Open Letter of opinion for the SVL voter.
This Spring Valley Lake resident would like to express an opinion as to the upcoming association election. This opinion has been formed from observing both management and the workings of the Board of Directors over the past year. Like so many other residents, our family shares the blame for the lack of oversight over the past 30 years. We stood by and allowed our beautiful community to sink into an era of lax governance. How many years has our community so languished, we can only guess?
The current board is to be congratulated for restoring some semblance of order. Those four incumbent candidates up for election appear to have exerted leadership in this effort over the past two years. Their most needed accomplishment was the hiring of a responsible experienced financial management company to oversee the monies. Some strides have been made to give us vision inside of the accounting process. The few interested residents are now given the opportunity to track the money month to month. Haney and Associates has finally updated our organization into 21st century status. Thank you Board of Directors for this professionalism.
A second positive accomplishment is the hiring of a professional experienced general manager, Mr. Jon Sabo. His leadership can be trusted to protect the interests of all property owners, be it the finances, the lake, the equestrian center or personnel in general. This is no small accomplishment by the Board of Director’s and again they are to be congratulated. An organization functions from the top down and now Mr. Sabo brings the credibility to see us into the future.
Lastly, the Board of Directors encouraged the prior general manager to leave. We are somewhat unsure of the exact circumstances but a change in leadership was an absolute requirement. A cursory examination of financial record keeping of his administration makes the quality of his leadership obvious. The in house accounting process, if there was one, was at best superficial and made no sense. At worst it was a massive rip off. No one would ever expect a 4000 member association to be operated in such a rinky-dink manner. The members of the board who supported such an administration should suffer a life long eviction from our political process. Whoever you are, please bough out quietly and gracefully.
This is the good news that occurred over the last year. The downside is that these positives are diminished by the Board of Director’s continuation of expansive spending priorities. Our goal as an association is not to be the largest employer in the county but to further enhance the best place to live. If spending contributes to our well living, it is a positive and to be supported. The current board has given superficial attention to this matter but in general it has operated business as usual.
In this era of big government cutbacks, our Board of Director’s will not say where assessments are going into the future. The silence means that they will be raised again. Mr. Marvin Anderson points out that annual assessments have risen from $ 310.00 just six years ago to $ 866.23 in 2009. They were raised again in the current year. This obscene inflation of assessment fees has to be addressed. As these fees rise, as more homes become problematic, more homeowners are unable to pay the assessment. This means that the rest of us have to pick up the tab. It is a very negative cycle, a cycle we are experiencing in the city, county, state and national arenas. Instead, the board should be cutting expenses and fees for the good of the whole community.
If the board had the will, where should it cut expenditures? The answer is,everywhere for this is a crisis. No area of the budget should be sacrosanct. However, in my casual observation of our operations, two areas appear to be worthy of brutal cuts. They are the security department and the administrative offices. The administrative offices are an easy call. Every voter should sit in the foyer and watch as most of the ladies try to look busy while they take turns with questions at the front desk. Office efficiency appears to be seriously lacking, to many hens in the henhouse.
The security department is where the most money can be saved. The present Board of Directors would like to convince us that the present level of services is all that is keeping us safe. Sunday’s Daily Press (Mar 28)had an article bragging on the state of security and the security department of SVL. Is our crime rate lower than the rest of the communities of the high desert? Of course it is but it has nothing to do with the size of the security force. SVL is rather isolated, we are a group of the more affluent, and we have none of the crime hot spots that infect all other communities.
A more scientific approach would be to compare the in house crime rate before and after the ballooning of the security department. Are we safer now after all the money and manpower expended? Those numbers would be informative. This slight of hand was also noted by the Daily Press article quoting Karen Hunt, the sheriff‘s Public Relations Officer. Larry Hoover , the SVL security guru, responded with a letter to the editor, March 29. His argument only makes the comparison to the rest of the communities nonsensical. We are a safer community for reasons that have nothing to do with the security department.
Another argument is that because security is so busy answering thousands of calls each month, surely present staffing is necessary. No information is ever extended to us about the nature of these calls. This is just an opinion, but it would be safe to bet that 95% are more or less nuisance calls, neurotic residents with nothing to do but complain about their lives. Our neighbor has two big beautiful Great Danes. Occasionally they may bark during the day but they are dogs, why can’t neighbors be neighbors? Talking face to face would surely accomplish more than calling security. We need not pay higher assessments for this foolishness.
The roving patrols are nonsense. If the motive really was to keep us safe, the greatest man hours would be utilized after four in the afternoon and on weekends. Of course those hours are not as cushy. The departmental hours should at least be cut in half with less supervision, fewer cars etc. etc. That is more security than this community will ever need or that this voter wants to pay to support. Our neighbors by and large are regular friendly people and not the snooty persona our board assumes that they serve.
These are some of the pro’s and con’s of SVL, let’s get back to the election. How shall we vote? This household will not vote a straight ticket because too much power means the board is free to ignore the members of the association and do their own thing. That is happening now, the board cowardly refuses to respond to any inquiry’s from the residents at board meetings. For that reason we shall not vote for Mr. Mahlum. We shall vote for a couple of the airr candidates and the upstart candidate Mr. Read. He appears to be the young level headed American, born and raised in SVL, who would consider the interests of us all. The goal of the election is to bring a cross section of people to the board.
Once elected, the continuing participation of members in the governing process is most important. To let others call the shots is to ask for trouble. Every board meeting I have attended has been a disappointment as to the turnout of members. Fifty out of four thousand members attend the meetings. This is shameful and it appears the board likes it that way, possibly their would be more involvement if we felt like our participation as more than a social club was appreciated. This is, however, the time to participate.
Let’s have an election!
G.Goslaw
7983 SVL Box
760-245-3244
ggoslaw.blogspot.com
April 3, 2010
