No, not the novel by Michael Crichton…a timeline of the events leading to the district’s recent adventure in court.
The issue of the district’s involvement in the whole restraining order scenario has obviously raised emotions on both sides of the issue…and given rise to some misunderstandings as well, as evidenced by comment 7 to this post at falconlady.com, as well as many others on both that site and this one.
To try and clarify what happened when, I’ve put together a timeline, pulling from legal bills, court transcripts, and other data. While I make no secret of my opinion of this, I will try to present the facts as bias-free as I can; in those instances where I express opinion, I will do so in green. Also, for those instances where costs are vague (such as multiple items listed against a single charge), I have marked those costs with an asterisk (*). Dates are exact where it is possible to determine, estimated otherwise.
Finally, while it is not normally my habit to publicize email traffic (very easily faked), I will do so here to try and provide some context to the statements and allegations. All email traffic was received by me, so I can attest to that part of it, at least; however, I cannot authenticate the sender of the email, or any part of an email that was forwarded to me. In those instances, I recommend you contact the sender and recipient(s) if you will to confirm the validity of that message.
So, to set the stage: Ron Pace becomes interested in district affairs…and offers help, and asks questions; it appears he is unsatisfied with the answers, so he becomes more direct with his questions. There is also apparently growing discontent with the existing district board (Jennifer Barber, Dave Haehn, Ted Hanchett, Jan Pizzi, and Bob Sobota) as evidenced by the minutes of the 20 November 2008 district board meeting (click here to read).
| 2008 | |||
| Date | Incident | Source | Cost |
| 20 Nov | The proximate event (the “most serious incident”) took place on 20 November – the alleged (and discredited) “AK-47” threat | ||
| 20 Nov | The Lawyer™ reviews “defamation” NOTE: Unclear if this is related to Ron Pace, A.Michael Pizzi, or others; however, as Ron Pace’s “threat” had not yet been “remembered”, and the court finding indicates it was A. Michael Pizzi who people remembered “running to the front of the room, almost attacking Mr. Haehn” (Finding, page 14) I’m listing this event as questionable. |
2008-11 |
$192.50 |
| 20 Nov | The Lawyer™ reviews “defamation” again NOTE: Unclear if this is related to Ron Pace, A.Michael Pizzi, or others; however, as Ron Pace’s “threat” had not yet been “remembered”, and the court finding indicates it was A. Michael Pizzi who people remembered “running to the front of the room, almost attacking Mr. Haehn” (Finding, page 14) I’m listing this event as questionable. |
2008-11 Page 3 |
$754.50* |
| Sometime over the next week or so, A. Michael Pizzi ‘remembers’ Ron Pace issuing the AK-47 threat and tells his wife. Jan Pizzi notifies Larry Bishop. (Finding, page 14, line 25). No action is taken by the district. | |||
| Mid-Dec | Ron Pace meets with Gene Cozzolino and Larry Bishop at the district office. The district testified that Ron Pace was acting “aggressive” and “threatening”; the tape recording of the meeting proves otherwise – found as not credible Moral of this story: ALWAYS record interaction with the district |
Finding page 19 |
|
| 11 Dec | The next event – Ron’s discussion with me at the interviews for the vacant board positions. Ron stated “maybe he should bring a gun to the board meeting” or something like that (since A. Michael Pizzi was seen to do so (Finding, page 16). Interestingly enough, this was not listed on the Request for Civil Protection Order. |
||
| 15 Dec | The Lawyer™ reviews “trespass and public buildings” in response to Ron Pace’s requests | 2008-12 Page 1 |
