I attended the district board meeting tonight…only 2 hours this time — but, as usual, lots of theatrics. You can listen by clicking here or under “Recordings” in the sidebar (as usual).
The meeting started with Jan Pizzi again pointing out that there have only been 10 residents “sued” by the covenant management board. Ron Pace called the figures into question.
Taking the literal definition of “sued” into account:
Sued: to seek justice or right from (a person) by legal process; specifically : to bring an action against; to proceed with and follow up (a legal action) to proper termination (intransitive verb)
We can explain the apparent disparity. By Jan’s definition, apparently only those people that have had paperwork filed with the court are considered “sued”. By Ron’s definition (and mine as well, I might add) the term also includes those homeowners that have received a “legal notice” from The Lawyer (for which the district was billed).
So, by Jan’s definition: The figure of 10 homeowners sued is probably correct.
By the expanded definition: There have been dozens “served”. For more information and proof, see this posting, or click here to download the infamous covenant management board legal bills…and count the entries for yourself.
Note: These legal bills only run through June 2009; the board now has taken the stance that they will NOT release legal bills…for fear of…what?
The meeting then went into public comment, where I asked the following questions:
- Which of the board members supported the decision to disallow releasing of district legal bills?
- Which of the board members support the current covenant funding situation?
You would have thought I let a skunk lose.
Of the board members, only Jennifer Barber was absolutely forthcoming about her position. Keith Moulton asked what I meant by “legal bills” (???), at which time The Lawyer chimed in with his interpretation…never mind for the moment that he has absolutely no say in the matter:
…one often cited recitation of the elements [of attorney-client privilege] was articulated in U.S. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357 (D.Mass. 1950), where the court enumerated the following five-part test: (1) the person asserting the privilege must be a client or someone attempting to establish a relationship as a client; (2) the person with whom the client communicated must be an attorney and acting in the capacity as an attorney at the time of the communication; (3) the communication must be between the attorney and client exclusively; (4) the communication must be for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services, or assistance in some legal proceeding, and not for the purpose of committing a crime or FRAUD; and (5) the privilege may be claimed or waived by the client only. (source)
A note: We (you and I) are paying The Lawyer approximately $400 an hour to sit in these meetings and make these “pronouncements”.
Debra Wright, in turn, asked me as question: Did I post on my website that the secretary of the covenant management board was being paid $8,000 a year?
Point of fact, I have not; she is referring to this post, where I was responding to Jan Pizzi’s opening comments from the December board meeting. However, in the sake of full disclosure, I will state for the record that I did make that statement in Chuck Warne’s covenant meeting…and the documents which listed that are no longer on the district’s website. Since I can no longer prove it, I retract it.
Nevertheless, Debra refused to answer my question — and pointed out that I was over my allotted 3 minutes (never mind the fact that The Lawyer spoke for most of my time).
With regard to the second question, again The Lawyer stepped in and voiced his “professional opinion” that the question was inappropriate.
Hogwash. Nowhere in our governmental system is such a question inappropriate–in fact, it’s HIGHLY appropriate, as we have an election coming up in May, and it’s important to know where YOUR directors stand on these issues. Not as a board; as a person. We do not elect a board, we elect directors–so their individual position on matters is extremely relevant.
I wish the board would stop hiding behind The Lawyer and just be up-front about things. Someone once told me that if I cannot defend a position I have taken without hiding behind someone, perhaps I should re-examine that position.
Again, we are paying The Lawyer approximately $400/hour to come to the rescue of our board.
Robert Lovato commented that the board didn’t have to take public comments, that we should be appreciative of this board’s openness. It’s hard to reconcile this with the board’s discussion to do away with Town Hall Meetings (listen to the recording for yourself). Apparently the desire is NO input from homeowners at all.
Lots of other issues were discussed. Another that I found interesting was the district’s assertion that the Ron Pace restraining order legal cost was approximately $41,000, of which about $28,000 was court time (see this document). Hmmmm…I’m told that the court hearings, all told, ran for 53 hours in total. At least one of The Lawyers was present at all times, and many times they were double-teaming it. so let’s assume for the sake of argument that we had one Lawyer for 53 hours, and the other for only half that (26 hours) — for a total court time of 79 hours. Let’s also assume another 25% in hours preparing for court (see the district legal bills for lots of examples of “preparation time” billing), which brings the total billed hours to just over 98 hours. Divide $28,000 by 98.75 hours and you get an hourly rate of around $283/hour.
