FW: Response to "Realizing the issue" and "Productive meeting on friday"

Very long post with several twists and turns.

ONCE AGAIN, YOU HAVE FAILED TO TAKE CREDIT FOR YOUR POSTS AND PURSUANT TO THE RULES STATED PREVIOUSLY. IT HAS COME DOWN.

I WISH YOU WOULD DEMONSTRATE THE COURAGE OF YOUR CONVICTION AND NOT HIDE BEHIND A 'FORWARDED' POST, BUT INSTEAD TAKE CREDIT FOR YOUR ACTIONS.

THE MOMENT YOU TAKE CREDIT FOR YOUR WORK, IT COMES RIGHT BACK UP NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

- Jay S. Jump, Blog Moderator

First of all I am not one of the board members. If you think so then perhaps I've done my research very well and I thank you for the compliment. I also haven't sent you any emails let alone lobbed at you and your family.


Forwarded by Darrell Schindler,
Homeowner

---

Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger Get it now!

---

Discover the new Windows Vista Learn more!

Productive Meeting on Friday

I would like to thank everyone for coming out on Friday evening last. I know that George cancelled the meeting, but so many of you contacted me directly asking if we could still have a meeting.

I was really impressed that over 30 people showed up for that meeting.

True, we didn't have a quorum because Linda Schindler and Rick Graf chose not to appear. Nor did George Cordier. Had any one of them appeared we would have had a quorum and we could have actually gotten some work done. But I don't think that is fair. Let's say Rick showed up but not Linda or George. Fairness and integrity would suggest that we not do any board business until all five members can be present. This way everyone is represented equally.

It was an interesting discussion Friday ranging from issues about the wall, to the airport having too much representation and none for Plat II. Sean's conspiracy theories aside (:-), I thought much was accomplished and a true read of the community's attitude was obtained.

I am sorry that George wasn't there, as well as Linda and Rick, but fortunately, Roy Graffis was so I am confident that the three of them received an immediate update as to the status of the meeting.

I have to confess, I am more than a little frustrated when I have to learn of board business through Roy Graffis. At the meeting, Roy announced to the community, that "I just want everyone to know, the property issue with the tank is resolved. We found the document and I signed it as chairman of the board."

Wha, Wha, What?

Perhaps I'm out of line, but does it not seem that Margot and I should have been informed of that right away? I'm quite confident that they had the document for quite a length of time, but yet, no word to the other board members, but as long as Roy has got the situation under control, it's OK.

If I am a little frustrated by that, you should be outraged. If you thought that this board didn't have a shadow force behind it, think again. Allow me to illustrate:

(1) The letter received by the community from George Cordier was postage paid at a discount rate. Who was able to obtain that discount rate?
At the last public meeting almost two weeks ago, when asked about the mail rate, George said, "I don't know, you'll have to ask Roy about that." Clearly, then Roy was involved in the mailing of the letter allegedly written by George.

(2) When the Bennett Wall issues came to pass, it was Roy Graffis who went down to the County Commissioner and the Planning Department for Lincoln County to 'deal' with the situation. If Roy is not on the board and is not an immediate neighbor of the Bennett's, why did he undertake this activity?

(3) At our information meeting last Friday, it was Roy Graffis who stood up expecting to get a 'pat on the back' for his fine work, but instead simply drove home the fact that he is one in the same with our three members of the board.

Incidentally, I called him George during the meeting on several occasions. He answered every time. Freudian slip? I don't know.

These are just a few of the questions you should ask of your board the next time you get to see them.

Here is something else I've been pondering.

At the last public community meeting, George stated that we need the water system improved so we can have a 500 gpm flow out of the water lines. Fair enough.

However, I and a few others have looked into this a little more deeply. Deer Meadows has a fire truck that will pump 250 gallons per minute, but it won't make it over to Seven Bays. We do not currently have a 500 gallon per minute pumper fire engine.

OK - where do we get one? Well, we could ask the County Commissioners. However, pumper trucks aren't of much use in Lincoln County as there are no fire hydrants except in the towns. Pumper trucks cannot be used to fight farm, grass, or forest fires. Do you think the County Commissioners will be willing to buy a pumper truck at 500 gpm for Seven Bays?

Maybe, what will the cost be? Well, the City of Davenport bought one 12 years ago for about $250,000.00. Do you think the County Commissioners will spring for a pumper truck for us now? Probably not.

Very well, let's buy our own pumper truck.

Wha, Wha, What?

At $250,000.00 that is a pretty big price tag! Let's say we find one on eBay for $120,000.00. That's a third of our entire budget! Doesnt' sound like we will be able to get that one paid for out of the annual budget, even if our dues are $1050 per year. That means a special assessment.

So, I ask you, the thoughtful citizens of Seven Bays, why are we spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to make this water system such a priority when at the end of the day, we still won't have the equipment to hook up to the hydrant to provide you with the fire protection you were told you so desperately needed.

You need not rely on my word or supposition to figure this one out. Make the call directly. Dean Reinbold is our fire commissioner. Ask him what the plans are for new fire equipment out at Seven Bays. Ask if we will be getting a 500 gpm pumper truck.

Now, be kind to Dean, he's doing his job and the fact that he doesn't have plans to put a 500 gpm pumper truck doesn't make him a bad person. He has a limited amount of resources to cover all of Lincoln County.

However, you might want to ask your board members when the last time they had a conversation with the County to find out what the plans were for getting us a new fire truck to handle our new and improved water hydrant system. I think that would be a good question to ask before we start spending our entire budget for Phase II and Phase III.

Thanks again for your meeting and time on Friday. I enjoyed it immensely!

Jay S. Jump
Seven Bays Board Member
Airport Representative.

Realizing the issue

I've been watching with interest the events unfold over the course of the past week.

The public meeting which we attended last Friday was a watershed event. I want to thank EVERYONE who came out and attended the meeting. Such involvement is unprecedented in Seven Bays and I was appreciative that everyone showed up an took part - no matter what side/position you had.

The fact that it ended the way it did suggests to me that the community is wise and can see the writing on the wall. I cannot explain to you satisfactorily why Mr. Cordier ended the meeting abruptly and left immediately thereafter. It was clear that people wanted answers. Although, the public was definitively involved, didn't think anything was out of hand or about to get out of hand.

I stayed after the meeting to talk to people and was encouraged by the thoughts and observations of our community. I ended up turning the lights out in the community center about 45 minutes after George, Linda, and Rick walked away. I should note for the record that Margot walked out one step in front of me after that 45 minutes.

Since then, posts have been flyng on the blog, accusations have been made, and slanderous comments have been thrown at the good members of our community. I have redacted those posts. My intention in creating this blog was to create a forum for one member to slander the good name of another private resident/neighbor in Seven Bays. Board Members are public figures who hold themselves out as being representatives of the community and as such are subject to the scrutiny we hold them too. Private residents of Seven Bays are not.

