Tony Thompson's Request

ATTENTION ALL PROPERTY OWNERS:      

December 20, 2014                                                                   

    I presently see a need to communicate between ourselves now more than ever before.  Recent events have developed that really need to be openly discussed.  I know that some of you have had your hackles raised a little at receiving bulk Email and I completely understand your desires to be left alone to enjoy the peace and tranquility we all appreciate here.  That is the reason for this post… to test the effectiveness of the POA Blog Site for communications.  If a large percentage of POA members acknowledge receiving this blog post, we will know it is a sufficient means of communicating while still preserving the privacy of those who may not wish to be involved with the affairs of the POA.  If only a minority of members respond, I see no option but to resort to the bulk Email, deleting the addresses of those people who request it as those requests be known.  I therefore strongly urge everyone who reads this post to please click on the “comment” link at the bottom of the post and acknowledge its effectiveness by simply listing your parcel number.  Should you have trouble posting under “comment”, please feel free to acknowledge by sending me an Email at larrythehorse@gmail.com

I will give everyone a few days to respond.  Thank you for your time and I hope we are all beginning to understand that, although we all want the same tranquility, it may be necessary to unite together as a community in order to preserve that tranquility.  Efficient communication is the bonding agent that will hold us together.

Tony Thompson, Lot 231

Tony Thompson Rebuttal #2

Mr. West, May 20, 2014
Your “assurance” that the petition submitted to you requesting a special meeting be held for the purpose of voting on the removal of Rich Kelley as a director not conforming to our Bylaws is not very reassuring to me. The only thing you have stated of which I agree with is in requesting the members read the Bylaws and the petition and decide for themselves.
As for the number of signatures on the petition, there are indeed at least 24 votes on that petition but only 16 were introduced to the board by Al Duff as that was more than a sufficient number to meet the requirements of the Bylaws. A fact you must have forgotten for I was told you were present at the meeting when this was explained. The point is, a sufficient number of votes were presented to you requesting a meeting. An explanation for why these voters requested the meeting was also provided to you. You have made that explanation into an “excuse” for dismissing the petition. You are stating you don’t like the wording of the petition. I don’t know how I can make it any clearer to you sir: “Over 10% of the eligible votes have indicated the people want a meeting”. You can criticize me all you want but the fact remains this petition is a simple request and you are making it into something much more. In regard to your reference to the laws giving the Board of Directors the right to sue people without informing the members of the POA or asking for their vote, I did not mean to refute those laws sir; I was only trying to question the morale implications of what you were saying. It was in direct parallel with your reluctance to allow the vote this petition requests. I hope this answers your question of “what the lawsuit has to do with the petition”. For you to accuse me of being part of a clique to stop a lawsuit is utterly absurd!! If you are indeed planning to sue people involved in the purchase of that grader it is none of my business. I was against the grader purchase from the very beginning. If you plan on suing anyone on behalf of the POA, then I feel it is the business of all POA members. My wish would simply be that any involvement you have with lawsuits should be done on your own accord and not involve the members of this POA unless you inform us of the facts and allow us our right to vote. Do not misunderstand me Mr. West: I am speaking of voting rights here and the right to assemble. There is no conspiracy that I am involved with. The only “clique” I am aware of is that in your mind. Is this why you are against this petition? You think a bunch of “radicals” are trying to take over the POA? It’s the only thing I can imagine that would explain your fear of the members given the right to vote.
You suggest I write another petition that would follow the “rules”. What “rules” Mr. West? Those of the Bylaws have been followed. If you don’t approve of the wording, or if you think the author has to be identified, or if you think a liability risk may exist because the members might not approve of the actions of a director… I can’t help that. I can only abide by written laws. I did not begin this petition as a debate nor did I ever intend to get into a mudslinging series of correspondence. I submit to your decision to ignore the petition. I apologize for expressing frustration at times and I appreciate the fact that this board is liberal enough to allow a member the freedom of speech.