I refer you to the statement about The Lawyer being paid $400/hour. Now, granted, it was lowly associates that tried (and lost) the case…and I expect they make less than the Big Kahuna Lawyer. Still, it doesn’t quite pass the “sniff test”.
Of course, we can’t verify, since the district refuses to release the legal bills. Gotta take their word for it. 
This does of course beg the question: If indeed this restraining order fiasco “only” cost $41,526.65, what the heck did the district spend the other $181,268.13+ on (from the 2009 financials)?
And, of course, this does not take into account the fact that Larry Bishop was at the hearings (and getting paid by the district). 53 hours x $62.50/hour (see this post for calculations) comes to $3312.50. Again, I state that Larry probably puts in more than 40 hrs/week, so this figure is probably inaccurate to some degree…but you have to have some basis for calculation.
Also, how many employee hours were spent in court, or waiting for court? Were they getting paid?
You see my point. It doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Larry Bishop discussed the inequity of the covenant funding, and his recommended solution was to have Filing 11 acquiesce to the covenant management board — something the district tried (and failed) to do in 2008.
I think those of us in Filing 11 might have something to say about that, Larry.
The Lawyer, in his comment section, made mention of some ballot initiative that he termed “onerous“. One would limit the district’s ability to go into debt or extend debt (I believe he is referring to this initiative); another limiting the district’s ability to de-TABOR (you did know the district exempted itself from TABOR, didn’t you?), and perhaps some others — I cannot find reference to the latter one or the others.
What I find amazing here is the attitude of The Lawyer–and the response of the board. “Onerous”? Requiring the district to live within its means, or at least giving the homeowners a chance to vote on taking on more debt?
Wow.
And finally (at least for tonight), Ron Pace attempted to have an agenda item inserted to discuss the covenant funding issue. Larry Bishop expressed objection to allowing homeowners to insert agenda items…let’s see, we can only talk for 3 minutes, they want to do away with town hall meetings, they don’t want to let us see what they are voting on…and they don’t want us to add agenda items. Hmmm…think maybe we should just issue gags before the next board meeting?
An incident I find telling: Ron specifically asked The Lawyer a pointed question…to which The Lawyer said (with a sigh of exasperation) “I’m not going to answer that!”
WE are paying YOU that $400/hour (notice how I keep coming back to that?) and you deign to cop an attitude?
Wow again.
Just before the meeting wrapped up, Jan made a pointed comment to me and to Ron saying what she didn’t want to see on the web.
Oh, really? 
The arrogance is just astounding. It seems some of these board members, district employees, and of course The Lawyer, forget who they are working for.
Kinda sounds like congress, huh?
Good morning Hillers; It’s the District favorite punching bag bring you the 411 on Woodmen hills.
I say hear hear to Mr. Hightower.
I am going to say this just once and I hope it resonates with all home owners.
I live in filing 11 and I would never hand over additional control to Woodmen Hills Covenant Management Board. the term sued encompasses so many factors. #1 over 100 filing 11 home owners have been served and Mark was the process server who delivered them. I ask you this when choosing a Director. #1 A Director has to be non judgmental and able to listen to all sides. I have said in the past If I run and lose then that’s fine with me. You may think perjury is a great thing. I happen to believe that any Director who commits a criminal act while in office isn’t someone who represents me or my Ideals.
I know you believe I am a tyrant and god knows what else but after the election you will see who was lying.
Listen to the facts. Here is a fact for you as you ponder your choice. My neighbor just sold his home. The total loss in 3 years 54,000.00 Now who is in charge and who is running the show. This is all under the current board. The same board who wants to take control of filing 11 covenants.
Side Note The developer is meeting with Sheriff Makita as stated by Pete (our lawyer). My question is why is someone who lives in the Denver area having a private meeting with the lead elected Law enforcement official? That should set off all kinds of bells and whistles.
Please let the truth come out and you will see we have Outstanding candidates who really care about you and yours. Thank you. My phone number is if you care to comment or have any questions is 494-1970 I will answer all questions.
Gimme a break: I am going to say this just once and I hope it resonates with all home owners.