The slanderous comments made by certain members of our community (who refused to take responsibility for their posts) were inappropriate and I felt it necessary to protect the names and reputations of individuals in our community. "The Other Side" as it were will now probably have some ammunition against me to say "See? He really does control the content and he is clearly editing it." But, I had to weigh that against the interests of the homeowners. I owe them a higher duty, at least I believe so.

Now, let me address the comments weighed against me, the previous board, and a litany of other attached levied throughout the week. It's nice to know the community members don't think I'm an idiot, but I'm a crafty, cunning, maschogenist who is hurting because my ego and pride are bruised. I appreciate the compliment.

However, this isn't about pride for me. It's about consistency. I learned long ago that pride has very little space in this world. Pride is usually the emotion that will take you down as it gets in your way. As an attorney, sometimes I win, sometimes I lose in Court. I take the losses with the wins, it is what I do for a living. Pride has no place in that equation because if I took each loss personally, I would not be a very good lawyer. But it's nice to know that my opposition thinks I am a very good lawyer. Always present a strong front to your opposition - it keeps them guessing.

I know who the anonymous poster is. That person knows certain facts that only someone who has been present in the board meeteings could know. The truth is, I would really like to out you on this blog, but clearly you are too cowardly to step forward and speak to the strength of your conviction. The personal emails lobbied at my family in the past week are a further comment on the anger and frustration you clearly have for me personally. In the end, the impact of your words is lost because of your failure to take credit for them and the viciousness you exhibit. In the end, you have invoked my pity for you rather than my anger.

The subject of the "Bennett Wall" has been much in the news this week. The opposition has been doing their best to steer the issue away from consistency to the 'beauty' of the wall and the good it does for the homeowners in Plat 3. A nice argument, but one that thwarts the true purpose of this blog and that is to shed some light on the inner workings, or lack thereof, of your board, which I now refer to as a "three member board."

Make no mistake, the Bennett Wall was put up without the proper authorizations and everyone has done their best to make the legal wranglings as cloudy and murky as possible. I too spoke the the County and learned that the board acted outside it's scope of authority when three members of the board decided that it was OK to have the wall after the previous five member board unaminously agreed to have it removed as it was never approved in the first place.

Much has been made about previous board members verbally OK'ing the wall and that must surely outweigh the fact that a written letter was written not approving the wall and directing that it be torn down. "The Other Side" has done their best to grasp at any and all straws to try and create an argument about what this is OK including pointing out, inaccurately, that the previous board members all walked out of Friday's meeting early. They tried to throw some mud up on the wall and create some sort of conspiracy between the previous employees of Seven Bays and the Previous Board. Surely this much indicate some type of collusion and fraudulent activity as if they truly were to stand for the courage of their conviction, they would have stuck around to the end. This is a fallacious argument and one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but it is evidence of their desperation. Because could I not take that exact same argument and suggest that George exhibited the exact same behavior when he and two members of the board walked out last Friday night. When you present these desperation arguments, remember that they will usually backfire on you as you exhibit the exact same behavior you accuse myself and the previous board of.

But I'm digressing and I need to get back on point. The real issue about the Bennett Wall and the Ripley Addition, and the other properties that have been granted waivers in the past month by our 'three member board', and that the 'three member board' is acting unilaterally without discussion and without the participation of the other two board members. You elected a five member board. Only three of them are running Seven Bays.

Some of you have said "Well, this is something you should be working out amongst yourselves and it shouldn't involve the community." But it does involve the community. We are elected to represent your interests in this community. I, Margot, Linda, Rick, and George are all representatives of your interests for our respective plats. By the unilateral actions of the board and this 'freeze out', the airport and Plat I aren't getting a whole lot of voice and representation. Keep it to myself? No way, you deserve to know. Hence this blog and these posts, and pat myself on the back if I may, it is working wonderfully. Even 'the other side' has wandered into the fray, I just wish they would exhibit the courage of their conviction and take credit for their words.

But I'm digressing again. . .

The real issue is consistency and uniformity. Before the new board took charge, decisions were made. The new board went back and revisited all of those decisions and changed the outcome. One of those decisions clearly involved a conflict of interest, and even if you buy into Mrs. Schindlers' disclosure, it still exhibits the appearance of impropriety. And if you didn't think it was any big deal initially, one has to ask why it became so pointed and heated that Mrs. Schindler took it upon herself to craft a legal document purporting to resolve the situation with only three signature lines for three board members? Why are you so desperate to make this wall stay? Why are you so desperate to be right? Why is Roy Graffis going to the County Commissioners and fighting tooth and nail for this wall? Why should he care? Is he on the board? No. Does he live next to the Bennet's? No.

Usually, when you enter a conflict with someone, there is an expected measure of response. Sometimes that measure of response is exceeded but that is your own underestimation. Then there are times when you sit back and watch the other side and wonder why it is that they are overreacting so very much? The original issue simply wasn't that big a deal to justify the reaction that the opposing party is having. We have that situation here. I havent' asked enough questions and I find myself marveling at the fight and effort being put on by everyone except the Bennet's. Why? Just what is going on here? Why are Linda, George, and Roy so desperate to be right on this issue?

Consistency and uniformity are necessary to make a neighborhood, company, or government run. Of course when a new administration comes in, they are going to take a direction that they ran on. In the last administration, we fought to make sure the community didn't pay a huge tax bill incurred by the sale of those two lots by the Bennett Wall. We worked hard to set up Seven Bays as a business and to organize it as a business. Without Warren working every angle of the maintenance manager position, we need to have an organization structure. In the current administration, George wants to push the water project through at the expense of everything else. George wants to do away with an office manager and return to the days of having a maintenance manager run the entire operation. It's not my shared vision, but he has the power and votes to effect that change. That's democracy. I don't like it, but at least it presents itself according to the rules and I can't argue with that. Maybe one day, the roads will get done and the Seven Bays Association will be run as a business, but it won't be this year. That's OK. We elected board members who had different visions of Seven Bays than the previous board. The community elected these four new people and we as a community will reap the benefit of that decision.

What I can argue with is when the three board members are acting unilaterally by effectively refusing to engage the other board members and their community. Declaring the meeting over last Friday was in error. We have a duty to work with the community. I find it interesting that Roy's comments were to not allow the community to be involved in the goings on of the board, but yet, is that not exactly what the purpose of the meeting is? Is it not we that represent you? I don't think any of us should be trusted to run off and manage your community for the year without reporting back to you and getting your input. But, then you yourself could see what was going on in that meeting and make your own judgments. As an aside, Nancy and I looked at Robert's Rules of Order after the meeting. Since the meeting was adjourned improperly, the next time we meet, we will have to pick up right where we left off. I hope that you will continue the discussion then.