Respectfully Submitted By: Tony Thompson, Lot 231

Dave West's rebuttal to Tony Thompson

Mr. Tony Thompson,

This is in reply to your letter dated May 17, 2014. I found your letter to be a model of hypocrisy,
misinterpretation and “untruths”. I can assure you that your petition does not conform to the
Bylaws. You cannot ask for an officer’s removal on the petition, which you clearly did no matter
how circumspectly written. By including the demand that the “new board give serious
consideration to the termination” of an officer you have wasted the time of everyone
involved in this matter. You clearly do not understand the rules and the laws involved
or choose to misinterpret them to your own ends.

You suggest that because I and the rest of the Board rejected your petition we are acting
contrary to the wishes of the majority of the membership. Nothing could be further from
the truth. The membership, I believe, wants the Board to follow the rules and laws in our
administration. This has been my platform since the beginning and why I was elected.
You state that “Over two dozen signatures are on that petition asking for nothing more
than a meeting and you are denying them that right.” I have the petition in front of me as
I write this, there are sixteen signatures on the petition not “over two dozen”. And they
are asking for more than a meeting, they are asking for a recall of a duly elected member of
the Board and for his removal as an officer, the members meeting is incidental to this process.
Yes, they have the right to ask for a vote to recall a Board member and it could have
happened except for a poorly written petition. Sixteen out of ninety one members does
not constitute “majority wishes”. Only after a vote will the wishes of the majority be known.

You also seem to ignore the rights of the Board members who are, first and foremost,
Association members. They have the right of due process in any proceedings of this
Association. This is ensured by following the rules and laws. By calling for Mr. Kelley’s
removal as an officer in your petition you ignore those rules and laws. This disregard for
the rules opens the door to law suits and why I included this warning (it was not a threat)
for your benefit. In my research on the recall of Board members, lawyers have stated that
this is one of the most frequent reasons for lawsuits involving HOAs/POAs. Following
the rules and laws helps protect the Association from lawsuits.

The question posed by Ms. Johnson which I answered and posted on our website was a
valid question. You refer to my answer as a “bunch of codes and wordy phrases”. What do
think laws and rules are? I took the time to list all applicable laws and rules so that Ms. Johnson
and anyone else can research them and not just have my word on this question. Obviously you
do not understand or do not wish to understand the laws and rules and try to sweep them
away by referring to the “rights of the people”.  The rights of the people are stated in our
Constitution and Bill of Rights. Laws are codified protection of those rights. Yes, the legal
system is flawed, as we all know, however this does not give you the right to ignore those
laws that are not in your best interest or that you do not agree with. Those items that
require a membership vote are spelled out in our CC&Rs and the Bylaws.

Like you Mr. Thompson I am a busy man and have no time for your “foolishness” or for your
“misinterpretations” and “untruths”. Your petition was declined because as you wrote it, it is in
violation of the rules. Your attempt to blame myself and the Board for your failure is irresponsible
and shows a lack of accountability.

Present a petition to remove any Board member, which follows the rules, and the 
Board will go forward with the vote and members meeting as required.

The membership also needs to know what I believe is the true purpose of this petition. You are a
member of a small clique which includes the assumed target(s) of an Association lawsuit (on the
unlawful purchase of a motorgrader with Association funds). This petition is a transparent attempt
to “break up” the Board in the hope of stopping the lawsuit. My belief is supported by your
inclusion of Ms. Johnson's question on the Boards right to sue, independent of a membership vote
and your statements about the costs of a lawsuit. What does the lawsuit have to do with the recall
petition?

I urge all members to carefully read your letters and your petition as well as my replies.

Respectfully,

David West,
Secretary, Highroads Property Owners Association

Here is the petition

Thank you Tony Thompson

Tony,
Thank you for your letter regarding the petition to recall Rich Kelley.  I am amazed at how our Board of Directors interpret letters, laws and bylaws for the convenience of their personal agendas.  It will be interesting to see how the BOD will respond to this latest information.  I see no way for them to hide from their responsibility to uphold the bylaws of this POA and the laws of Arizona. The BOD on many occasions have not been forth coming on their intentions and decisions with regards to the motor grader and they are intentionally withholding information from the members as to what they are doing with our money.  The members have every right to this information.   Their scare tactics to sue the members is beyond belief.  My suggestion to the BOD is they should have been flawless in their acts as Directors with no "blood on their hands" before attempting to accuse others and make threats that have no merit.  We the people have every right to petition for the removal of a Director as stated in our bylaws and also the Arizona Revised Statutes.
Thank you again for the insight and for the time that you have so generously given to write on behalf of the members.
Curt & Sheri Johnson (Lot 249)

