Open Letter to the POA from Dave West

To All Members Highroads Property Owners Association,

From Dave West, acting Secretary

Cameron English, as acting Vice-President of our property owners association, has posted an open letter on the Association web site. His letter comments on the past actions of the Board and makes recommendations the Association should consider in the selection of Board Directors. As acting Secretary to the Board I feel that you should have the facts.

The Association transitioned from Arizona Land and Ranch to the current Highroads Property Owners Association (POA) in June of 2010. At that time Bert Hume and Cameron English were elected to the Board of Directors. That election was legal. On the first Saturday of February 2011 the Association was required by our Bylaws to hold an annual meeting and an election for Board of Directors. This requirement was ignored by Hume and English.  Instead an annual meeting was held in May of 2011. At that meeting Hume proposed that we elect the existing board for another year. A vote was taken and passed. No absentee ballots were given to the members who did not attend. These actions were in violation of state law A.R.S. 33-1812 A. which requires that absentee ballots be given to all members for any action requiring a membership vote. These actions were also in violation of our Bylaws requiring absentee ballots and which limit the term of office for Directors to one year unless reelected by the membership. By not distributing absentee ballots, Hume and English, effectively denied the majority of the membership (those who did not attend the meeting) a vote in determining who would be on the Board. These actions also denied anyone who wanted to run for a position on the board an opportunity to do so.

Bert Hume and Cameron English again failed to follow both state law and our Bylaws when they did not hold the annual members meeting and Board of Directors elections for 2012 and 2013 as required. These violations of state law and our Bylaws were not acts based on ignorance. Directors are required to know and follow the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s), the Bylaws and the laws of Arizona as they pertain to the POA. Clearly Hume and English had no intention of following the laws and did not wish to relinquish control of the Board.

These continuing violations open the door to serious legal liabilities for the entire Association. Acting as a Board of Directors when not legally elected allows for arguments in court that any actions, contracts, money spent etc. by the illegal Board are null and void. The legal implications, all detrimental to the POA, could end up costing all of use a great deal of money. Remember, most lawsuits are not against individual board members, rather they are against the entire POA. There’s more money available that way.

June of this year Al Duff and I were appointed to the Board as Secretary and Treasurer, respectively, at a special Board of Directors meeting. One of the first things that Al and I did was to inform the Board that due to the violations of Arizona law and our Bylaws the Board was illegal and any actions by the Board could be successfully challenged in court. Hume, English and Anderson were all present. (Anderson was appointed to the Board in May 2012) No action was taken. Since that time I have repeatedly cautioned Hume, English and Anderson that the Board needed to hold an election for the Board members which met all legal requirements. No action was taken. My warnings and requests to hold elections were ignored. My intent when I applied for an appointment to the Board was to try to change the culture within that Board from one of disregard of the laws and rules to one of compliance with the laws and rules.

This issue of legal elections for the Board members did not progress until our attempt to amend CC&R rule 6.4.  At the special Board of Directors meeting to count the ballots I again advised Hume and Anderson (English was not present) that the illegal status of the Board could jeopardize our efforts to amend the rule. It was only then that we got a successful Board vote to hold elections for the Board. Until then it was my impression that Hume, English and Anderson had no intention of holding elections for the Board as required.

Cameron English in his letter seems proud of his, Hume’s and Anderson’s accomplishments regarding road maintenance.  I would like to point out that in the three years since the transition the roads have only been graded twice. The original budget from Arizona Land and Ranch that Cameron referred to was for grading the roads three times a year.  The last time our roads were graded we were charged $15,000.00. Our neighboring POA to the south just had their roads graded for approximately $3000.00 for about the same number of miles. Our grading costs will be higher because we have more rocky areas then theirs, however I cannot believe that it should cost four or five times the money. I have reviewed most of the road improvements and repairs that were done and am not satisfied that those could not have been done just as well at a cheaper price. A total of $46,560.00 was spent according to the treasurer’s report for 2012-2013 for road maintenance, grading and road improvements. Keep in mind that the contractor, D. Fenn Company is well known to Bert Hume and the contract was issued without going through a competitive bid process. I don’t know of any business that issues contracts without competitive bidding on work costing this much. It is the Boards responsibility to get us the best bang for our dollar, not to indulge their cronies.