What I despise is the inability to manage this conflict. Rather than debating it in the open and arguing it face to face, the three member board runs from the conflict. Meetings are ended, new meetings are cancelled, but I'm willing to be that at any point in time, if I walk into the maintenance shed, I will find three of the five board members meeting and conferring.

As I walked into the meeting Friday night, I realized that no one had asked me to provide input about the agenda, no one asked if there was anything I wanted to discuss about the airport, no one conferred with me before hand about the pronouncement that "if the community couldn't keep it's act together, we're bringing in security." I thought that maybe they simply didn't want to incur a long distance charge on their telephone to inform me, so I asked Margot if they had spoken with her previous to the meeting. She said she heard nothing until she walked through the door. That angers me and as a homeowner in Plat I and the airport addition, it should anger you too.

In the end, I don't care about winning, it's not my pride, my ego isn't bruised. This is about stability, consistency, and uniformity. We severely lack those components right now. The only people who can rectify that situation are you the homeowners. I spoke at the meeting about integrity. I listened to an individual call for a recall of the board members. I asked him to put his motion off for a month. I thought that the other three members of the board would hear what the community was saying and that would force us to come together and make sacrifices to work with each other. But, the posts of the last week indicate to me that I was again naieve. The failure of any of the board members to call or email me in the past week indicated to me that I was again naieve. The fact that the board meeting was cancelled this week again indicate to me that I was naieve.

Integrity is about putting Seven Bays first. I would like to see the board members reach out to each other and work together, but I don't think that is possible. I bear some of the blame for that as well in addition to the other board members. If Integrity is about doing the right thing then perhaps it is correct to let that individual renew his motion for the recall of the board. Perhaps stepping down as a board is the necessary thing to do to preserve the integrity and stability of Seven Bays. I would like to think I have that level of integrity and if the community does motion for a recall of the board, I will stand by my statement to second the motion. I wonder if my other board members will have that same level of integrity to do the right thing?

The meeting for Friday has been cancelled. However, several homeowners have emailed me asking if I would be there anyway. I will be present at the community center at 7 p.m. Margot Rach has agreed to be there as well. I can't speak for Nancy Wolfrum, but the grapevine has indicated she would come too. If you would like to come, you are more than welcome. There will be no official homeowners meeting as a quorum will not be present unless George, Rick, or Linda show up. However, I will be there as I was the week before to answer any and all of your questions to the best of my ability.

Jay S. Jump
Seven Bays Board Member
Airport Addition

RE: Take Credit for your Posts II

Good call Jay, if we write something we should stand by it, and not be ashamed to associate our name with it.

 

Sean Morrow

 

FW: Response to "The Wall"

Mrs. Rach,
 
I'm not sure why a board member is on a public forum calling into question whether or not a resident had a building permit for a structure that is on their private property and has been in place for months.  The question that you have been dealing with is the portion of the wall that encroaches on the easement.  Does the board go to resident's houses and check existing structures and investigate whether they obtained a building permit now?  Why bring this up?
 
I will break your concerns down as well as I can into their component parts.  All of the arguments presented here so far had been about integrity, corruption and conflict of interest.  Now the argument changes since those issues have been clearly pointed out to have been invented.  The only section of the wall that has been in question up to now also has been the lower end where it is from 2 feet, to 8 inches high.  Now you are bringing into question the entire structure and whether or not there was a building permit for it.  I can tell you also that it is reinforced beyond all building codes by being tied back into the bank with 6 feet wide of heavy geomesh along it's entire length.  In addition it is backfilled with drain rock overlaying 6 inch drain pipe, covered with felt paper and groomed to match the road above.  Why backtrack now into an issue that's been dealt with to try to call into question a wall that everyone who is affected by it is happy with?
 
Bringing these things up now that the previous "concerns" have been invalidated seems odd to me.  Why choose to question other issues involving this wall now that your concerns about the part that is encroaching into the easement have been dealt with?  There is a retaining wall a few houses down belonging to the former maintenance manager which is over 4 feet, wasn't permitted, does not obey the setback requirements (a serious issue,) is in the easement, completely unreinforced, and hampers anyone who might wish to park on the street.  Maybe your time and concerns could be better spent there or in volunteering to help out in the office as others have done.
 
1) Statements that the county has no authority over Seven Bays
 
I can't speak to this because it's unclear to me exactly what statement's you're referring to.  Seven Bays maintains their roads.  The county does not.  They are private roads over which the board is required to maintain and regulate.  In addition, most of the roads within Seven Bays already violate county regulations.  Are you now saying that we should ask the county to take over Seven Bays roads?  What about the fire department?  Should they enforce the regulation that all roads must have turnarounds for emergency vehicles?  I assume you're simply making a mistake in what question you're asking.  The issue is not with the wall itself but with the board's duty to decide matters of roads.  This is simply YOUR duty, not the county's.
 
2) Life, Fire, Safety
 
This issue has been addressed by the fire department definitively. 
 
3) Building permit not obtained
 
The building department has inspected the wall and has taken pictures.  They have also been provided with pictures and maps and drawings.  The wall is reinforced beyond what is required and retains the bank to a height of less than 4 feet it's entire length.  If you want to get technical with a few inches the problem could perhaps be fixed with a rake in 10 minutes.  You extrapolate this into a situation like they were building a house or other structure.  It retains a road that Seven Bays had put in that was a runoff problem not only onto the Bennett's property, but onto the main road below.  The wall should have been put in place by Seven Bays.  Why not just be thankful that the Bennett's paid for it themselves instead?  Why not call the property owner and thank them instead of trying to look for every avenue possible to give them grief over it?  I encourage everyone to drive down and take a look at the wall and see just what all this fuss has been about.
 
As an aside, building departments do not always require permits from qualified contractors installing this wall system.  It has an over engineered support structure and tieback system.  You simply go to them and tell them what you're doing and show them the documentation and it's done.
 
4) Possible violation of 60 foot easement to the property above and behind
 
This is the real matter, and far more complicated.  I'm not sure where you're deciding that they need a 60 foot easement.  Is there a separate agreement with the county requiring a 20 foot wider easement between these lots.  Since those lots are at the end of the road I believe their easements are utility easements.  Have you measured it and found that it does not meet these requirements?  You say you have been worried about this for quite some time.  Have you investigated?  Why is it coming up now?
 