Tony Thompson's rebuttal to Dave West

Attention Mr. West, Secretary of Highroads POA                             May 17, 2014

In response to your letter of May 5 or 6, I would like to say I appreciate your speedy response
and professionalism. However, you evidently have a hunger for mentioning law suits. Where I come
from, the voice of the people is a voice to be listened to not threatened for. I assure you, that petition
I wrote abides by every aspect of our bylaws. I saw no mention in the bylaws that the name of the
person who draws up the petition needs to be noted nor do I recall ever seeing the name of the author
on any petition I have signed. I believe the important issue here is the number of signatures of property
owners who agree with the petition. They are the people who elected you and your fellow board
members into office believing you would listen to their needs and abide by majority wishes. You now
suggest that, in following the directions of the Bylaws, people signing a petition of this nature may be
sued by Mr. Kelley!! Oh Mr. West, you have disappointed me. Over two dozen signatures are on that
petition asking for nothing more than a meeting and you are denying them that right!

As for the wording of the petition being invalid because it is not consistent with Bylaws Article
IV, Section 3, (you stated “the petition…asks for the removal of Mr. Kelley from the office of Treasurer”)
I believe you need to read the petition once again, for the only mention it makes of removing Mr. Kelley
from his Treasurer position is in the first paragraph as follows:

“If Mr. Kelley is successfully terminated from his position as a Director, we hope that, by
membership vote, a replacement for his vacated position is elected as soon as possible and that the
new board gives serious consideration to the termination of Mr. Kelley as Treasurer of this POA”.

This specifically acknowledges that only the Board of Directors can terminate an officer. Either
you did not read this petition or you are purposely misinterpreting the facts. The sole purpose of this
petition was to request a special meeting be held to allow the members of this POA to decide by voting
if they felt Mr. Kelley should remain on the Board of Directors. It follows every step laid out in Article
III, Section 8 to the letter. In attempting to single me out as the author and suggest law suits may ensue
is not the way to respond to a request by the people. You responded to Ms. Johnson’s question “what
gives you the right to initiate a law suit without the consent of our members” by reciting a bunch of
codes and wordy phrases but you never mentioned the rights of the people. The people who pay dues
for the purpose of maintenance and other costs explained to us when we purchased our land. Do they
not have a right to know what law suits you have in mind and what costs will be involved? There are no
guarantees of success with law suits and therefore it is a gamble of our money! Does that not give us a
right to vote?

Your outlandish refusal to listen to the wants of our members makes it obvious to me that
further efforts to be heard will only result in more misinterpretations and untruths. I am a busy man
Mr. West and have no time for such foolishness. I do hope that fellow members will take an interest in
our conversations and see you for the person you are. I urge any fellow members reading this letter to
share it with others, along with Mr. West’s excuses and explanations of why he doesn’t have to listen to
the members or ask for their votes.

Respectfully Submitted By: Tony Thompson, Lot 231

Recall Petition

May 15, 2014

Mr. Thompson,

In reply to your email requesting information on the status of a petition to recall Mr. Rich Kelley from
the Board of Directors, the Board received the petition from Al Duff at the April 9, 2014 Directors
meeting. Mr. Duff did not inform the Board when he received the petition nor did he inform the Board
who he received the petition from. There was no author or any form of ownership attributable to the
petition. This poses a problem as there was no author to contact reference our concerns about the
petition. At the May 13, 2014 Directors meeting I had hoped that the owner/author of the petition
would be identified. At that meeting the Johnsons (Lot 249) advised me that you were the author. If you
are not, please advise me of the author(s)/owner(s) name if known.

It is the opinion of the Board that the petition is invalid. The petition, as written, asks for the removal
of Mr. Kelley from the Board, however it also asks for the removal of Mr. Kelley from the office of
Treasurer. You cite Bylaws Article III Section 8 as the rule allowing the membership to remove a Director
by petition and a membership vote. In this you are correct. However, by including removal of Mr. Kelley
as an officer the petition is in violation of Bylaws Article IV Section 3 which specifies that only the Board
of Directors may remove an officer. It is the Boards opinion that those who signed the petition may
not know of this violation and may believe that the petition can include removal of an officer, creating
false expectations on their part. Secondly, it is the Boards responsibility to protect the Association from
legal actions if possible. If this petition is allowed to go forward as written it will without a doubt open
the door for a possible lawsuit by Mr. Kelley against the Association and possibly against the author(s)/
owner(s) of the petition. With this in mind the Board will not go forward with this petition.