$319.00 |
| 19 Dec | Eugene Cozzolino reports an incident where Ron Pace wanted to look at the vacuum truck – determined as not threatening | Finding page 17 |
|
| 23 Dec | Jerry Jacobson reports an incident where Ron Pace “stops and looks at him” – determined as not threatening | Finding page 18 |
|
| 2009 | |||
| Date | Incident | Source | Cost |
| 05 Jan | WHMD receives a check from Ron Pace with the memo “You’re Next” – determined as not threatening | Finding page 19 |
|
| 05 Jan | The Lawyer™ reviews “defamation” again |
2009-01 |
$464.00* |
| 06 Jan | The Lawyer™ drafts a Civil Protection Order Memorandum | 2009-01 Page 4 |
$262.50 |
| 08 Jan | The Lawyer™ reviews protective order and harassment statutes | 2009-01 Page 4 |
$145.00 |
| 09 Jan | The Lawyer™ reviews protective order and harassment statutes again | 2009-01 Page 4 |
$58.00 |
| 09 Jan | The Lawyer™ reviews protective order and harassment statutes again | 2009-01 Page 4 |
$667.00 |
| 13 Jan |
Ron Pace continues to press the issues; he is then “barred from the district offices” by Larry Bishop. |
||
| 27 Jan | Mr. Kalbach reports that Ron Pace’s behavior at the town hall meeting was threatening – determined as not threatening Listen to the recording of the town hall meeting |
Finding page 21 |
|
| 28 Jan | Tony Dicensio reports that Ron Pace makes threatening comments and gestures — found as not credible | Finding page 22 |
|
| 29 Jan | The Lawyer™ reviews “Pace restraining order” | 2009-02 page 1 |
$360.00* |
|
29 Jan |
The Lawyer™ works on MISCELLANEOUS CLAIM-RON PACE | 2009-02 Page 3 |
$493.00 |
|
30 Jan |
The Lawyer™ works on MISCELLANEOUS CLAIM-RON PACE | 2009-02 Page 4 |
$319.00 |
|
03 Feb |
The Lawyer™ works on MISCELLANEOUS CLAIM-RON PACE | 2009-02 Page 4 |
$203.00 |
|
06 Feb |
The Lawyer™ works on MISCELLANEOUS CLAIM-RON PACE | 2009-02 Page 4 |
$145.00 |
|
10 Feb |
The Lawyer™ works on MISCELLANEOUS CLAIM-RON PACE and “requirements for an injunction” | 2009-02 Page 4 |
$261.00 |
|
11 Feb |
The Lawyer™ works on MISCELLANEOUS CLAIM-RON PACE | 2009-02 Page 4 |
$1566.00 |
| 26 Feb |
Janice Pizzi “is adamant of the fact” that Ron Pace threatened “Well, I might as well get rid of us – of all the board members and their spouses” at the district board meeting; no one else hears this, nor is it recorded by one of the numerous tape recorders running – determined as not credible |
Finding page 23 |
|
| 09 Mar | The Lawyer™ tries to determine if they can stop me from posting recordings of the district meetings on my website | 2009-03 page 2 |
$175.00 |
| 10 Mar | The Lawyer™ tries again to determine if they can stop me from posting recordings of the district meetings on my website | 2009-03 page 2 |
$350.00 |
| 09 Mar | The Lawyer™ researches “miscellaneous claims and disputes” This appears to be the same charge category as other Ron Pace issues, but I cannot confirm |
2009-03 page 3 |
$783.00* |
| BREAK–no documented events or legal billing | |||
| 07 May | Ron Pace threatens to come down to the district office regardless of any ban Larry Bishop has tried to enact; Larry Bishop calls 911 “in fear for his life” (his exact words) Listen to the 911 Call Read the email that caused Larry to make the call |
||
| 07 May | Eddie Avedikian reports that he is threatened by Ron Pace – determined as not credible | Finding page 27 |
|
| 07 May | The Lawyer™ reviews emails from Ron Pace and drafts protective order | 2009-06 page 1 |
$292.50 |
| 07 May | The Lawyer™ continues to draft protective order 5 pages – $128.00/page! |
2009-06 page 1 |
$640.00 |
| 08 May | The Lawyer™ files the restraining order | 2009-06 page 1 |
$390.00 |
| 08 May | The Lawyer™ arranges for the El Paso County Sheriff’s office to deliver restraining orders | 2009-06 page 4 |
$583.40 |
| 11 May | The Lawyer™ does research on the restraining order | 2009-06 page 1 |
$117.50* |