Cameron addresses the purchase of the motor grader by Bert Hume and Greg Anderson. This purchase was done independently of the Board and the membership. The “vote” of the members at the last annual meeting did not comply with either the state laws on membership votes or the Bylaws. Only 32 votes were represented at this meeting, which means 91 votes did not have a say in this because no absentee ballots were issued. Even if this was just intended as a polling of the membership, almost 2/3s of the membership did not have a voice. As I recall the “vote” at the meeting it was to continue research into the economic feasibility of the POA owning and operating a grader. Bert Hume and Greg Anderson took this “vote” as a mandate to go forward with the purchase, (the vote was 18 to 14 in favor). They found a grader for sale in Texas. Anderson sent an email asking the Board to OK reimbursement for their travel expenses to go look at and possibly buy this grader. I emailed Anderson back stating that the membership did not vote to buy the grader and, because the Board was not legally elected, that we should not go forward on any such purchase. I told him that I would vote against reimbursement. Bert Hume and Greg Anderson then got blank checks from Treasurer Al Duff which Duff refused to sign. They then flew to Texas and purchased the grader for $48,000.00. Plus approximately $1800.00 in airline tickets, motel rooms, meals, car rentals etc. When I found out about the purchase, I asked Greg Anderson why he and Hume made this purchase without a vote from the Board. He replied that the Board had voted. I asked why I was not notified of the Board meeting 10 days prior to the meeting as required in the Bylaws, I asked to see a record of the notice to the membership a minimum of forty-eight hours prior to the meeting as required in the Bylaws and finally, the location of the minutes of that meeting. Anderson declined to answer my questions. I have yet to see the minutes or any record of notification to either the Board or to the membership . It is my opinion that no Board meeting was held. Hume, Anderson and English may have discussed the purchase via email or by phone but did not comply with any of the requirements in state law or the Bylaws pertaining to a special Board of Directors meeting. Cameron, in his letter claims, to have been there at the meeting and that  ” 5 intelligent and high integrity individuals voted and the majority decided to move forward. “, this did not happen.

Greg Anderson resigned from the Board at the September 21 Board meeting to avoid a conflict of interest. He wanted to operate the motor grader and be paid $35.00/hour to do so. As a Board Director it is a conflict of interest to do anything that may result in personal gain. Anderson purchased the grader with the intent to operate it and be paid by the POA. This was a conflict of interest involving $48,000.00. His resignation only showed that he knew this was a conflict of interest.

Since the purchase of the grader Anderson has been attempting to get the Board to agree to buy a 1000 gallon fuel tank to be placed on his property for the grader with a second 250 gal fuel tank on Hume’s property. Of course the tanks would need to be filled, all at your expense.

I am neither for nor against the POA purchasing a grader. However it has to be done with the full knowledge of all the membership and with a full assessment of all the costs and more importantly the liabilities involved. Purchases of this magnitude do not belong to just the Board.

Cameron claims that “one individual has use ARS regulations to shut down your association from doing it primary and most vital job…”. I can only assume he is referring to me as I have been the most vocal about the Board needing to hold legal elections for the Directors (for the reasons delineated in the fourth paragraph of this letter). The reason we are in this situation is because Bert Hume, Cameron English and Greg Anderson did not comply with the laws of the state of Arizona and refused to hold legal elections. As you can see from their actions Bert Hume, Cameron English and Greg Anderson have a history of ignoring the state laws, the CC&Rs and the Bylaws. They have put the Association in a very precarious legal position. My insistence that they follow the laws and rules is not what brought this Board to a stop, it was and is their malfeasance.