It is interesting and disconcerting that the authors of this petition choose to remain hidden. The identity
of all persons involved in the writing and signing of a petition for removal of a Board member are
open to disclosure to the membership (see Bylaws Article III Section 8, last sentence). This may
include the actual votes also. Those signing any such petition should be made aware of this provision.

This Board is committed to following the rules and the laws of the State of Arizona. When a petition
for removal of a Board member is presented to the Board and is in compliance with all applicable rules
and laws the Board will call for a members meeting and vote on the removal within the mandated time
period
.
Recourse to this Board decision is to either write a new petition or file a complaint with the Office of
Administrative Hearings.

David West, Secretary, Highroads Property Owners Association

Ms. Sheri Johnson,

You asked, at the last Board of Directors meeting, about the Boards authority to initiate legal action on behalf of the Association without a prior membership vote/approval. First, the authority comes from ARS 10-3302.1 which states that the corporation has the authority to sue. ARS Title 10 is the law(s) that covers all corporations and is superior to ARS Title 33 and our CC&Rs/Bylaws (the Association is a registered non profit corporation). Next our CC&Rs, Rule 2.5, states that the Board “shall conduct all affairs and exercise the powers of the Association”, except “those matters requiring the vote of the members”.  If you search through both the CC&Rs and the Bylaws you will not find any requirement that the membership vote on legal matters. There are a number of specific instances when a membership vote is required i.e. election of Board of Directors, amendment to the CC&R/Bylaws, raising the dues etc, however no such requirement is stated regarding legal action(s). Bylaws, Article III Section 1.B, states that the powers of the Board  are to “conduct, manage and control the affairs of the Association”. Also Bylaws Article III Section 1.I states that the Board has the power to “contract for and pay maintenance, materials, supplies and services relating to the operation ... including legal and accounting services. As you can see, the Board is given broad powers to conduct the affairs/business of the Association, unless there is a specific requirement stated in either the CC&Rs or the Bylaws that a membership vote is required. Again there is no requirement that the Board seek a membership vote to initiate a legal action on behalf of the Association. Finally your question was related specifically to the purchase of the motorgrader. Considering the circumstances of the motorgrader purchase, it is the Boards opinion that to not pursue legal action would constitute at worst malfeasance and at least misfeasance if it fails to attempt the retrieval of as much of the Associations money as possible.

 

I am asking that this reply to your question be put on the Association’s web site as it is valid and pertinent to current business also I am sure that you are not the only one to ask this question. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this to the members attention.

 

David West, Secretary Highroads Property Owners Association

Tony Thompson's Comments

To the Highroads Ranch POA Board of Directors:

Approximately two months ago you received a petition signed by multiple property owners
requesting a special meeting be held for the purpose of voting on the removal of Rich Kelley as a
director on this board. The petition was drawn up, signed and delivered to Al Duff in compliance with
Section 8, Article III of our bylaws. In that section, the bylaws also state “Upon receipt” of such a
petition, the board shall call and provide written notice of a special meeting stating the purpose of that
meeting. May I ask the board why you have chosen to ignore this petition and the bylaw section it
abides by?

Respectfully Submitted By

Tony Thompson, Lot 231

Dear members 

Please look at the financial information on the web site. It is great! This is the first time this information has been made available for us to view. 

Thank you for all the work in this presentation!

Suzanne Johnsen 213

Improper Voting Procedures

January 30, 2014

This is for Member information:

I agree with Members that all this nonsense about the interim board is very exhausting and we are all tired of the lies.

Members, this letter is written to Dave West in regards to the cover letter that was in the mailing of the pros and cons.

Subject: Association Membership Vote on Ownership of Motor Grader.

At the end of this letter a complete word for word of Article II Section 2 is there for your information.

Dave, your cover letter that you enclosed in the mail out in regards to the grader you have misleading information and you have wrongfully interpreted the Bylaws that you are quoting.