| 11 May | The Lawyer™ holds a telephone conference about Ron Pace, etc | 2009-06 page 2 |
$80.00 |
| 11 May | The Lawyer™ holds a telephone conference with Ron Pace, etc | 2009-06 page 2 |
$97.50 |
| 14 May | The Lawyer™ works on the Pace restraining order issue | 2009-06 page 2 |
$97.50 |
| 18 May | The Lawyer™ works on the Pace restraining order issue | 2009-06 page 2 |
$146.25 |
| 18 May | The Lawyer™ works on the Pace restraining order issue | 2009-06 page 2 |
$470.00 |
| 18 May | Ron Pace retains Richard Daily, LLC, as counsel; Richard Daily confers with The Lawyer™, they agree on a continuation | this document | |
| 19 May | The Lawyer™ makes a court appearance on the Pace restraining order; in glaring abrogation of the agreement with Ron Pace’s counsel, they move for default judgment |
this document |
$341.25 |
| 03 June | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace issues | 2009-07 page 1 |
$160.00* |
| 09 June | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace issues | 2009-07 page 2 |
$320.00* |
| 10 Jun | The Lawyer™ responds to J. Doherty (Ron Pace’s wife) | 2009-07 page 2 |
$117.50 |
| 15 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace issues | 2009-07 page 2 |
$800.00* |
| 15 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace issues | 2009-07 page 2 |
$42.30 |
| 17 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace issues | 2009-07 page 2 |
$480.00* |
| 25 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace restraining order issues | 2009-07 page 3 |
$470.00 |
| 25 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace restraining order issues | 2009-07 page 4 |
$253.50 |
| 25 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace restraining order issues | 2009-07 page 4 |
$195.00 |
| 25 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace restraining order issues | 2009-07 page 4 |
$160.00 |
| 26 Jun | Ron Pace reports the theft of his son’s bicycle to the sheriff’s department, states he will be looking around the neighborhood for it…and drives within 100 yards of Daniel S. Everett’s house. Daniel S. Everett calls the Sheriff. Ron Pace is arrested. Read this post and this post Hear the 911 call In court, Daniel S. Everett states that he wasn’t afraid of Ron Pace, he just wanted him arrested. Daniel S. Everett also testifies that employees were not asked if they felt threatened by Ron Pace; they were added to the protection order by simply asking them if they wanted to be. Hear Daniel S. Everett’s court testimony |
||
| 26 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace restraining order issues Ron Pace’s counsel requests the permanent restraining orders be set aside, and the TROs be reinstated until they can present their case; the district refuses Read the Motion to Set Aside Read the Motion to Deny |
2009-07 page 4 |
$146.25 |
| 26 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace restraining order issues | 2009-07 page 4 |
$80.00 |
| 29 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace issues | 2009-07 page 4 |
$320.00* |
| 29 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace restraining order issues | 2009-07 page 4 |
$146.25 |
| 29 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace restraining order issues | 2009-07 page 4 |
$50.00 |
| 30 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace restraining order issues | 2009-07 page 4 |
$146.25 |
| 30 Jun | The Lawyer™ works on Ron Pace restraining order issues | 2009-07 page 4 |
$50.00 |
| TOTAL COST THROUGH JUNE 2009 | $11,657.65 | ||
We haven’t even had a single day in court at this point, other than The Lawyer™ filing the orders, and refusing to honor their agreement.
It’s interesting to note that the district explored filing restraining orders as early as January 6, 2009…but did not file until May 7, 2009. I am unsure of the reason behind the delay.
