Return to onlinesouthbridge.com home page
From : Chris Desmond
To : Leah Gross
Subject : SBHOA Succession Question
Date : Mon, Jul 30, 2007 05:52 PM
Greetings,
I have four questions:
1. Please explain to me how SBHOA Board replacements have been made
in the immediate past.
2. Then please explain to me what methodology is being employed to
replace Michael Shortt.
3. What variation, if any, is now being employed and why? (Please
cite any bylaws, covenants or legal precedents on which the SBHOA now
relies).
4. Finally, what did the SBHOA (and its individual members) know and
when did it know it regarding Shortt's disqualification from
voting/serving on the SBHOA Board?
From : Leah Gross
To : Chris Desmond
Subject : Re: SBHOA Succession Question
Date : Tue, Jul 31, 2007 07:16 AM
The SBHOA has always used a voting method to place board. For any
reason should someone not be able to fulfil there term the next in
line as far as votes go is put in place by the BOD. We did not know
about MIchael until Joe found the info and we were sending him a
letter via Attorney when he resigned.The SBHOA was taking immediate
action to correct the situation. Since there is no one else to
replace Michael per the developer and the HOA attorney his seat
remains vacant until November elections and then we will
have another election to replace.The president is chosen by the
developer. Usally the person with the most votes per our covenants.
Sorry I don't have time to research for you as I have to go to work.
Hope this answers your questions.
Leah
From : Chris Desmond
To : Leah Gross
Subject : “The Whole Truth”
Date : Sun, Aug 05, 2007 06:05 PM
Leah,
Here are three of the four questions that I asked you in my 7/30/07
email:
1. Please explain to me how SBHOA Board replacements have been made
in the immediate past.
2. Then please explain to me what methodology is being employed to
replace Michael Shortt.
3. What variation, if any, is now being employed and why? (Please
cite any bylaws, covenants or legal precedents on which the SBHOA now
relies).
Here is your 7/31/07 email answer:
The SBHOA has always used a voting method to place board. For any
reason should someone not be able to fulfil there term the next in
line as far as votes go is put in place by the BOD. We did not know
about MIchael until Joe found the info and we were sending him a
letter via Attorney when he resigned.The SBHOA was taking immediate
action to correct the situation. Since there is no one else to
replace Michael per the developer and the HOA attorney his seat
remains vacant until November elections and then we will have another
election to replace. The president is chosen by the developer. Usally
the person with the most votes per our covenants. Sorry I don't have
time to research for you as I have to go to work. Hope this answers
your questions.
MY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS:
1. Do you agree that you did not answer questions 1-3 at all?
2. Regarding your claim: “Since there is no one else to replace
Michael” -- do you agree with me that, yes, there is someone, and by
my count that would be me?
3. In fact, weren’t the last two replacements made by picking the
next highest vote-getter in the last SBHOA Representative election,
and by this precedent I should be next -- and that’s even overlooking
the fact that I should have been selected before Holly Vorchheimer,
who received 4 votes less than me?
4. I gather that you knew this, decided that you and the SBHOA would
break with that precedent (as identified on Michael Shortt’s 7/18/07
website post) because you all do NOT want me on the SBHOA Board, so
(a) you deliberately refused to answer questions (1) - (3)
because to do so would underscore that break; and
(b) to help you skirt by that fact and divert attention you
added this: “per the developer and the HOA attorney”
Do you disagree? If so, please explain all of your reasons why.
5. I further infer from all this that:
(a) Hall, Jepson, and Whalen don’t want me on the SBHOA Board;
(b) you don’t want to tell me that; so
(c) you threw in “per the developer” to obscure that fact
and, to make it seem “legal,” you added “and the HOA attorney.” Do
you disagree that this is what you did? If so, please explain all of
your reasons why.
6. Do you agree that telling me the whole truth would involve
answering questions (1) and (3) directly and candidly?
7. Under the succession scheme that was used until now, do you know
of any reason why my immediate placement on the SBHOA Board shouldn’t
occur? If so, please explain.