#1 – You stated and I quote “Note that your lot number(s) are on the back of the return envelope. Do not substitute a different envelope for your ballot return.”

You cannot change the by-laws on your own regarding the voting process. It has to be voted on by the membership. As stated in the by-laws Article XIV. “The Board of Directors may amend these Bylaws to comply with current Arizona Statutes (as they may be revised from time to time) without the approval of the members. For any other purpose the Board may only amend, adopt or repeal these Bylaws with approval from two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of Members meeting forty percent (40%) quorum and in accordance with the provisions set forth in Article II, Section 2 and 3. In no event may these Bylaws be amended in such a way as to create a conflict with or violate Arizona law.”

#2 – Your last statement in your cover letter you said and I quote “Return ballots must be received on or before February 14, 1014. Hand ballots will not be accepted. (See Bylaws, Article II section 2.”

Action requiring a vote by the Members that the Association may take at any annual, regular or special meeting of the members may take place by written ballot cast IN PERSON at the meeting and/or by absentee ballot received prior to the meeting by U.S. Mail, overnight courier, facsimile, or other electronic means.

The Association shall deliver a written ballot to every Member entitled to vote at the same time as Notice of the meeting is given which states that the completed ballot must be received prior to or At The Meeting in order to be counted.

THEREFORE THE BALLOT YOU MEMBERS WILL BE RECEICING REGARDING THE MOTOR GRADER IS OUT OF COMPLANCE WITH OUR BYLAWS BECAUSE NO NOTICE OF A MEETING WAS STATED AND THEREFORE THERE WOULD BE NO ACCOUTABILITY OF YOUR VOTE EVER BEING RECEIVED OR RESULTS COUNTED..

Article II

Section 2. Voting. Action requiring a vote by the Members that the Association may take at any annual, regular or special meeting of the members may take place by written ballot cast IN PERSON at the meeting and/or by absenteeballot received prior to the meeting by U.S. Mail, overnight courier, facsimile, or other electronic means. Votes may not be cast by Proxy. The Association shall deliver a written ballot to every Member entitled to vote at the same time as Notice of the meeting is given which states that the completed ballot must be received prior to or At The Meeting in order to be counted. Absentee ballots must comply with all of the following: a) Set forth each proposed action; b) Provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action; c) Valid for only one specified election or meeting of the Members and expires automatically after the completion of the election or meeting. D) Does not authorize another person to cast votes on behalf of the Member; and e) Specifies the time and date by which the ballot must be delivered to the Board in order to be counted (at least seven days after the date the ballot was delivered to the Member). WRITTEN ballots shall provide for the name of the Member voting, set forth each proposed action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.”

Let’s break this down. 1) It states that when a vote is required by Members it has to be done at a meeting. 2) When you deliver a ballot to a member you must included a notice of the meeting. 3) Written votes can be cast at the meeting. It says nothing about having to turn your vote in prior to the meeting, but at the meeting and prior to the votes being counted. 4) Absentee ballots must be received by a certain date. That’s logical. 5) It also states that a Member can write a ballot as long as their name is on the ballot and the proposed action is stated.

So with all this being said, Dave you have sent out a ballot that is out of compliance with the Bylaws and therefore the vote should be null and void. You have wasted POA money by trying to mislead this Association once again. I find this appalling and not in the best interest of our Association.

Dave, no one in this association ever had a problem that I know of with vote counters. The issue of you receiving the mailed ballots has the concern of the members. We asked that a neutral party receive them. This was brought to your attention at the last special meeting. However your board meeting minutes did not reflect this issue.

Sheri Johnson (Lot 249)

Open Letter of Disappointment

January 17, 2014

Dear Member’s,

Disappointment has occurred once again with our sitting interim Treasurer.  An email was sent to him on January 6, 2014 asking him (Rich Kelly) to provide me (Sheri Johnson) a member of this association the financial records for the year end of 2013. As stated in Article XI of our by-laws that he has 10 days to produce these records to any member for any  proper purpose. He did not comply.  His excuse is that he did not read the email that was sent to him and his wife Karen along with 91 other members at their gmail account which is listed as Rich and Karen Kelley karenkelley9@gmail.com and he said I did not give him a proper purpose. Who gave him the authority to decide what is a PROPERpurpose is. My purpose was to see where our membership monies had been spent and to double check his accounting.  More excuses on his part than cooperation. Therefore, he is was in violation of this article. 