Note that the district has decided to not release any more legal bills (see this post)–so pending a judicial review, I cannot provide any more details from the district’s cost/involvement perspective. Ever wonder why – perhaps to prevent this level of scrutiny?
All this started with a simple request for documentation over Salaries and Insurance costs.
I was refused 12 times for simple open records request by the District. At the time of request I was on the Budget committee. So my reason were financial ones.
1. Salaries
2. Insurance cost sheet (old)
3. New Insurance cost data (new)
4. New Vac Truck Info (Lease and cost)
5. Salary Report
6. Lawyer costs for Chuck suit
7. Pump Truck information
8. Spread sheet on the bonds (Projections sheet)
9. Inspection on truck to make sure Danny wasnt going to get slammed with a ticket for running out of DOT.
10. Emails between the board and Larry over my budget cuts outline
11. Covenant Contract between District and the monthly collected by them.
12. Legal fees for case.
These are the requests that were denied by the District from Oct 08 to January 09
You may do an open records request for my request records and see for yourself.
Mind you I was on the budget committee along with Kathy Wennen at the time with Connie Kolbach, Marge Vaga, Debra Wright, Keith Moulton, Richard Diffenderfer, Michelle and Larry was a guest along with Hahn.
What was the reason for refusal?
I’m curious, because ALL of those requests are open records…EVERY SINGLE ONE, even the email (check the Colorado Revised Statutes for proof).
Larry just stated the records were already in written form and he didn’t need to make another one.
I didn’t have the money to fight back with a lawyer at the time.
#1 the Salary matter you know about
#2 It was stated “since we are getting new insurance the old policy was moot
#3 stipulated to a passage in the act.
#4 Larry used his authority to stop with Pete
#5 Stated that it was protected by law under Pete (work Product)
#6 Pending case
#7 No reason was given but when I went back the Gene issue came up Larry used the Lawyer excuse
#8 Larry said it didn’t exist. (found it later on that week on my own)
#9 We all know about that one
#10 Pete decision
#11 Stated that It didn’t exist (in person)
#12 Legal fees (case pending)
So you guys (Ron and Dave) have made open records an issue in this campaign and pointed out examples in which you believe that the District has not complied. Tell us how you — if you become a board member — will handle confidential matters. Will you maintain the privacy of executive sessions? Will you tell everyone everything so that we have no negotiating power? Kind of like playing poker where you reveal your cards and no one else does. How is that going to play in working with our IGA partners who have their own turf to protect and don’t really care if WH gets hurt in the process? Are you going to announce that Mr. Wellowner Rancher has water to sell? Then watch as Cherokee or Sunset or Meridian snaps it up because you spilled the beans before the deal was signed. Tell us, guys, just how do YOU envision Open Records?
Hi Lynne–
You are overreaching here — throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
No one argues that those items that are specifically called out for protection SHOULD be protected — if you read the history of this on my website, you’ll see that I agree with that and support it. and have clearly indicated what I would and would not release. In fact, in the case of the infamous “bankruptcy memorandum”, I clearly indicated this WAS privileged information — and asked the “client” to release it. They did not…and my only issue with this was the way the district backpedaled on it when The Lawyer™ raised a stink.
THE LAWYER™ has no say in this matter…none. “Attorney-Client Privilege” affords to the client, NEVER the attorney.
What I am making an issue of is the district’s gross overprotecting of documents. Information that has to be protected — such as negotiating positions, strategy, etc, SHOULD be….but as a government entity, responsible to the residents, that should be the exception, rather than the rule, and clearly explained as to why.
This board has held more executive sessions than any other board ever….and has claimed “Attorney-client” at every one, which exempts them from recording the session, as would otherwise be required. Given that several decisions have been made that cannot be located in open meeting minutes, I am understandably skeptical.
I do not have any documentation to review on Ron’s requests, so I cannot definitively comment — but my interpretation of Colorado Statutes indicates that ALL of that information is public.
