Does it matter?

The appearance of a conflict of interest would not arouse suspicion if:

1. There had been seven board members.
2. Those with ties to a contractor had gone out of their way to make associations public and had abstained from all DISCUSSIONS and decisions on the contract.
3. The projects were publicized appropriately and sealed bids were solicited.
4. The board did their best to disseminate the information about the issues to the membership, describing why the contract awards were in the best interests of the membership.
5. There was a clear and significant benefit in preferring the chosen contractor to a contractor with which no board member had ties.

Thus could they have demonstrated that the decisions were in the best interest of the HOA.

Is that what happened?

1. There were only three directors.
2. They were all close friends.
3. They had close ties to the people to whom the contracts were awarded.
4. They did not attempt to convince the membership that the contracts were in the best interest of CCHOA.

Would it be unreasonable for a prudent person to suspect that the Board?’s decisions may have been influenced by the benefits that accrued to them or their close friends?

Just before the election earlier this month, the Board cancelled the lease of the CCHOA offices to Bartlett. Why?

If the lease was a significant benefit to CCHOA, by canceling the lease, they deprived the CCHOA of a significant benefit. If the lease was a significant benefit to CCHOA, they should have been able to explain why and then kept it in place.

However they did cancel the lease. Why?
They did so without an explanation. Why?

Even if these actions were not motivated by the desire to benefit their close friends, do they not indicate a serious lack of judgment?

Does it ?“appear?” to you that the Board has managed CCHOA openly and in the best interests of the homeowners using good judgment?

Note the numbers:

Note the numbers:

Bartlett's paid the CCHOA $1,200 a year for the CCHOA commercial space.
He then subleased the space to Susan Hoover and Denise Nordstrom.

The newsletter reported that the contract was canceled because people were concerned of a conflict.

Susan and Denise are paying $8.00 a sq ft for 500 sq ft.
The new contracts pays the CCHOA $4,000 a year for the CCHOA commercial space.

Was Bartlett getting a deal for his company? You decide.

Note the numbers:

Note the numbers:

Bartlett's paid the CCHOA $1,200 a year for the CCHOA commercial space.
He then subleased the space to Susan Hoover and Denise Nordstrom.

The newsletter reported that the contract was canceled because people were concerned of a conflict.

Susan and Denise are paying $8.00 a sq ft for 500 sq ft.
The new contracts pays the CCHOA $4,000 a year for the CCHOA commercial space.

Was Bartlett getting a deal for his company? You decide.

sick of monday morning qb's

Mr. Silha,
i cannot let this post go unchallenged.

your statement says:

''Would not arouse suspicion if there had been 7 members''.

the number on the BOD is a function of the By Laws, not the BOD's decision. you accusatory tone implies that somehow the BOD plotted to what - be voted in by the letter of the By Laws? How insidious.

''gone out of their way to make their associations public''. so who was supposed to abstain? this is a friggin homeowners association, not the Austin City Council, or the Senate Finance Committee - get off your high horse. Deal with the reality, that the BOD is specifically empowered to make these decisons. this aint a plot to overthrow the government.

''pubicized appropriately and taken sealed bids''. i dont know what you do for a living, but outside of the government, most private businees is done by track record and relationships. the fact is the contractor you choose to denigrate has been outstanding over the years. have you ever written bid specs? Get over it already. you seem to be hung up on this concept that writing bid specs is a free process, that there are qualified experts in all fields just laofing around the neighborhood to evaluate bids every year. Get real. Call a property management company and get a price for the services you are talking about. It aint free, and it is a major effort.

''Attempt to convince the neighborhood''. we elected them. they are empowered to do what they feel is in our best interest. that is how represnetitive government works. get over it. Vote for new directors and shut up.

Mr. Silha, i am sick to death of this site and the one sided implications that people like you constantly bring to it. Why dont you get your backside out and run for the position, and take a few bullets in the back for making decisions. By the way, i hope you have a lot of time set aside to defend every decison you make. why, why why you ask. what difference does it make? Vote for new directors, stop living in the past, and whining about decisions, that these people made. Two of the three you are dogging are out, or getting out.

My answer to your final question is yes, i think the BOD has worked in the best interest of the HOA using good judgement. Many people feel this way, and you wont hear that here becuase they could care less about this forum, as it is so one sided. you imply in your post that hundreds of hours of service and the volunteer board provided, now should be ignored, and boiled down to your Monday morning QB backstabbing. This sickens me.

the sad truth, is that a few very vocal people (like Sal C and his various aliases) that have the time to dominate this board, have made it the Circle C BOD haters forum. this is not a place for construtive dialogue, it is a place where half truths and implications are twtisted into accusations and good people's characters are attacked.