If you've been worried about this since July 28 or earlier as you say, perhaps in your research on behalf of the residents of Seven Bays you might have noticed that the requirement is only a 40 foot easement, not 60.  The only 60 foot easement requirements are at the airport where Mr. Jump has built, or in the case of a cul-de-sac which Seven Bays has disregarded.  If you wanted to apply this as a cul-de-sac you would be taken large pieces of properties from each of the 4 lots there.  Technically to my understanding therefore if you want to apply strict interpretations there is no way to make the situation completely legal unless you simply give the road to the homeowners.  In addition, the County Planner agreed that he had no problems with any portion of the wall as long as the people whose access was involved signed a statement that they were in support of the wall.  Which they have.  This should be the end of the story.  Let's see if it is.
 
Forwarded by Darrell Schindler,
Homeowner

---

---

Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more….then map the best route! Find it!

Take Credit For Your Posts II

I wrote yesterday about the need to take credit for your posts. No one has come forth and emailed me directly taking credit for the offensive posts.

After much reflection and a discussion with the people who are adversely affected, I am taking down all anonymous posts. They will be saved on my hard drive and the moment someone wants to come forward and take credit for their work, I will put it back up there in all its glory, but I cannot allow this one individual, who clearly has a great deal of anger, to continue to malign the good citizens of Seven Bays.

For the record, you can malign me as much as you want. If your fight is with me and you see me as the reason you're having these problems, then bring it to me. Don't drag others through the mud because of your desperation to sling some mud on the wall to see what will stick.

Jay S. Jump
Seven Bays

The Wall

At the community meeting on Aug 17th, the Bennett wall caused a major eruption of questions, comments and emotion.  Subsequently, there have been numerous comments about the wall on the blog.  As the one dissenting vote in regard to the Bennett wall during our July 28th Board meeting I was attempting to respond to some of the comments being made from the floor and had my response cut off by the abrupt ending of our meeting.  Therefore, I have decided to use this forum as a means of completing those comments. 

 

At the meeting, I tried to respond to a statement made by an individual in the audience; a statement that the county has no authority over Seven Bays.  I am not sure how such an attitude developed as property owners in Seven Bays are no different than property owners elsewhere in the county.  What happens when someone decides to build a new home in Seven Bays...they go to the county and obtain a building permit to construct that home.  Even our own construction packets reference the county's requirements regarding set backs in relation to our own more stringent requirements.  Surely if the county has no authority, no one would bother with getting the required permits before building; they would just start digging and pouring and nailing with no regard for the requirements of the county.  And if the county has no authority in and over Seven Bays, why do we as an entity, file documents with the count y?  Our own covenants were filed with the county as were any number of other documents, plat maps and even our building packet.  The county does have control over what and how buildings, retaining walls, roadways and easements are handled.  Gentlemen, you are misinformed if you believe we are above the laws, rules and regulations put forth by the county.  You do a disservice to this community if you make such ill informed, inaccurate statements to the public in general.  And then if you have used that belief as you made decisions past or present while serving on the board you  compounded that disservice.   

 

As to the Bennett wall, my dissenting vote on July 28th was based on not just a concern about fire department vehicles; it was a concern for life, fire, safety.  It was also a concern for what potential impact the impingement on the easement might mean in regard to county requirements for that easement.  I urged the board to check with the county before taking any further actions and had my concerns dismissed with words to the effect that the county doesn't control us, we are private property.  While I may not have fully expressed my worries, leaving it at the "life, fire, safety" issue my worries were there and justified as it turns out.  Granting even a one week extension of the requirement of the previous board's letter telling the homeowner to remove the wall would have allowed for additional information to be gathered and allowed for a more informed decision to be made.  Would that information have changed the outcome ?  Who knows, but at least the information could have been factored into the decision making process. 

 

On the following Tuesday, July 31st, I called the county and spoke with two different individuals in the county building department.  Based on my conversations with those individuals I understood that the county requires a building permit for any "wall" over four feet in height and if it is an unsupported wall it requires engineering as well.  From the information given to me, I believe the Bennett wall is an unsupported wall (the county described it as a wall with dirt pushing against the back of the wall with nothing to support the wall from the front) and that it is over four feet tall at its upper end.  I was further informed that no building permit had been obtained from the county.  This failure rests not only on the property owner but on the licensed contractor who built the wall.  The State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries, in licensing individuals as contractors requires a higher standard of knowledge regard ing building requirements.  While private property owners might be forgiven a lack of knowledge regarding permitting and engineering requirements a licensed contractor should know better and should never agree to undertake a construction project without the proper permits in place; doing so opens licensed contractors up for possible sanctions or even revocation of their license by the state.     

 

More importantly, the impingement on a Seven Bays easement and the board's decision to allow that impingement has potentially violated a platting agreement with the county that required a 60' easement to the property located above and behind the Bennett's.  This 60' easement is what was required by the county in order for the property Seven Bays sold to be short platted into two lots.  

 

I know there will be some who will feel that as a board member, I am maligning my fellow board members, that my purpose in saying these things is suspect or that I am just mad that I lost the vote on the Bennett wall.  Guess what folks, I fully expect to "loose" many more votes during my term.  And I fully expect to win many more votes.  Its not about my winning or loosing, its about what Seven Bays may stand to loose should this wall ever become one of liability for the impingement of the easement and possible invalidation of the short plat.   

 

Margot Rach

Board Member

 

 

Fellow Sevenbays Association Members

Dear fellow members of sevenbays,

 

I know that much has been posted about the retaining wall the the Bennetts built the encrouches onto the easement road next to them. Like most of you I would like to see a finale resolution to this issue so that we can move on to more pressing matters such as a water tower that the association members have paid for but do not have leagal access to the property it was built on. 

 

So that it does not become fauder for more back room gossip ( which this community could do with a lot less of) I want everyone to know that I am a very close personal friend of Mike and Karen Bennett and have known them for over 20 years. I currently have the privelege of living next to them at sevenbays.  I understand that many of you will think that I am bias in regards to this matter.

 

However, I think we all need to step back and take a new look at this situation in a rational manner.

         First: What necessitated the need for the wall?

Two lots were donated to the association by a very generous member of the community. (I wounder if he knew the problems and turmoil it was caused the community if he would do it again).  These lots were not part of the original platting of the developement when it was first mapped out.  In order for the association to get any value for them and make them accessable for a future buyer a road had to be cut and water, sewer, and electricity had to be run to the lots.  In building the road a dirt bank was built above the Bennett property and every time it rained dirt would wash done on to their lot.  The association should have built a retaining wall to prevent this when they built the wall.

 

         Does the Bennett wall encrouch on the easement?

Yes, at its widest point it is 7 feet on to the easement.

 

         What is the impact on the association and it members?

None, the association still retains full ownership of the propberty.  With any easement, if at any time the association needs to dig under the wall for water sewer or what ever, it is entitled to remove the wall and is not responsible for replacing it.  Must every homeowner has easements on their property for such things as gas lines, sewer pipes , water mains, etc.  It does not change your owner ship to the property, however the  utilities can dig  up your lawn and are not responsible to put it back to its original state.