In the four months that I have been on the Board I have worked to return the Board to a legal status. This work has culminated in the scheduled elections on November 9. I have not done this alone. Al Duff and Rich Kelley have also been working to achieve the same goals while on the Board.  If elected to the Board it is my intention to return the Board back to the membership. I feel that the Board is supposed to work for the membership not for the Board member’s own benefit or designs. I will ask the membership for their direction in all major decisions, I will make sure that all meetings are open to the membership and in compliance with the laws and rules. My highest priority is to poll the membership about their desires to either change the CC&R rules or to remove the CC&R/POA in its entirety. Once we determine the majority direction I will work on it as hard as I can. Bert Hume and Cameron English have had three years to change the CC&Rs and it wasn’t until Al Duff and I did the work writing the amendment (to CC&R 6.4) and putting together the first legal election held since the transition that anything has been accomplished.

I ask that you elect Dave West, Al Duff and Rich Kelley to the Board of Directors on November 9.

Response to Cameron's email to the board

October 18, 2013


Cam,

You are missing some key points here that you really need to know about.

At the meeting held on September 21, 2013 (that was reportedly held on that date to accomodate your schedule and you failed to appear at), it was brought to our attention that since no one on the "board" had ever been elected by a vote from the entire membership, (which is required by the by-laws and this means absentee ballots to all) that we had no board members.  It was acknowleged that there was no board of directors.  It was then determined that the only person listed on the filing with the State Commision was Bert.  He then appointed himself, Dave West, and Al Duff and you, as interim acting board members to see to keeping essential bills paid and tending only to emergency matters which could cause the POA to be exposed to great liability.  It was apparent that all in attendance agreed to the INTERIM ACTING (not actual board members) board with ONLY authority to deal with emergencies, and to have an election as soon as possible.  THIS BOARD HAS NO STANDING OTHER THAN THAT.

A few points that you don't seem to understand......

1.  Board members are elected by a full vote of the membership each first weekend of February.

2.  Only board members are authorized access to the POA funds.  And even then, only within the limits of the by-laws and the full membership approval.

3.  You have not been elected and holding office, nor has Bert, since the February 2011 election did not take place.

4.  By definition, board members are elected.  If they are not elected, they are not board members.  You are not elected.  Therefore, you are not board members.

5.  The current five member interim acting board has no board members on it.  None of us has been elected.

If Obama had decided not to hold an election last year he would not be president, he would be a dictator.  You and Bert have not held elections.  You are not board members, haven't been since February of 2011.  There are a lot more people who see it this way other than just Dave.  Now you want to declare that this is a legal and legitimate board.  Do you have any idea how ridiculous you appear?

(Cameron)
I have heard that there was some comments made about my not attending the Board meeting Dave Called.   Below is my statement at the time regarding the emergency board meeting.   I am opposed on principal to one of a five member board claiming we are not legitimate and then calling board meetings.   This is basically just making up the rules as you go along and is just ambiguous as what Dave claims to be the "illeagal"  Board.

Dave didn't call the meeting, I DID.  Al agreed, so did Dave.

We are an interim acting board with very limited abilities.  This was an extremely hazardous situation and exposed this membership to great liability.  We are not only authorized to act on this but required to.   The fact that you didn't approve only shows your very limited understanding of how this current board is to function.

(Cameron)
Here is my position and is what I have stated all along.

- the board is leagal and legitimate.  Just because one person of 5 says it isn't ,  does not allow them to sabotage the board.   All this positioning about the board not being legit is one person's opinion and negates the work and contribution of the entire board.

The majority of the people at the meeting on September 21, 2013 agreed this wasn't legitimate or legal and it was declared null and void, (along with anything that it voted for or against).  Your past inactions and actions have already negated the entire board, in it's entire history.  Quit blaming the messenger.  He isn't alone.  He is only one of many that you have ignored for far too long.

(Cameron)
- I agreed with the direction to execute the balloting to correct the mistakes that were made in process prior.   I reject the opinion that the board was not legitimate.   And,  I would add,  I could just as easily make my case in front of a judge that with all the events taken into consideration,  the board had and continues to have the full authority to do its job.   The laws being what they are,   are part of a system and a code to use that are part of a legal system.   You may find this hard to believe,  but nothing is black and white and perfect in our  legal system.   Dave's interpretation is accurate and the board agreed to move to make the elections conform to state format,  etc ,  and go in that direction.  However,  the recent actions to go outside of the board and to start making decisions and  calling meetings while at the same time discounting the Boards credibility can only be considered manipulative.