If I were on the board, I would HOPE people would question us…and would welcome it. Recorders? Bring them. Want to see our “board packets”? Put them on the website…let people see what we are voting on. The current board stated they would release these packets before each board meeting, yet have not done so.
Someone once asked “why do you think the people would be interested in all that?” and pointed out that only ~400 residents answered the recreation survey. I point out that it is irrelevant how many are interested, or if they are at all — make the information available. If the residents don’t want to look, don’t want to read it, no worries — but those that do won’t have to beg for it, and you may actually get some input that you find useful.
So, I’ll ask it of you — and your husband, who is also running for the board. What’s your interpretation of open records and government transparency?
Three groups spend other people’s money: children, thieves, politicians. All three need supervision. — Dick Armey
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. — Edward R. Murrow
Going overboard is putting it mildly, Horse before the cart comes to mind.
Lynn, I don’t have time to really articulate on the matter right now. I have one question for you. Have you scrutinized the current board the same way? This is where the biases come into play.
Lynn your questions are ostentatious. No one can predict what may come up, but rest assured the oath says you must follow the Constitution of Colorado and the United States.
If the current board was as open as they say they are none of this would be necessary.
I can tell you that knowing the cost of a pump truck isn’t on the same level as water negotiations.
Accountability is still accountability and this board hasn’t been accountable yet.
Transparent might as well mean vanilla.
As a board member I will work to clearly show the world what a board should have been in the first place.
The reason the meetings are so contentious is because of how the board treats the public in the first place. We have questions and in return they lawyer up. Now how’s that working toward a positive image?
Boy will that change if I get elected. To coin a phrase you “got questions, we got answers”!
The information requested fell under a Law (CORA) and in spite of your condescending and contemptuous rhetoric I will answer you. If the law says it’s legal then there must be overwhelming evidence, which says releasing it will cause grave harm. Otherwise it’s releasable.
Consider this if the other district wants the information they simply have to come over and fill out a form and get the information. What’s to stop them from having their attorneys hit us with a suit for the information? Nothing.
I would hope you use the same vigor on the incumbents. Only time will tell.
Come to the meet and greet and see the real deal.
That was exactly my point (baby and bathwater analogy). Because you point out all the things the district has not done, I wasn’t really sure where you stood on what SHOULD be kept confidential.
You said, “No one argues that those items that are specifically called out for protection SHOULD be protected….” That wasn’t clear because your approach appears to be adversarial regarding the district’s open records. I wasn’t able to determine where your line in the sand is.
To me, it would appear that the list of 12 items should also be available. To my knowledge it is. I’m not sure what it took to get that information out there. I don’t know if it came from a CORA request or, as has been implied, badgering and threatening legal action.
Your timeline lists several occasions of discussing issues with The Lawyer. Are you suggesting that residents be made aware of each and every topic and how much it costs? That crosses the line for me. Residents vote for board members they can trust to make the right decision. I don’t want every little thing discussed in a board meeting.
That said, I think that residents should know an approximate cost of litigation beforehand. It would be interesting to know how many people would have voted to move forward with the Warne litigation if they knew how much it would cost. Maybe that money would have been better spent on fixing the problem instead of bulldozing through it.
I agree on the board packets issue. D49 has theirs (most of it, not all of it) on their website a few days before each meeting. Speaking of the website, I think WH site is better than it was, but it has a long way to go.
Where I stand on open records and government transparency isn’t important here. I’m not running for the board. As a reporter, obviously I would want everything I can get my hands on. As a resident,…hmmm, maybe not. Some information could be mis-used. Case in point, this hullabaloo about Larry’s salary. One resident thinks he’s overpaid and has set about to convince the rest of the district to cut his salary. Especially when it will only save each resident less than $2 a month.
This specific posting is unique, in that I am trying to track the district’s expenditures on the restraining order issue — they claim one figure, I dispute it, so each line item is listed to show the trail. This is the first time that I have done this, even though I have had these specific records for over 8 months now…instead, I have simply made the aggregate available to the residents if they choose to read it.