8. What precisely did the HOA attorney advise you that led you to
write “Since there is no one else to replace Michael....” You will
recall that the SBHOA paid homeowner dues dollars to pay an attorney
to change the proxy-voting rules in the middle of the last election
and when I pointed out to him and the SBHOA that the statute that
attorney relied on to support that result only applied to the
election of corporate DIRECTORS, he and the SBHOA refused to respond,
thus furthering my belief that the SBHOA simply makes and bends rules
to protect the Developer from my scrutiny.
So naturally I’d like to know if there are any similarly obvious
legal flaws to this latest lawyer’s advice. I think the homeowners
and my supporters have a right to know how many of their dues dollars
are being used to pay lawyers to keep me off the Board, along with
the quality of the legal advice their money’s buying. Do you
disagree with anything I’m saying here? If so, please explain how
and why you disagree.
9. I haven’t heard from Joshua Reeves, so I’d like to know what he
had to say about my 7/26/07 “covenants” email. If he has no
rebuttal, then I would object to paying him any dues dollars, as his
legal opinion is patently flawed and thus the SBHOA did not get its
money’s worth. You may forward this email directly to him and I
invite his direct response.
10. I’d also like to hear from you personally, Leah: Does Reeves
represent the Developer or the Homeowners? How much has he billed
us for and how much will the SBHOA be paying him?
11. Finally, are the following (Michael Shortt’s) facts true? The
SBHOA’s newsletter costs over $4,000 an issue, operates “at a loss of
almost $20,000 per year,” and thus costs each of us “over $4.00 per
copy.”
From : Leah Gross
To : Chris Desmond
Subject : Re: "The Whole Truth"
Date : Mon, Aug 06, 2007 09:04 PM
You know Chris I have been more than honest with you> You were
disqualified from the election because of what you did with the
votes. So in fact there is no one that is left to take the absent
seat. Now I am who I say I am and I have no hidden agenda and I am
tired of all the BULL that has taken place. This is a homeowners
ssociation not a three ring circus. I am not out to hurt anyone. I am
doing all I can to make sure that we follow all the rules and that
has to be enough for you. So this is all the answers I have to give
to you my friend.
Leah
From : Chris Desmond
To : Leah Gross
Subject : Re: "The Whole Truth"
Date : Tue, Aug 07, 2007 07:05 PM
RE: “You were disqualified from the election because of what you did
with the votes.”
Leah, that’s just not true, and you know it. The 12/06 SBHOA
newsletter announced no such “disqualification” of me, only votes for
me -- and no one has ever even said that since. For that matter, the
newsletter also revealed that I received 46 NON-disqualified votes
and Holly Vorcheimer 42.
You and your Board evidently then proceeded, when vacancies surfaced,
to replace SBHOA Representatives based on the next-highest vote-
getter, according to Michael Shortt’s 7/18/07 web-post (reproduced
below), but then, apparently, decided to singularly “disqualify” me
without telling me so you could skip over me in favor of Holly.
You obviously were aware of that inconsistency when I asked you to
confirm what you and the SBHOA did by answering questions 1-3 of my
7/30/07 email. You obviously thus chose not to answer questions 1-3
because you don’t want to admit that you monkeyed around with the
system by selectively “disqualifying” me -- despite my having
received 46 non-proxy votes. You did not then have the integrity to
tell me this to my face, and you obviously did all that to achieve
the political result (installing Holly on the Board) you and the
Developer wanted.
All of this would have been revealed by your whole truth answer to
questions 1-3 of my 7/30/07 email. Hence, your 7/31/07
emailed, “blur-speak” response.
Now, when I’ve confronted you about your “blur-speak” evasion, you
again resort to diversionary statements. Worse, you have chosen to
simply re-write history, and now falsely claim that “You were
disqualified from the election because of what you did with the
votes.”
I’m simply staggered by what you and your crew are willing to do
here. Tell me Holly, Traci and Valerie, are you putting your names
on this, too?