You can hold whatever opinion you like.  Your opinion doesn't seem to be a widespread opinion.
I think that your suggestion that you make your case in front of a judge is a wonderful idea.  
Spare me the legal advice.  You are not an attorney.
The meeting was called from within the board.  I called for it and you were informed of it (I am an interim board member, no more or less than you).  You were given the oportunity to appear.  You chose not to. Who was outside the board?  What you say here is completely untrue. Do you think that you and Bert ARE the board?

(Cameron)
- I have served this association for three years for no personal gain and in the best capacity possible.  If anyone wants to imply that I do not have any concern for the association after the contribution I have made voluntarily then they should be man enough to make it to me directly and not in front of an "emergency"  board meeting that I disagreed with in the first place.

No one implied anything.  What are you defending?


Rich

Rich Kelley's Rebuttal to Cameron's Open Letter

October 17, 2013

From:  Rich Kelley

Open letter to the Highroads Property Owners Association

This is a rebuttal to Cameron English's (Highroads Property Owners Association Vice President) letter (see attached).

            For those of you who may not know me, my wife Karen and I have hosted your POA meetings for the past two years, I am your newest Board of Directors 2nd Vice President.  Since being appointed to the position on September 21, 2013 I was already aware that none of the Board of Directors (BOD) members have been elected by the rules laid out in the Association by-laws.  They require ballots be mailed out to all POA members and a meeting held on the first weekend of February of each year.  This has not been done in 2011, 2012 or 2013.  Instead, Bert Hume and Cameron English have seen fit to unilaterally re-elect themselves each year by not holding those elections.  This is not fulfilling their responsibility to us the Association members and can only be seen as a major dereliction of theirs duties. 

Additionally, they have contracted twice to have the yearly road maintenance performed.  The exact numbers were presented at the past two annual meetings, but the amount for this was over $12,000.00 each time.  The first year Bert Hume announced to the members present that he did not put that contract up for bids but rather hired his long time friends to do the job, (claiming he knew their work and they gave him a good price).  I was told that the same arrangement was made the second year.  The first of those years Bert Hume paid the bill and then received check# 1015 for $12,553.00 from Cameron English (the treasurer) to reimburse him from the POA funds.  This is not how POA business should ever be conducted.  I have a friend, Jim Etherton, on the Eureka Springs phase I board of directors and he just informed me that they just had their roads graded.  They have 21 miles of roads and we have 22 miles of roads.  Jim tells me that they spent $3,000.00 and I got that confirmed by the contractor that did it.  This included a number of repairs to the road.   

            (from Cameron English's letter, see attached)

            "Bert Hume and Greg Anderson worked diligently to keep the roads and the grading of the roads to a minimum cost.   As an association,  we owe these guys a      tremendous debt of gratitude."   

Sorry Cameron, I don't see FOUR TIMES THE MONEY as minimum cost.  GET SERIOUS.  Pardon me if I don't feel any gratitude.  I feel ripped off.  And Cameron where was your voice when these no bid contracts for FOUR TIMES THE MONEY were being awarded?

            (from Cameron English's letter, see attached)

            "Keep in mind,   prior to the association taking over from Arizona Land and Ranches (ARS)   ,   contracts were set to maintain the roads at an average cost of $45k     per year.   Due to the expertise and the contacts and access to capable people and equipment,   we were able to cut those costs to a fraction of the          historical costs.   One year,  we managed to repair the roads,   bring in dozens of truckloads of material to rebuild the critical sections of the roads,  and to            put        the roads right.  All of this work was completed for under $20k."

No, Cameron.  NO contracts were set.  Arizona Land and Ranches paid $11,000.00+ (under 12,000) the last time they graded the roads and their projected budget showed $36,550 to grade the roads three times a year.  You have none of this right.  I have the paper work to prove it. 