So my question to the members is that when we have a board of director that is in violation of the by-laws and one that is running again for office is this someone we want as leader of our association?  My answer would have to be NO.  It is of my opinion that the current sitting board is picking and choosing what they want to comply with and what they don’t. 

Another problem with our current Secretary is that I brought to his attention at the Special Board meeting on January 12, 2014 that he is also in violation of the by-laws for not including in the minutes the comments and concerns and objections of the members that are in attendance of these meetings.  When this was brought to his attention (Dave West) his answer was it was his choice of what he wanted to record as minutes.  So in reality the minutes that you members have been reading for the past several months is only partial information.  You are not getting the views of the members that are in attendance.

At the January 12^th meeting our President Al Duff said to the members that it is was in his opinion that we legally own the grader in question. He had been out voted by both Dave West and Rich Kelly.   The members present at that meeting and previous meeting have been very out spoken as to why Rich Kelly and Dave West have been on this vindictive quest regarding the grader.  You have only heard the board’s side and what they think is the best interest of the association. Unless you were in attendance at these meetings you would never know that the majority of the members who did attend think that this issue with the grader has gone on long enough and that this has become a personal vendetta.  It will be very interesting to read the minutes from the meeting that was held on January 12, 2014. UPDATE- The minutes did not reflect the members comments or concerns. The excuse was we did not ask them to be included. Another excuse.

Just to keep you up to date at that January 12th meeting, once again it was the agenda of the board to send out to you the members a ballot to buy a grader that we as an association have already purchased.  They voted to do this and you will be receiving in the mail the pros and the cons of owning and operating a grader that we already own, and you will be asked to vote on keeping it. The board is trying to push this agenda through really fast so that when the elections are done in February and if they are not re-elected this agenda will already be set in motion.  This did not sit well with the members at that meeting.  We kept asking why the rush to vote on something we already own.  I would ask you the membership to really think about the one sided information that you have been receiving in the minutes and why does the board have a problem with including the objections and concerns that members have?

In closing, I hope that I have given you a hint of what has been going on.  If you would like more information please email me with any questions or comments. My email is katsz06@live.com. 

I would love to hear from you.

Sincerely,

Sheri Johnson (Lot 249)

Tony's Letter

I just read the recent letter from Rich Kelley.  Thank you Rich for communicating with us.  Your contribution of volunteering your time is much appreciated by me and, I'm sure, my fellow land owners as was the contributions made by your predecessors.  I usually try very hard to avoid criticizing the efforts of those who volunteer their time for the betterment of their community for I myself have been in that thankless position as Secretary/Treasurer of a Montana Fire Service Area, Secretary/Treasurer of a Volunteer Fire Department, and Captain on that fire department for almost ten years.  My experience during these years taught me yo respect the efforts of others who are striving to achieve the same goals as I.  I noticed at the last meeting I attended, when new officers were voted onto the board, there was never a "thank you" to the leaving officers for their service. To the contrary, Rich Kelley exhibited an angry, finger pointing display of emotion.  As a newly elected officer, representing friends and neighbors, you should carry yourself a little more professionally.

It's true the previous officers made mistakes, as we all tend to do.  I had issues several times over lack of communication and other issues but to verbally assault them with accusations of deliberate negligence and profiteering is counter productive, to say the least, in our efforts to build the community we all dream of here.  I have noticed that since the new board has taken office, attendance by property owners has drastically diminished. Has Rich or Dave wondered why?  After talking to my neighbors, I can tell you why.  It is because of the emotional outbreaks and displays of anger Rich and Dave have expressed at previous meetings.  This attitude is hurting us all.