 

         Are the two adjoing land owners who share the road opposed to the wall?

No, both of them have signed letters stating that they are fine with it and have no concerns with it at all.  They feel it is a benefit to everyone.

 

        Are there any emergency vechiel safety issues with the wll?

 

None, the local fire department inspected it and sent a letter to the association that they had no problem with it at all. Lincoln county recommends that access roads should be at least 16 feet wide to insure access by emergency vechiels, at its narrowest width the road is 17 feet 9 inches wide, exceeding county recommendations

 

       How does the association benefiet from the wall?

 

The association benefits from the fact that there is no more run off and WE the members did not have to pay any more for the improvements to the lots leaving more money for the new water system.  It looks better improving the appearance of the community and helps improve all the property values in platt 3.

 

      How do the Bennetts benefit from the wall?

 

They have easier access to their front door making it easier for their parents (who are all over 80years old) to visit with them.

 

 

I appoligize for the lenght of this, however I think that it is important for all of us to look at this as objectively as possible and to make a decision that is practical and not emotional.

I truly hope that calmer heads will prevail and everyone realizes that no one is harmed by the wall and we all benefit from it.

 

As a last thought, we all will be better off with less name calling and bitterness and more of an attitude of working together and supporting each other within the community.

 

Sincerely

Ed Korst

 

 

 

 

 

---

Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

Board meeting

I was planning to respond to the response to my earlier post on A Response (what a mouth full) but I feel that I need to get more information, the time line if you will. I still believe that 7 Bays employees do not work under me and their in employment status is between them and the board. Section 6 Paragraph D of the bylaws makes this clear, and by no means should they be named on the blog. Also I feel that the board has heard our complaints and I expect them to address them this Friday. Hopefully since they will be conducting their meeting in a fish bowl they will finally make some progress in resolving the issues before us. Last weeks meeting’s agenda said it would be at the community center at 7pm lets all show up and show the board we expect progress. Remember we should remain silent and be there as observers only. SEE YOU FRIDAY!

 

Sean

 

PS. The word agenda has been used a lot. Just to let everyone know my agenda is to enjoy Lake Roosevelt with my family, and dust free roads would be nice too.

Retraction

I would like to retract my statement regarding Mr. Don Lawrence as I have no first hand knowledge of the incidents involved just what I had been told by a couple of sources.  It also has small relevance to the matter at hand.
 
 

---

See what you're getting into…before you go there See it!

Negative Anonymous Comments

I have spent a part of today reading and rereading the recent posts to the blog.  While I think it is great that people are getting involved and stating their opinions I do feel that we gain nothing by making mean spirited, hurtful comments about private members of our community.  As Board members, we are now considered "public figures" and as such may not reasonably expect the same privacy we had before being elected.  Our words and actions will (and should) be scrutinized by the community.  However, attacks on individuals, particularly when made by an anonymous post are extremely inappropriate and highly offensive.  Have the courage of your convictions people, sign your post with your name.  Hopefully, no one will take these words as any type of rant, rather an observation and commentary on decency and right minded behavior. 

 

Margot Rach

Board Member

 

 

 

 

Good afternoon

Redacted due to failure to post name.

Take credit for your posts

I received an email from a homeowner today who was very distressed because his name was mentioned on the blog. He is neither a board member nor a public figure and the comments were inappropriate.

What is worse is that the author of the post refuses to give their name.

I am establishing a new rule on the blog. If you don't take credit for your publication, I will redact the post. If you are going to be slanderous towards others, the least you can do is stand up to associate your name with it.

I know you are going to cry 'censorship', but it is not fair for you to take this argument out to the good members of Seven Bays who are not public figures.

Jay S. Jump
Blog Moderator

Again

Redacted due to failure to post name

To Comment or Post?

I thought as the moderator of the blog I would weigh in on whether you should comment or blog.

You can post to the blog directly via email and that will come up as a new entry.

You can also comment by clicking on the comment link at the bottom of a post.

Using the email address makes sure that you get prominently featured as a new post.

Posting a comment may get you lost in the shuffle, but feel free to comment as much as you like.

As to the censorship issue and the 'moderation' of the comments, I typically just pass through whatever is said and let it publish. I have refused to publish a couple of comments which were simply too offensive to be put up as written words. It's good to have constructive dicsussion, it's bad to out and out call somone abusive names. Incidentally, just so you are aware, those names were directed at Mrs. Schindler and I didn't think any good would come out of publishing those comments. The next time someone tells me that this is all about a personal attack on other members of the board, please remember that if that were the case, I wouldn't think twice about publishing those offensive comments.

I have also eventually rejected comments from someone who does not own land at Seven Bays and his constructive criticism also eventually came to pass as being angry and offensive. I rejected his comments because he too was serving no constructive purpose and he doesn't own property here at Seven Bays. If you would like to see them, I will publish them to you privately upon your request.

However, if you want to post a comment, chances are it is going to get passed directly through and I think from the number of comments you have seen, it is clear that I'm not doing much censoring.

Now the truth of the matter is this. If you accept this as medium to post on and clearly, someone on the board besides Margot and myself has, then you accept all that comes along with it. If you believe that I am going to censor other members of the board and their posts and other homeowners, then you are sorely mistaken. Otherwise, the posts of the last few days never would have made it on would they?

The truth of the matter is, as moderator, I can control all aspects of what is published and what isn't. If you posted something from the email, I could go back and take it off later. In fact I did do that when one of our homeowners inadvertantly published his email address on the blog. I went back and took it out so he wouldn't suffer interminable spam in his mailbox.

The email posting doesn't save you from my 'censorship' and 'moderation'. I believe in fair play and abiding by the rules. If I get to stand on the podium and shout to the crowd, then everyone else gets the same fair shake. I only ask that you keep your comments to the matters at hand and not take it upon yourself to refer to members of the board as various parts of the human anatomy.

Good luck out there and keep on posting. I'm so encouraged by the caliber and involvement of the community.

A Note of Caution: I do not edit the posts. You are responsible for anything you publish. I have read through the past few posts and the anonymous person who is providing information. It's one thing to talk about me and whether you like or hate this format. It is quite another to make reference to private members of the community who are not in a public position. I would caution you and anyone else before they make an issue and slander a private resident of the community. While I will not edit your post, I would suggest to you that you might want to contact me directly and give me permission to redact certain portions of your post as they clearly are directed at a member of this community who is neither on the board nor a public figure in the Seven Bays Community.

Jay S. Jump
Blog Moderator

Blog

To the poster of the last Blog, I am new to this form of communications, and see now that comments are posted differently. However as we are learning there are ways around this. If Mr. Jump is censoring comments shame on him, when time permits I will respond to your response to my earlier blog.

