try to influence how they conduct their business and the outcomes of certain decisions. One Board member who has been loudly critical of the Art Jury volunteers fails to mention his own violations and lack of permits.
- There is an overarching sentiment from most members who have served on the various committees for this Association that they are underappreciated and disrespected. It’s been difficult to get members to volunteer to fill up some of the committee openings. The committees’ recommendations are not taken seriously by the Board, but frequently ignored or discarded and the Board proceeds with their own agenda. For example, look at the recent Osuna discussions. The Board wants to proceed with their own idea to sell the property and continually refuses to entertain the numerous ideas brought forward by the Osuna committee. It seems to all be political theater pretending to listen to members, but really never taking input or acting on items that bubble up to them from the committee work. There is a real sense of frustration, and frequent committee resignations.
- Last year’s election season highlighted the severe lack of leadership on this Board. We had sitting Board Directors endorsing candidates which is incredibly unethical. And we had mudslinging and anonymous emails like we’ve never seen before. An 86-year-old resident who was born in RSF was somehow portrayed as a carpetbagger. Clearly folks on this Board were so concerned about members electing someone outside their chosen cronies that they were willing to allow it all to happen. Calls for President LeBeau to come out with some statements condemning these nefarious activities or to investigate the member who was misusing the email list fell on deaf ears, as she sat on her hands and allowed members to tear the community apart. Is that the leadership you want again?
At this point you probably get the recurring theme: poor leadership resulting in a lack of trust between the members and the Board that is supposed to serve them. This is not leadership.
Hopefully we can turn the page in this election and vote for three brand new directors — people without the baggage of the past few years that has sowed so much distrust among members. And hopefully these three new directors will take the Board in a new direction, knowing that we are entrusting them with bringing back civility, respect, integrity, and a guiding mission to serve ALL members with equal concern and diligence, and not cater simply to themselves and their own special interests. This community has been through a lot these past few years. We deserve to have better representation and true leadership that will work to repair the divide, not deepen it. – Color Me Jaded
Letters to editor can be submitted to editor@rsfpost.com or online at the RSF Post Forum.