Finally, we come to the road "improvements" recently attempted.  Rich, please do not insult us by insinuating this work is comparable to that performed last year.  Last year, a professional road construction crew was here for weeks with a variety of equipment.  Dump trucks hauled in good road mix for days on end, covering the rocky areas and filling in the low spots.  Skid Steers moved more fill to strategic locations to optimize every precious cubic yard hauled in.  A grader was in my area alone for many days planing the road surface and building a base for even more improvements in the future.  You hired a man to come through the roads as quickly as possible in order to show the property owners that you were not a liar when you quoted outlandishly low prices for future road work.  As a result, most of the material hauled in last year was simply scraped to the shoulder, in many cases filling in the drain gutters.  That grader must have been flying because it wasn't here long enough for me to even notice.  I'm not saying the contractor did a poor job... he did  what he was paid to do...but I am saying that the cheapest work is not necessarily the best choice in the long run.  Roads demand a yearly scheduling of quality improvements in order to avoid being washed away.  There is a lot more to it than running a grader over the surface and scraping off the fines.

In conclusion, let me reiterate one important thought.  Rules and laws are an important ingredient when building a successful community but they need to be interpreted and abided by in such a way  as to not create disruption within the society.  Criticism can be a beneficial tool in tweaking mistakes but it should never be used to purposely hurt others... especially to the point the quality of life is lowered for everyone within the community.  

Whoever is elected in the upcoming election, I hope they lighten up and respect those they represent with a little more dignity.  I hope they communicate their intentions as well as their actions.  I hope accurate records are kept of all transactions and that these records are made public to all property owners.  And I hope they receive the support, understanding and gratitude they so rightly deserve for donating so much of their valuable time.  Thank you all, both past and present, for your contributions to our community.  Right or wrong, you are all trying and that is more than most of us can claim. 

Note:  Tony requested his letter be posted.     

WOW, A New "Technical Term" Designed To Decieve You, "Ranch Grade Road"

Hi Neighbors,

Bert Hume & Greg Anderson who told you for the last three months that it WASN'T POSSIBLE to grade our roads for $3,000 have been proven wrong and rather than admit that they were not telling you the truth they have invented a new term, "Ranch Grade Road".  NOW, they want to tell you that grading the roads without first putting down a lot of loose dirt, (which washes away in the first heavy rain, and costs thousands of dollars), actually makes for a better road.  If spending four or more TIMES the money for a road that is now less compacted actually makes sense to these people you can now appreciate why the POA members voted them out in November.  Making the roads flat by grading them ONLY enough to make them flat, leaves a compacted surface which then compacts further as it is driven on, instead of leaving loose dirt on the surface that washes away with the first rain.  Ask the people who work the county roads out here and you'll find that's the way they do it.  "Fine Grading" the road is what you do before you PAVE IT.   Sure, it looks good, but you have to spend thousands more to do it again next year and it doesn't hold up as well during that year.  For the last three or four months this group has been very vocal in saying that the roads were TERRIBLE and needed grading.  They graded the roads in March of 2013.  It's been about nine months.  Why were they so terrible?  It was a year and three months before the March 2013 grading when they graded them in November of 2011.  Why were the roads in so much worse shape after nine months when they spent even more money on them in 2013?  The weather can affect this, yes, but there was no unusual adverse weather that year, or this year.  The most interesting question I have encountered was this:  All six of the graders I have spoken with have told me that to go over the roads more than one pass (each side of course) breaks down the "crust" and leaves the road vulnerable to turning to "flour".   So why were we billed for 80 hours of grading in 2011 by D Fenn (Bert Hume's friends) when it only takes about 22 hours to grade 22 miles of road?  This is gross overkill, detrimental to the longevity of the road, or, at worst case, a padded bill.  It is common sense that a grader moves at LEAST 2 miles per hour when cutting and usually a bit faster than that.  With two passes on each mile that still means that it takes about an hour to grade a mile.  So, 22 miles..... 22 hours.  Why 80 hours of grading?  That's OVER THREE TIMES what it should take.  Something is very wrong here.  The rest of that bill was for moving large amounts of dirt.  That dirt was replaced again in March 2013.  I see this as an incredible waste of our money.  They tried to sell us on the idea that we could save money by buying a grader.  What were they going to do to move all the dirt each time?  (A grader won't do that)   I don't see where we could save a great deal of money on this as they claim.

I see two choices here:

Spend $12,000 - $15,000 to grade roads that are not as compacted or resilient

OR

Spend $3,000 to grade roads that are every bit as flat and hold up better.


Gee, I wonder which one you'd prefer?

Rich Kelley