Again, I was NOT disqualified, only 29 of 75 votes for me were, as
was the case (and published in the SBHOA’s 12/06 newsletter) with
OTHER SBHBOA representatives, including votes for you, Leah, Valerie
and Michael. And there was, by the way, nothing wrong with proxy-
voting; it's been around for over a century and no rule prevented it -
- until the SBHOA changed the rules MID-ELECTION and relied on an
invalid legal basis to do so at that (a point I immediately pointed
out to attorney Mahoney, who thereafter refused to respond and
concede).
You know all off this, Leah, and you also know that a lie of omission
is still a lie. Cornered, you now simply to refuse to admit this and
instead have resorted to feigned indignation: “I am tired of all the
BULL that has taken place. This is a homeowners association not a
three ring circus.”
There is no “circus” or “bull” here, only your resort to diversionary
mendacity, rather than truth (which is, you and the Developer who
appointed you don’t want me on the SBHOA Board, so you’re now willing
to say and do anything -- no matter how childishly absurd -- to
achieve that). You’re not even being clever about it.
You must now choose to deal straight with me and my supporters and
tell the whole truth or, despite your professed probity, be exposed
by your own contradictions. My supporters can decide for themselves
who is telling the whole truth and who is not, who is dealing
straight and who is willing to play games with reality.
I am asking you again to do the right thing.
And I ask my other “At-Large Representatives,” Holly, Traci and
Valerie -- do you agree with Leah here? Are you willfully and
deliberately signing up to this?
Here’s Michael Shortt’s 7/18/07 webpost -- do any of you dispute any
of this?
“It was announced today that Michael Shortt who was elected in fall
2006 to serve as a Southbridge Home Owner Area Representative until
2009 resigned from his elected position. A replacement has not yet
been named to fill the position, it should be noted that 3 of the 5
Area Representatives will have been selected rather than elected when
the replacement is named. Only Leah Gross and Valerie Ragsdale were
elected by property owners, although Traci Amick-Mosley and Holly
Vorchheimer were the next two candidates with the highest vote totals
in the last election and they assumed their positions with full
community support and the endorsement of the board.”
I dispute, by the way, Michael’s claim that Holly was the next
highest vote-getter; she was not and this is documented by the
SBHOA’s own election-results, 12/06 newsletter. Again, you all
apparently decided to singularly “disqualify” me -- despite my higher
non-proxy vote total -- to jump over me and install Holly on the
Board.
I expect that you’ll now start thinking of diversionarily complaining
to others (and thus repeating the lie Hall and Jepson like to
perpetuate) that “Chris Desmond just won’t stop attacking me,”
right?
But see, with a written record of our communications, those who
follow along here can make up their own minds what constitutes
an “attack” and what constitutes legitimate confrontation over your
and the SBHOA’s penchant for making up rules as you go along, and
then arbitrarily applying them to prevent my participation and
resulting scrutiny. You will recall that, but for the bogus legal
pretext for disqualifying my votes, I tied Michael Shortt at 75 --
exceeding Traci’s total of 68.
You also now know why I prefer written email communications, rather
than speak with you on the phone. If you’re willing to so casually
resort to such prevarication in writing, I can’t imagine what you’d
claim I’d said to you over the phone.
I also have long-advocated videotaping of SBHOA meetings, rather than
rely on meeting minutes which the SBHOA can sanitize. In that
respect, you can post any email of mine anywhere, because I deal with
facts and truth, not obscurantism. Sunshine is the best
disinfectant, and a written record of just how far you and your crew
are willing to go to manipulate reality is precisely what this
community needs to see.
Some other questions that you and the SBHOA now simply refuse to
answer:
10. I’d also like to hear from you personally, Leah: Does Joshua
Reeves represent the Developer or the Homeowners? How much has he
billed us for and how much will the SBHOA be paying him?
11. Finally, are the following (Michael Shortt’s) facts true? The
SBHOA’s newsletter costs over $4,000 an issue, operates “at a loss of
almost $20,000 per year,” and thus costs each of us “over $4.00 per
copy.”