 

Sean

Response to "Just an FYI"

Redacted due to failure to post name and take credit.

This blog dealt with the blog moderators 'review' of all comments before posting. The issue has been addressed in other submissions by the moderator.

A response to "A Response to a Response"

Redacted due to failure to post name and take credit

To have this blog reposted, please step forward and claim your work.

- blog moderator

Just an FYI

The only thing Mr. Jump does in relationship to this blog is give the e-mail address to post. I was given that address no questions asked and my post have posted as soon as I have hit send. Just thought that should be cleared up.

 

Sean

Another comment on A Response

Redacted due to failure of author to take credit.

To republish this blog post, please take credit for your work.

A Response to A Response

 

I would like to comment on A RESPONSE, my points are in no particular order.

 

First I have no strong opinions about the “Bennett Wall”. In fact I feel bad for the Bennett’s who I am sure do not appreciate there name being associated with such a divisive issue. It sounds to me they did their part and got approval from representatives of the board. I have no doubt at this point that the homeowners will have to spend money before this issue finally gets resolved.  

 

The whole issue of who Seven Bays employs is irrelevant to me and a decision that the board needs to come to agreement on.  Since I have been coming down here I have seen nothing but polite hard working folks, whether it was Warren, Mark, Jed, John, Keri or now Joe. All dealings I have had with 7 Bays employees have been positive.

 

One concern I have around this is that if the person who posted A Response is a 7 Bays board member I feel that you may have put the association at risk by openly talking about an employee’s employment. The statement “Why is Mr. Jump so eager to hire someone back who made a mess of her job?” What happen while she was employed is between her and her employer (the board) and should not be discussed in a forum such as this.

 

 George seems to be a kind man, I admire anyone who steps up to serve their fellow citizens however when doing so they MUST understand the importance of the position they are seeking. You are dealing with my family’s hard earned money. Like many residents in Seven Bays having a second home means we sacrifice somewhere else. I expect more from the board that we elect then walking out of a meeting. With the exception of Nancy, before Friday I have never met any of the people sitting at the dais. Let me tell you those who walked off and adjourned the meeting without a motion from the floor did not leave me with a great first impression and have lost some of my respect. True leaders take their lumps and listen to their constituency. It has been my experience that any meeting that has gotten out of control has been the fault of the one running the meeting.

 

I made the motion for the parliamentarian and I did make a comment that George should resign after he stated that “I am going to be 78 years old and I am not going to take the time now to learn Robert’s Rules of Order”. My last comment may have been out of line, but by the chair’s own admission he does not seem to want to learn what it would take to run a productive meeting.

 

Why do you call Mr. Fookes’ comments a rant? I have read and re-read his post and did not see anything that could be construed as a “rant”. Anyone who was at that meeting saw with their own eyes that we had a “total breakdown of law”. 

 

If the person who wrote A Response is a 7Bays board member you should not take criticism so personally, it comes with the territory. I myself sit on two boards I know criticism can sting. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine, and we now have a forum to discuss them. But to call the concerns of the people you represent “rants” is a little over the top.

 

As far as Mr. Jump goes, he has placed an unfavorable light on some members of the board and I do feel a little tact could have been used, but what I find interesting is that those members not only responded (as you should, I most certainly would), they also take the liberty to attack Mr. Jump. They just choose a different medium. The arguments from both sides would resonate louder with me if “attacks” were not answered with attacks. I feel both sides have made some mistakes.

 

Why does Mr. Jump’s profession always come up? There are good lawyers and bad lawyers, we like to bash the profession yet we all spend money on one when we need advice (Note: I am not a lawyer). According to the post Mrs. Schindler herself sought advice of council, to me that shows due diligence on her part.

 

Let’s stop the attacks.

 

If you are going to post please put your name with it. Stand by your words.

 

The last point I would like to make about this particular post is that the website is a positive and needs to stay. It is obvious that the only censorship on the blog comes at the hands of those who refuse to post. Like it or not we now live in a world where things happen and get disused 24/7. The world does not wait for the next monthly meeting. Welcome to the 21^st century 7Bays. Once this mess gets straighten out (and I believe it will) you will see that airing our concerns as a community was for the best.

 

We need to rebuild a community, where everyone is civil to one another and I look to our board to set the example and for leadership.

 

Sean Morrow, Platt II

 

For the Blog

 

Sean Morrow

Comment on A Response

Redacted due to failure to take credit for your work.

If you would like to have this blog reposted, please step forward and associate your name with your post.

A Response

Redacted for failure of author to post name.

If you would like to see your post republished, please step forward and claim your work.

- blog moderator

Bennett Wall

            I guess that I'm a little confused about the Bennett wall.  According to the approved board minutes of July 28, 2007, Linda Schindler stated that her husband worked on the wall, "but that there was no financial, no money involved." However, in her letter of August 2, 2007 of approval for the Bennett wall she stated her husband "was involved in the construction of the Bennett's wall and that he was paid for his labor and material…" So what is the truth?  How can we trust a board member who is always changing the story?  Board member Rick Graf also worked on the wall he, just failed to mention this to the board.   It seems to me that both of these board members were less than truthful and both should have excused themselves from the discussion and decision concerning the Bennet wall.  Do people with these kinds of ethics belong on the Seven Bays Board?  I feel once someone is found to be less than truthful about one subject it is very hard for me to believe them about anything. In my opinion these people should resign from the board.

 

Linda Davis

Two Cents

            I am encouraged by the citizens of 7-Bays and their response to the poor leadership being displayed in recent Board dealings. Essentially, the citizens took charge at the Association meeting and told the Board what they wanted. Check out the minutes when they are posted if you were not at the meeting.

 

            The next Board meeting Friday the 24^th of August. Please attend. I attended the last board meeting which was called a Special Board meeting on August 3^rd and I want to inform the residents of 7-Bays what I observed. The Special Board meeting was called because of a pool issue, which quickly became a ruse. In my opinion, the real reason for the meeting was the inappropriate actions discussed below.

 

I will begin by saying, "W ithout the "Rule of Law" giving us a foundation and structure no government can operate much less the Board here at 7-Bays . We need the Roberts Rules of Order to operate at Board meetings as well as the Community meetings.

 

Our system of government is based on personal responsibility and integrity; the absence of which results in chaos.

 

Listen, if you don't remember anything I write, remember this: CHAOS BREEDS CONTROL as the person causing the chaos is the only one that knows what is going on and what is coming next – everyone else is on the defensive - walking on eggshells.