            (from Cameron English's letter, see attached)

            "A direct benefit to the association resulted with a surplus in the treasury,  reduced dues ,  ($200 from $290)  and ,  after the membership voted ,  a decision to     use some of the treasury to buy a blade to maintain the roads.  All in all,  a remarkable accomplishment.  A Treasury that  was a direct result of the expertise  of   both Bert and Greg,  and the corresponding savings enjoyed by the association.   If anyone doubts these facts,   take a look at the historical cost to maintain the           roads,  and compare to the three years following the association taking over from ARS."

The vote was not a legal vote since you failed to send out absentee ballots.  The vote to buy a blade was only passed 18 yes and 14 no.  You took this as approval by the members to buy the blade.  With 32 out of 100 members present you think they gave you authority to buy it.  This is indefensible.  The only historical cost to maintain the roads here was the $11,000.00+ (under $12,000.00) which I believe was just prior to the POA members taking over the POA.  Other than that I have seen no history or evidence that the roads were maintained after them being cut originally.  I have lived on my property since December of 2008, I didn't see any maintenance done other than that.   If you have any evidence that any road maintenance was performed other than just prior to our taking over the board, prove it.

            (from Cameron English's letter, see attached)

            "My point in reviewing this information,  is two fold.    First,  we made a decision as a membership and as a BOD to buy the equipment.   Second ,   the benefit of            the work that was done by Bert and Greg are directly a result of the treasury having the funds to support that membership decision.   As it now stands,   certain             people have deemed the vote that was taken,  and the general status of the Board of Directors to be invalidated due to technical violations that did not conform to             ARS Title 33 rules.   

            Along these lines,   the board has acknowledges where ARS33 was not followed to the letter of the law.   The BOD has agreed to rectify the errors that were made           in process and execution of the key areas of collecting votes from the absentee ballots."

No, Cameron.  The membership did not make a decision.  68 out of 100 members didn't even KNOW about this because YOU didn't follow ARS Title 33 rules.  The only way you could correct this is to put it to a full vote.  I intend to do this if I am elected or not.  (I don't need to be on the board to get votes on it).  THEN you can buy the grader.  OOPS!  You already bought the grader.   Well, you can buy it back from us.  That'll be fine.

Letter of the law?  No, you ignored ARS Title 33 completely.

            (from Cameron English's letter, see attached)

            "Where does this leave us?   Basically,  a few disgruntled people have shut down the plans to move forward with a plan to utilize the grader the association owns.   Consider the fact that a quorum majority of the membership voted to acquire the blade,   the BOD confirmed and re-voted to acquire the blade.   The BOD authorized the expenditure of funds after reviewing and doing due diligence on what was available.  We went as far as reviewing an ROI - return on investment and            cost analysis of the strategy to deploy our own equipment.   And 5 intelligent and high integrity individuals voted and the majority decided to move forward.   I was  there,  I can tell you this is exactly what happened."

What you left out here is that 5 individuals were given grossly inflated numbers to compare the purchase of a grader to.  If they knew that Greg Anderson wants $35 per hour to grade our roads and estimates that it will take 2 weeks to do it.....  Let’s see that's $35 X 40 Hours X 2 weeks = $2800.00... plus fuel.... plus the cost of the grader.... plus the cost of liability insurance...... and workman's compensation insurance     VERSUS $3000.00 to hire a contractor who has all that included in the price.   ROI?  COST ANALYSIS?  Sorry, I already own a bridge.  I bought it when I was much younger and dumber.  The people who see what you are trying to pull here aren't disgruntled, they are pissed.  And they should be.

            (from Cameron English's letter, see attached)

            "Now,  one individual has use ARS regulations to shut down your association from doing it primary and most vital job,   to put the blade to work and to get the         roads restored to their necessary and safe  level.   I feel that everyone that is impacted by this type of politicking and power struggle,   originating from the simple truth that they did not like the majority decision,   should know why our association is facing a stalemate over what should be an obvious action that needs to be         taken."

