Response to ''Burden...'' Part 2
[Continuation of Response to ''Burden...'']
You mention that you do not see any benefit in the board?’s providing false information in the April newsletter. Let me try to explain. In summary, it?’s a matter of CYA and the avoidance of liabilities at all costs.
I already pointed out in this discussion forum that watering is just the tip if the ?“utility cost increase?” iceberg. Utility costs increased from $7692 in 2006 to $9562 or 24.3%. Of this $1870 increase, the increase in the cost of watering the 101st entry in 2006 was $666 or 52.1% more than for 2005. The increase in electricity at the pool during 2006 was $562 or 24.3%. The electricity for the pond fountain increased $450 or 18.3% in 2006. Watering at the detention area increase $131 or 37.1%. There were some other smaller increases.
The newsletter said, ?“?…utility costs were up considerably last year due to record drought and fire danger in Oklahoma.?” What the board is claiming by this statement (as evidenced by sentences that follow in the newsletter) is more watering (irrigation) was required in 2006 than in 2005. Even if more watering was required (which is not the case as I?’ve explained in earlier notes), the board?’s comment is not an explanation for using more electricity at the pool or pond fountain, which makes up 54% (($562 + $450)/$1870)) of the total utility cost increase.
Now, let?’s go back before the April newsletter that was provided to us. I asked the board to explain the aforementioned increases and the board snubbed me and told me that it was too busy to answer my questions. I replied that it was the duty of the board to answer these questions and if the board did not, then I was going to so inform the homeowners. I suppose they delayed sending out the April newsletter (in the past it was the ?“March Newsletter?”) at least in part due to awaiting what I would tell the homeowners so they could one-up me by knowing what I said.
I believe the only reason the April newsletter addressed the utility cost matter is because I had brought it up and the board felt compelled to try to defuse anything I might say to the homeowners. What the board said in the newsletter is clearly not in good faith. As pointed out above, the reason given for the increase does not address over one-half of the increase, and the portion of the increase (watering) it did address was addressed with a meritless comment as I have explained earlier.
I do not think the newsletter language is an honest mistake. How can anyone be that dumb? All the author would have had to do is compare the watering usage per square foot for his and/or her own lawn in 2006 and 2005. The board was aware of this approach because I pointed it out to the board. Or even if he and/or she did not use that approach, it should have been obvious that a 52.1% increase in watering for the 101st entry is absurd and is unexplained by increased drought and fire danger. Drought and fire danger was worse in 2005 than in 2006. And, again, the board failed to provide a reason for over 50% of the increase. I can only conclude the newsletter language was contrived. If you or the board wants to enlighten me where I am wrong and why I am wrong then I?’d be happy to entertain its explanation.
It should be obvious that something went very awry with the board?’s monitoring of utility costs in 2006. The board did not answer my questions concerning the utility cost increases because it was embarrassed to say it messed up. The board has never admitted a mistake. It?’s always said in effect, ?“Look at me and how great I am?”. The board communications are from the ?“total spin zone?” and sometimes go far beyond just spin.
By Jim Bruggeman
[Continuation of Response to ''Burden...'']
You mention that you do not see any benefit in the board?’s providing false information in the April newsletter. Let me try to explain. In summary, it?’s a matter of CYA and the avoidance of liabilities at all costs.
I already pointed out in this discussion forum that watering is just the tip if the ?“utility cost increase?” iceberg. Utility costs increased from $7692 in 2006 to $9562 or 24.3%. Of this $1870 increase, the increase in the cost of watering the 101st entry in 2006 was $666 or 52.1% more than for 2005. The increase in electricity at the pool during 2006 was $562 or 24.3%. The electricity for the pond fountain increased $450 or 18.3% in 2006. Watering at the detention area increase $131 or 37.1%. There were some other smaller increases.
The newsletter said, ?“?…utility costs were up considerably last year due to record drought and fire danger in Oklahoma.?” What the board is claiming by this statement (as evidenced by sentences that follow in the newsletter) is more watering (irrigation) was required in 2006 than in 2005. Even if more watering was required (which is not the case as I?’ve explained in earlier notes), the board?’s comment is not an explanation for using more electricity at the pool or pond fountain, which makes up 54% (($562 + $450)/$1870)) of the total utility cost increase.
Now, let?’s go back before the April newsletter that was provided to us. I asked the board to explain the aforementioned increases and the board snubbed me and told me that it was too busy to answer my questions. I replied that it was the duty of the board to answer these questions and if the board did not, then I was going to so inform the homeowners. I suppose they delayed sending out the April newsletter (in the past it was the ?“March Newsletter?”) at least in part due to awaiting what I would tell the homeowners so they could one-up me by knowing what I said.
I believe the only reason the April newsletter addressed the utility cost matter is because I had brought it up and the board felt compelled to try to defuse anything I might say to the homeowners. What the board said in the newsletter is clearly not in good faith. As pointed out above, the reason given for the increase does not address over one-half of the increase, and the portion of the increase (watering) it did address was addressed with a meritless comment as I have explained earlier.
I do not think the newsletter language is an honest mistake. How can anyone be that dumb? All the author would have had to do is compare the watering usage per square foot for his and/or her own lawn in 2006 and 2005. The board was aware of this approach because I pointed it out to the board. Or even if he and/or she did not use that approach, it should have been obvious that a 52.1% increase in watering for the 101st entry is absurd and is unexplained by increased drought and fire danger. Drought and fire danger was worse in 2005 than in 2006. And, again, the board failed to provide a reason for over 50% of the increase. I can only conclude the newsletter language was contrived. If you or the board wants to enlighten me where I am wrong and why I am wrong then I?’d be happy to entertain its explanation.
It should be obvious that something went very awry with the board?’s monitoring of utility costs in 2006. The board did not answer my questions concerning the utility cost increases because it was embarrassed to say it messed up. The board has never admitted a mistake. It?’s always said in effect, ?“Look at me and how great I am?”. The board communications are from the ?“total spin zone?” and sometimes go far beyond just spin.
By Jim Bruggeman