 

In my opinion, what we have here at 7-Bays is a complete breakdown of the "Rule of Law" due to a lack of integrity of a few members. The Friday night meeting on August 3 ^rd seemed to me to be out of control like many meetings that happen in the community meeting format. There was bickering and fighting that had nothing to do with the subject at hand and the board president was at a loss as to what to do. CHAOS!

 

Listen, the interactions were emotional and not logical. If you have done any study in psychology, you know that once emotion becomes involved, logic goes out the window. It is like two married people constantly fighting each other instead of working together with a common goal. I am sure that you have heard the phrase, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Well ladies and gentleman, that is precisely what we have here at 7-Bays. One could say, "That is normal. You can't get upset when things are normal." Well, yes, that is one way to think of it, but I would like to make the following points:

 

First, we have a board president that does not know parliamentary procedure nor have the personal integrity to become familiar with the Roberts Rules of Order so meetings can be run smoothly and legally. As a result, there are situations that that are allowed to arise where TWO people vote to control this association.

 

In this meeting, I repeatedly heard the phrase, "What do I do now." from our board president. I just shook my head. I don't know about you, but that is not the type of leadership I respect.  

 

I heard a story where three members of the Board got together and unilaterally made a decision without the other two members present and I do not have any evidence that the other two Board members were given constructive notice of this meeting or what "parliamentary procedure" would call adequate "notification," which in and of itself, creates a liability issue for the association.

 

Then, unashamedly, Linda passed out a written statement that concluded with the phrase, "After you have acknowledged and agreed with these findings by signing below, the wall is approved." Unbelievable! These three musketeers take into their own hands making decisions without having a formal board meeting. This is the most manipulative action I personally have ever seen. It is in your face "screw you" mentality. It is all about a grab for power. It is all about winning. It is not about being on a Board.

 

Yes, three Board members are a majority, but that does not give the three people the right to get together anytime they want to and conduct business. This type of meeting undermines due process and the rule of law. Decisions were made by these Board members that were arbitrary and capricious – in other words, in the minds of the three Board members, the decision was to be made on the spot as after all, "The three of us are all that is needed." In plain English, what happened here is that three people on the Board get together, and, since they assume they would all vote together on a matter, they can do anything they want anytime they desire. Oh yes, and by the way, only two of the three need to agree because that makes a majority. What these three musketeers don't seem to understand is through interaction and discussion with the other Board members, they may change their minds, much less the fact that this behavior violates due process and parliamentary procedure and the integrity of the Board. Listen, it is a blatant, unabashed power and control issue. Integrity would say, "Let us wait for the others." In my mind, this type of action is done out of desperation and has the basis in manipulation, which lends itself to very insecure people as witnessed by the cancelation of the August 10^th regular Board meeting because one of the three musketeers was on vacation. It is abhorrent for this type of personality to say, "Your right, I am wrong – I am sorry."

 

Secondly, I observed one member of the Board blatantly, with no idea of the consequences, attempting to undermine parliamentary procedure. The self-righteousness and arrogance was beyond what I would call, "normal" by any stretch of the imagination. As I saw the meeting unfold, there was a clear conflict of interest as would be judged and/or perceived by the members of this body as it was by the two observers that spoke to the Board after the meeting. This is what Linda wrote in a paper handed out at the meeting. You judge for yourself:

 

My husband, Darrel Schindler, was involved in the construction of the Bennett's wall. He has been paid for his labor and material and has no further interest in said property except as a member of Plat 3. As a Board Member, my interest is in fulfilling my duties as outlined in the Association Documents and as a representative of the members of my Plat. My position would be the same whether or not my husband was involved."

 

In addition, as I understand it, Rick Graf helped build the wall. These board members should have absolutely recused themselves from any discussion or vote pertaining to the matter at hand.  

 

Thirdly, you have two different Boards that voted on one variance five to zero in favor of rejection and yet, through the process mentioned above, the third request, the one we are talking about here, was favorable three to two – having two of the three votes cast by Board members that should have recused themselves. Did this set precedence? I cannot say, but I would be wary of past decisions being legally challenged and creating all kinds of chaos itself.

 

I have been in many a negotiation and in fact I am trained as a mediator. The primary thing you do NOT want to do is get the other side angry, hurt or have them lose face. If the opposition does lose face, negotiations will stop and it will become a contest of who is right and who is going to win. Basically, it results in a lot of anguish and pain that did not need to be there had the emotions not become involved. Many a strike by a labor union resulted around these kinds of issues between two opposing negotiators rather than the facts. This is what I saw happening on our Board on that Friday night. It was not about the rule of law. It was about power, winning and it was emotional.

 

To summarize, in my opinion, the lack of integrity, blatant disregard for structure, arrogance and self-righteousness are poisoning our association through the actions of a few of the current Board members. It results in CHAOS. Guess who is in control.

 

I think it would be appropriate for the good of the association for Linda, as I see it, the organizer, to resign so that we can have an opportunity to have members that are willing to work together on common goals and not be set-off emotionally. I also think it would be appropriate for the Robert's Rules of Order be implemented immediately, otherwise the CHAOS will continue. If George is unable to or chooses not to do that, then I would ask him to step aside. I would also like to see integrity be the standard that is the foundation of the 7-Bays Board and if there is even the slightest question as to integrity; the person will err on the side of recusal.

 

Although I was not here, talking with the locals, it sounds to me like this Board is functioning like the one Roy was in charge of and when he left, it allowed the members to come together and get business done in a relaxed and professional manner.

 

In closing, I would like to review the handout prepared by Linda. It is included in Jay's recent publication. If you read closely, you will see that Linda has made her case, PREDETERMINED the outcome and has a place for only three of the Board members to sign. NOW I CALL THAT A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ARROGANCE, PREDETERMINATION, BACK-ROOM POLITICS, A GRAB FOR POWER & CONTROL USING MANIPULATION AND JUSTIFICATION COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF THE NORMAL BOARD SETTING. Is this how you want 7-Bays Board to its business? I for one, do not.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Larry Fookes - Homeowner

Plat I Party

I had the pleasure of extending invitations to all homeowners in Plat I to drop by my home on Saturday, August 11^th for cake, coffee and conversation.  As I have a limited circle of friends and acquaintances in Seven Bays, I felt it would be the perfect opportunity to meet more of the wonderful people that make Seven Bays their home, even if only for week ends.  I did have the pleasure of meeting a few more neighbors and enjoyed talking with each of them.  I truly looked forward to hearing from them about what worries them, what causes them to be upset, what direction they felt the board should take.  Without the input of the community we cannot represent your interests effectively.   