No, Cameron.  Thanks to YOU we have a board that is not authorized to do anything except for emergency repairs until there is a legal election.  First legal election in over three years, it's about time, don't you think?  We have seen to those emergency repairs and the regular maintenance can wait a few short weeks until we finally have a legitimate election to establish a fully authorized board.  Why is it that you are in such a hurry?  And quit blaming Dave West for calling your major screw ups to our attention.    

            (from Cameron English's letter, see attached)

            "For me,  I am not interested in taking part in a BOD that put politics and power struggle ahead of the best interests of the Association.   Your BOD historically   prioritized the needs of the association and the interest in bringing the community together as the priority.   Sure,  there may have been mistakes in process,  and     errors in execution of policy.  In the end,  I have been involved with groups that allow individuals to become the focal point,  at the expense of the association.   I           do not want to participate in politics and to deal with petty bickering any longer."

Petty bickering ??  Re-electing yourselves for three years running, holding board meetings in private when state statutes demand that they be announced and public, and taking a straw poll of 18 votes so that you can run off with nearly 50,000.00 of our favorite dollars is petty?

            "I will still exercise my right to vote and be heard,   and to be  a part of the community any way I can contribute.   I served the best I could,   with no other interest     other than the betterment of the community.  Although I will not be running,  I urge the membership to vote carefully,  and to appoint people that are more           concerned about the associations' interest than their own agenda.   Bert Hume has always tried his best to do the right thing by the association.  I for one will cast        my vote for his continuation in the job we started and the role as President going forward."

I strongly suggest we do not vote for BERT HUME.  It seems apparent to me that he is interested in his own agenda more than spending our money carefully.  Giving out contracts to your friends for four times what the competition asks is nothing I want any part of.  It is also my understanding that about $40,000.00 was spent to widen Sheep Wash Road and that this once again was done by "his friends".   And where was the POA membership vote to approve something like road improvements, we're supposed to handle road maintenance, road improvements should be subject to a member vote.

I for one am very glad that we've got Bert, Greg, and Cameron's fingers out of the cookie jar.  They have spent over $90,000.00 this year on these foolish moves and have depleted our treasury down to about 20,000.00.  They did not get a legitimate vote from the members.  They were NOT able to produce any evidence that the board had a public meeting and voted to spend the money.  And they were warned when they insisted on being given checks to purchase the grader that they were not authorized to do it.  In short, they spent the money without even their own approval in legitimate form.

In closing.............

I volunteered for this position on the board because I didn't like the members being kept in the dark.  I don't like their money being spent frivolously, either.  I don't think that being on the board is a position of power and authority.  I think it is a position of responsibility to the members to only spend the members’ money in ways they approve of.  Many see this as they need 51% approval on an issue to spend money.  I don't.  If I don't get a lot closer to 100% (OK 90% is unlikely enough) then I want to talk to those who disagree.  Maybe they will see it my way, or maybe they know something that I don't.  But I see this job as being someone who facilitate consensus.  When you are talking to people to get things done you usually get more information than most others will.  Then, it's my job to lead people toward answers I have found, but never quit listening to hear their ideas and observations as well.  I not only offer to talk to you personally I want to talk to all of you personally. 

My phone number is 928-828-3040 and if it is long distance for you, call me, I'll call you back on Skype. 

You can also email me at:          Rich@RichKelley.com

We are all in this thing together and the more we can come together the happier we all will be.  I need to hear what you want.  I may be crazy to think it, but I think we can share ideas and form a consensus on how to best accomplish our goals.  I came here to help to that end. 

The special election ballots will be in your mail soon.

PLEASE VOTE FOR:

            DAVE WEST

            AL DUFF

            RICH KELLEY

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

I thought you should know these things.

Rich Kelley

Open letter to Highroads POA from Cameron

From :  Cameron English,  Vice President 
Open letter to the Highroads Property Owners Association 

I am writing to advise that I have elected not to run again for the Board of Directors (BOD).    Recent developments have been instrumental in my decision,  and I wanted to depart my position with some comments that the I would recommend the Association should consider factoring in for future selection of Directors.   