I live in filing 11 and I would never hand over additional control to Woodmen Hills Covenant Management Board.
Gimme a break: the term sued encompasses so many factors.
Gimme a break: #1 over 100 filing 11 home owners have been served and Mark was the process server who delivered them. I ask you this when choosing a Director.
Gimme a break: #1 A Director has to be non judgmental and able to listen to all sides. I have said in the past If I run and lose then that’s fine with me.
Gimme a break: You may think perjury is a great thing. I happen to believe that any Director who commits a criminal act while in office isn’t someone who represents me or my Ideals.
Gimme a break: I know you believe I am a tyrant and god knows what else but after the election you will see who was lying.
Gimme a break: Listen to the facts. Here is a fact for you as you ponder your choice. My neighbor just sold his home. The total loss in 3 years 54,000.00 Now who is in charge and who is running the show. This is all under the current board. The same board who wants to take control of filing 11 covenants.
Gimme a break: Side Note The developer is meeting with Sheriff Makita as stated by Pete (our lawyer). My question is why is someone who lives in the Denver area having a private meeting with the lead elected Law enforcement official? That should set off all kinds of bells and whistles.
Gimme a break: Please let the truth come out and you will see we have Outstanding candidates who really care about you and yours.
Falcon Lady…
I think Ron has a point. Agreed the economy has a great deal to do with our current property values. But when realtors and prospective purchasers are doing their research (smart, informed buyers) would probably have concern for purchasing in Woodmen Hills. Our recalls have reached the media on several occasions. The market has turned around, but it will be slow. Hopefully we can elect a District Board that will eliminate the bad press. We need level headed individuals on our “Boards” Including Fil 11. I wish we had other choices when we formed the initial fil 11 board. But we didn’t. We had to adhere to the wants of the “Developer” Which in reality gave only rights to those chosen by the “Developer” to be appointed. I knew when I built my home in Fil 11 it was still in the hands of Rusty Green. But I had lived in Woodmen Hills since 2001, and for the most part, the covenants had “worked”. Perhaps not per Kiowa standards. But most purchased knowing the limitations. I’d like to see some strong candidates run for the district seats. Talking with owners, it will be a challenge to find good people who are willing to serve. Any ideas? Ron, you can’t run, conflict of interest. Mr. Hightower, I see you as a rebel and honestly, I wouldn’t want to work with you on a board. I think you should stay involved in your current efforts to reveal truths. So who is going to step up?
An interesting point. Why do you say Ron can’t run? So long as he is a resident here, he can, of course, and likely will…and should he get elected, he would obviously have to recuse himself from discussions about his case.
I am interested in your comment, “Hopefully we can elect a District Board that will eliminate the bad press.” I’d sure be interested in knowing how a board can do that. This board did not generate the bad press. Mr. Pace did. He took it upon himself to call TV stations and the newspaper to be sure he got attention.
As for Filing 11, read Bill Vogrin in this morning’s (2/1/10) Gazette. Woodmoor HOA actually has elections. I think we should also (I say “we,” meaning if we can combine WHCMB and 11). Then write new bylaws so that any changes must be made by the voters, not a few select board members. And we all need to adhere to Colorado Common Community Interest Association standards (CCCIO aka Kiowa).
And one of the reasons you’ll find it tough to find good people to run is because of the perception that they will be bombarded with the same fact twisting, libel / slander that some members of the community have inflicted on the current board. Some people won’t even volunteer on committees because they are afraid. We need to get rid of the fear in this community. Any ideas?
To be fair, Ron was not the only one calling — I believe there were a few others; and I seem to recall an article in the New Falcon Herald before Ron started his campaign in earnest, so to lay this all at his feet is a bit of a stretch.
Fact is, whenever there is controversy, the media will swoop in like hawks (Don Henley’s “Dirty Laundry” got it right) — the “4th estate” LOVES dirt, lives off it.
Did Ron do something wrong? Depends on who you ask. Doug Bruce and those that support him would say “No”; I imagine some of the board members would say “yes”. He has the right.
As far as getting rid of fear…hhmmmm. Maybe by doing the right thing at all times? Not dismissing residents just because you don’t like their message or manner of delivering that message?
Please understand, I am NOT defending all of Ron’s actions…but to lay all this at his feet is a bit hypocritical…and spiteful.