                                                                                                                                        

Before I tell you about the conversations at my home on Saturday,  let me clear the air about a couple of things…first, I have been informed by George that a homeowner questioned who might have paid for the “business card” I enclosed with each invitation.  To not only that particular homeowner but to anyone else who might read this and have the same concern; I paid for the cards, I paid for the postage to mail the letter in which the card was enclosed and I paid for the refreshments I served at my own home on Saturday…and the second…it would seem that some folks feel I need an “overseer” when I decide to entertain guests in my home.  Rest assured concerned homeowners, I am more than capable of entertaining whomever I chose to entertain whenever I chose to entertain without someone to oversee my actions.  To those individuals who expressed a concern about who would “oversee” what I was doing on Saturday, you might more appropriately direct that concern to the actions of the Board as a whole, not one member who offers her hospitality to the people who live in the plat from which she was elected. 

 

Now that I have that off my chest, let me say that the issues of my guests are similar to my own:  the status of both our roads project and our water project and how we will pay for them, a desire on the part of some of the residents of Seven Bays to have a greater knowledge and understanding of the day to day operation of our water system and a willingness to “tag along” with our maintenance staff to learn,  concerns about the state requirements regarding the installation of individual water meters, the Bennett wall,  our increasing annual homeowner dues coupled with the board’s obligation to be fiscally responsible in its spending decisions and finally concerns that one of our covenants is being broken by individuals operating businesses in Seven Bays. 

 

As I promised my guests, I will raise each of the specific issues that surfaced at our next board meeting; however I also wanted to post them to the website as I am sure they echo the concerns of many other homeowners.  Remember blog readers, you have power and a voice; you only need to use them.  Post your own blogs here or comment on others and most importantly, contact the members of the Board, attend Board meetings and the monthly homeowner’s meeting which is scheduled for August 17^th.

 

Margot Rach

Board Member

 

 

 

Integrity

At the last board meeting, cited as an 'emergency' board meeting, the board gathered to discuss the pool employment issue. No formal agenda was presented and it really had very little to do with the pool. At least as it was, the pool didn't have much to do with any emergency issues.

It really had to do with power, control, and integrity.

A couple of community members came to the meeting. As an aside, you are always welcom to attend board meetings. They are public meetings. The board is entitled to go into executive session and we do from time to time, but for the most part, it is a public event, the matter is being recorded and you are welcome to attend any meeting you choose to attend.

The next meeting for the community if April 17th. I implore everyone to go. I think the board needs to hear from everyone in the community.

I must tell you, I am particularly frustrated at certain members of the board taking unilateral action without consulting the remaining members. We don't have a King or a Queen, we're supposed to have a board that meets to discuss matters in depth and find a meaningful way to resolve their issues. This was the case with the 2006/2007 board. Five different points of view would have to be resolved so we could march forward together. Somedays we didn't all see eye to eye, but at least there was a respect for one another. Never was there a disregard for someones position or their vote and voice as a board member.

You are probably aware of what has come to be known as the Bennet Wall. It invades an easement that grants access to the two plats Seven Bays sold a couple of years ago. The same two plats that led to the $48,000 tax liability we were forced to deal with last year.

The previous board of 2006/2007 advised that the wall should be removed. In a letter signed by all of the board members, this was the action decided upon. In subsequent meetings with the new board, the issue was discussed. I had requested that Linda be excused from the discussion because of the conflict that existed.

At the next board meeting, on July 28th, where I was not present, Mrs. Schindler asserted that she was not in conflict.

A few days later, the infamous email from Mrs. Schindler was presented to the board where she stated the matter was 'settled' and thus my responsive email to her which many of you have reviewed and commented on. Some comments in support, and one particular individual very much against. His comments over the past few days have become more and more egregious and I have refused to post his comments as he is not a member of the Seven Bays Community. I'm sure he will post another comment to this missive.

As an aside, I appreciate the comments of the homeowners here. Some were supportive, some weren't. Some people felt I was stirring up trouble and causing distress. To this, I reply, I am and I am sorry, but I feel I have no other choice. The premise that the new board was elected on was that the old board was being secretive and not discussing issues with the community until after the fact. Not that the old board was hiding anything, but the community is right. You should have more involvement in decisions and you should be given a venue for your voice. That venue exists at the board meetings, community meetings, and this website. As I have advised all who are on the email list, you can post directly to this blog. Everyone has an equal voice and that is the way it should be.

Getting back to my point. . .

At this emergency meeting, Mrs. Schindler handed out a document she had prepared to allow the Bennett Wall. I will scan it and post it to the website shortly. Despite the previous board directing the removal of the Bennett Wall, Mrs. Schindler decided it was OK to be present and she decided that she had no conflict. This document had not been presented earlier, it was a sandbag if there ever was one and the kicker of it is that there were only signature lines for George Cordier, Rick Graf, and Linda Schindler. No signature line was present for Margot Rach or myself.

This is where we have a lack of integrity and leadership on the board. This document was an offensive attempt to simply state that there was no longer a five member board. There is only a three member board and the other two members are irrelevant.

This is what I find offensive more than anything else. I'm thankful that the guests who were present at the board meeting felt the same way I did and they voiced their concerns to the board at the end of the meeting. I hope that they will both appear at the community meeting and relay what they observed. I hope more that the board members take to heart what was said to them.

I am both offended and disappointed at the behavior of our board. All of our board, myself included. It is clear that we cannot continue to work in harmony, if we ever could. A board divided is a board that will fail.

Some of the board members are upset with me because I have used this blog to open a shaft of sunlight on the inner workings and exposed the boards agenda. As Mrs. Schindler stated on August 3rd, she no longer trusts anything I say. So it is clear, she has not respect for me. As well,

I have no respect for a board member who blatantly disregards the rules of order and decides as judge and jury their role relating to conflict and the lack thereof.

I have no respect for a board member who doesn't rise above it all to lead the board to a path of mutual understanding and respect.

I have no respect for board members who are silent and refuse to speak.

I have no respect for board members who tell other board members to "Be Quiet - you're hurting my ears" as a way to have a discussion.

I have no respect for a group of people who have their own agenda and follow the views of a limited few instead of the views of the community.

Perhaps I say too much, but these are my opinions. I take the credit for them and I invite all of the board members to post their responses. I have asked all of the board members to respond, but they have thus far refused to do so. I hope that they will reconsider and use this forum as a means to voice their concerns and views.

And yet, I can't condemn all of our board members. I believe our President has the good of the community as his goal. I believe that he does earnestly believe that Seven Bays can be a great place. I don't agree with all of his views, but I can respect his desire and his motivation. But the board is splintered and the sides have been chosen. I hope that our chairman can find a way to cut through the anger and distrust. I hope that he can find a way to stand up to the other board members and take charge of the situation running the community fairly without conflicts of interest. If he can't, perhaps this isn't the right board to lead Seven Bays.

Once again, I urge all of you to come to the meeting on April 17th. I look forward to seeing you there.

Jay S. Jump

Board Member