Therein lies my point: the information SHOULD be available to the residents….whether they read it or not is moot, the requirement is the information is public, therefore available.
You may not be running for the board, Lynne, but you serve as an advocate for positions (either in line with the district or not), so I’d say your opinion does matter.
And again…your husband is running, is he not? What is his position? I must admit I know nothing about his stance.
Hmmm, so you’re a candidate but you “don’t have time to articulate on the matter right now”? Now who’s not being transparent and open??
You say, “other district wants the information they simply have to come over and fill out a form and get the information. What’s to stop them from having their attorneys hit us with a suit for the information?” So you would expect the district manager to make that information publicly available? I believe that would be considered a negotiation and should be kept private. But apparently you don’t think so.
Cherokee just closed on the purchase of 95 acre feet of water. Are you suggesting that Woodmen Hills should have hit Cherokee with a lawsuit to make them reveal that information beforehand?
You said, “As a board member I will work to clearly show the world what a board should have been in the first place.” Explain please. It seems to me you wanted residents to be involved in the bond negotiations. I suspect there are few, if any, residents qualified to do any such negotiation, yet you seem to think that should be open to public discussion. How do YOU think they should have been handled? Are you going to ask for public discussion on every issue before the board? Where do YOU draw the line on public and confidential?
Nice try gimmie a break…..now who are you and what have done with the real Ron…your post was way to polished and refined to have been written by the real Ron…..
I’m not sure what the fascination is with how much the RO hearing cost. The decision was made. It cost what it cost. Knowing that what amount is won’t change anything. Mr. Pace (aka gimme a break) wants the world to feel sorry for him because he misbehaved badly and didn’t want to pay the consequences. The bottom line is that if Mr. Pace had behaved like most civil adults, the district would not be paying these legal fees. HE forced the hand of the district, NOT the other way around. It saddens me to see that you, David, seem to have bought into his thinking. I believe the district was justified. Mr. Pace would have us believe that numerous sheriff deputies, district employees, a Christian pastor, board members, and an elderly woman attending a board meeting all conspired to make stuff up about him. I don’t think so.
In fact, according to Mr. Pace’s own testimony, this is not the first time he’s been in this kind of trouble. Ask him about the restraining order still in affect in Virginia (plaintiffs Doug Lewie / Louie and Heather Wenzel). Another in Aurora with Christopher Dern. He also plead guilty to domestic violence, assault and battery in Aurora.
Mr. Pace says I hate him. I don’t. I hate how he manipulates the truth to make himself look like the victim. I hate his attacks on residents on his website. That’s not the kind of board member I can respect.
Lynne–
If you recall, I was originally in favor of what the district was doing…both with covenants, and with Ron. I was told in person by Jan Pizzi that the district’s exposure to the covenant case was zero — that turned out to be false. So I started reading about the covenants case…and discovered that the district often chooses to play hardball when they don’t get their way. The district was told not once, not twice, but three times by attorneys that they couldn’t have what they wanted as far as covenant enforcement went…and so what did they do? They threatened to sue the developer. see Chuck Warne’s site, under Timeline of Facts, for documentation and proof).
When Chuck Warne again pointed out to them again that they did not have the authority, they refused to negotiate — even when they went to mediation. So what was Chuck to do…knuckle under, or fight back? he fought back — and he WON, decisively.
Again, what does the district choose to do? Negotiate, try to reach out to the residents, find a happy medium? No…they appeal, again using our money. The Lawyer states the appeal will only cost “$2500 or so”…yet every lawyer I have spoken to (and I have spoken to 6 of them about all this) said that is unrealistic, that it takes that much just to park your car at the appeals court
. Is it? They won’t tell us….hence my interest in the legal bills. This is information they cannot refuse us, yet they try to.