Many of you attended the Annual meeting and Bar B Que events that the BOD implemented over the past several years.   During these meetings,   Bert and I did our best to take the pulse of the Association,  to offer the critical decisions to be voted on,   to allow the membership to view in a completely transparent way the decisions that were made with the Association treasury.    I want to point out that through the expertise of their time ,  talent,  and resources,   Bert Hume and Greg Anderson worked diligently to keep the roads and the grading of the roads to a minimum cost.   As an association,  we owe these guys a tremendous debt of gratitude.     

Keep in mind,   prior to the association taking over from Arizona Land and Ranches (ARS)   ,   contracts were set to maintain the roads at an average cost of $45k per year.   Due to the expertise and the contacts and access to capable people and equipment,   we were able to cut those costs to a fraction of the historical costs.   One year,  we managed to repair the roads,   bring in dozens of truckloads of material to rebuild the critical sections of the roads,  and to put the roads right.  All of this work was completed for under $20k. 

A direct benefit to the association resulted with a surplus in the treasury,  reduced dues ,  ($200 from $290)  and ,  after the membership voted ,  a decision to use some of the treasury to buy a blade to maintain the roads.  All in all,  a remarkable accomplishment.  A Treasury that  was a direct result of the expertise  of both Bert and Greg,  and the corresponding savings enjoyed by the association.   If anyone doubts these facts,   take a look at the historical cost to maintain the roads,  and compare to the three years following the association taking over from ARS. 

My point in reviewing this information,  is two fold.    First,  we made a decision as a membership and as a BOD to buy the equipment.   Second ,   the benefit of the work that was done by Bert and Greg are directly a result of the treasury having the funds to support that membership decision.   As it now stands,   certain people have deemed the vote that was taken,  and the general status of the Board of Directors to be invalidated due to technical violations that did not conform to ARS Title 33 rules.     

Along these lines,   the board has acknowledges where ARS33 was not followed to the letter of the law.   The BOD has agreed to rectify the errors that were made in process and execution of the key areas of collecting votes from the absentee ballots.   

Where does this leave us?   Basically,  a few disgruntled people have shut down the plans to move forward with a plan to utilize the grader the association owns.   Consider the fact that a quorum majority of the membership voted to acquire the blade,   the BOD confirmed and re-voted to acquire the blade.   The BOD authorized the expenditure of funds after reviewing and doing due diligence on what was available.  We went as far as reviewing an ROI - return on investment and cost analysis of the strategy to deploy our own equipment.   And 5 intelligent and high integrity individuals voted and the majority decided to move forward.   I was there,  I can tell you this is exactly what happened. 

Now,  one individual has use ARS regulations to shut down your association from doing it primary and most vital job,   to put the blade to work and to get the roads restored to their necessary and safe  level.   I feel that everyone that is impacted by this type of politicking and power struggle,   originating from the simple truth that they did not like the majority decision,   should know why our association is facing a stalemate over what should be an obvious action that needs to be taken. 

For me,  I am not interested in taking part in a BOD that put politics and power struggle ahead of the best interests of the Association.   Your BOD historically prioritized the needs of the association and the interest in bringing the community together as the priority.   Sure,  there may have been mistakes in process,  and errors in execution of policy.  In the end,  I have been involved with groups that allow individuals to become the focal point,  at the expense of the association.   I do not want to participate in politics and to deal with petty bickering any longer. 

I will still exercise my right to vote and be heard,   and to be  a part of the community any way I can contribute.   I served the best I could,   with no other interest other than the betterment of the community.  Although I will not be running,  I urge the membership to vote carefully,  and to appoint people that are more concerned about the associations' interest than their own agenda.   Bert Hume has always tried his best to do the right thing by the association.  I for one will cast my vote for his continuation in the job we started and the role as President going forward. 

Sincerely, 

Cam English 
    

Yea - I finally made it on to the sight

Great to see the new website and to be able to post,   Looking forward to seeing the increased communication re Highroads from all the members.   In case,  like me,  you missed the original invite from Karen Kelley regarding becoming a member so you can blog blog blog away,  just send Karen a note and she can resend the invite to you via email......hope to hear from Y' All soon.

Cam

New Member blog

This is to test the members' only blog feature.