Ditto the RO cost. Again, I was all in favor of the ROs — until I dug into it, learned about it. Not from Ron — he kept telling my I had my head up my [expletive deleted]. Not from the district — they would have you believe they were angelic in their patience. No, I read the documents — the court filings, the transcripts, the orders themselves, the arrest warrant. Again, I see a district that not only refused several opportunities to take things down a notch — they deliberately stepped it up. Why? Ask them…but again, the district quotes a figure that does not seem plausible –and they say “sorry, you just have to take our word for it”.
HOGWASH.
From your comment, you would have me take the attitude that it’s water under the bridge, let it go. I contend that it is highly relevant and indicative of the direction this district and this board want to go in…so knowing what it cost, with PROOF one way or the other, may very well change things.
The district spent $234,000 on “legal fees” last year — almost 5 times their budget. Yet nowhere did the board vote to approve this overspend….does that not bother you? What did they spend all that money on? Bond renegotiation, Paintbrush? Perhaps…but we’ll see.
I could make the same comment of you, Lynne — you appear to have bought into the district’s way of thinking. I’ve put the documents out for anyone to see, and when I get proof of other issues I will also put them out there for people to see.
I am not on Ron’s side, I am not on the district’s side. Both have made mistakes. Yet Ron admits he’s an [expletive deleted] sometimes…have you ever heard an apology from the district? Ever?
Now, getting back to open-ness regarding legal fees, I think most of the time that information should be publicly available. I think residents should have a say in whether continuing to pursue an issue is worth the cost. But I don’t think sensitive information should be revealed (names, types of negotiations, leads on water sources, etc.). It’s a tough balance. I also think this attorney has much too much say in how our district is run. That’s from THIS side of the board table. If I were on the board, I might be singing a different tune. I’ve heard that’s what happens after elections.
Yes, my husband is running for the board. He’s under deadlines at work at the moment, but he’s working on a response for you and will post it here in the next couple of days.
To kaleo35
Thanks for the kudos. I am in school; my tutor was instrumental in showing me the way to communicate. I now write the posting and sit on them for a while and make corrections. This gives me time to re-read it and make corrections. This college stuff is fun.
Ron; Lynn please read the highlighted portion of your own posting. You actually made my day. You clearly are correct on these points. Based on your own correlation you are correct. For instance take the following statement and put it to the test. (That said, I think that residents should know an approximate cost of litigation beforehand. It would be interesting to know how many people would have voted to move forward).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ron; You’re correct; this is what Mr. Hightower and I have been trying to explain to everyone. I am glad in a roundabout sort of way you get it.
The residents would have never allowed this board to spend 121,000.00 on RO’s. Chucks case is nowhere near the cost in comparison (est. 27,000.00).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Lynn; Residents vote for board members they can trust to make the right decision. I don’t want every little thing discussed in a board meeting.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ron; I, as a resident can’t trust anyone who allows a manager to spend over one hundred thousand dollars and not have to seek permission. If elected no employee will ever have the authority to spend they type of money without board approval.
Well, again you are making our point for us Lynn. The board has spent an additional est. 750,000.00 last year and we are not allowed to see the records to account for the extra expenditures.
This board has put on a cloaking device and it’s been in place since last summer. The trust level of this board was shattered.
If elected I will be the front runner in showing you can balance the people’s right to know vs. shielding what needs shielding. I really enjoy it when you inadvertently prove my point over the spending by this board.
I have answered all your questions Lynn.
What is your whole purpose for attacking me day after day after day? Are you even asking the incumbents any tough questions? This what the residents are talking about your childish antics.
You’re supposed to be mature and every time you attack me you prove just the opposite. What are you so afraid of?
I hope to see you at the meet and greet, I think the community is waiting to see if all the rumors and hype are true.
Oh boy will they have their eyes opened. I just need 5 minutes and all the stigmas will disappear.
Lynn you still haven’t answered my significant questions. Why is that?
What is your posting going to be If I get elected and turn it all around?