I have recently been made aware of a letter Ms. Julia Vaughn read to the board at the June 20, 2023 meeting; the letter is flawed in many respects.
First, it is based on the false premise that "a small number" of residents have concerns about the current Tolomato Board. In fact, there are a great many people in the community who are concerned about the trajectory of this Board. It also asserts that there is an "orchestrated" effort to discredit this board. The reality is that no such effort could touch the degree to which this Board has discredited itself. Consider the following:
- In early January, a meeting between the Board and the ARB was held to bring the Board up to speed on activities associated with a problematic contractor. Among the items discussed was the conflict of interest posed by a board member's contractual relationship with the same contractor and issues that could result, particularly regarding pending litigation. It was a productive meeting and everyone left feeling we were on the same page. By the next morning, Ms. Fardy had consulted a third party who opined there was no conflict of interest and she declared that this ruling would be the standard by which we would proceed. Of course, the opinion had no bearing on the previously stated concerns. What Ms. Fardy did accomplish however was to seriously damage any sense of trust between the two Boards.
- Three Board members were present at the first community meeting. Ms. Fardy mentioned the fact that Ms. Brenton was away on business. Just before the meeting Ms. Fardy had been informed of the resignation of Ms. Flatt; but that was kept secret, no mention was made to the community at the meeting. Thus, within the first two minutes of this Board's official administration any sense of transparency and credibility died. There followed for the next week a concentrated, secret effort to reinstate Ms. Flatt. At no time was notice provided the community.
- A short time later another board member resigned. After a few days the resignation was reconsidered and Ms. Fardy was so notified. In this case however an entirely different standard for filling board vacancies was applied wherein, with no notice to the community, a replacement had been immediately inserted into the vacant seat. Different standards for different people, none consistent with the covenants, does not inspire confidence from the community.
- An inquiry was made to the Board about the feasibility of building across lot lines by an owner who intended to build a home that would require it. Ms. Fardy responded in writing that she would personally favor such a plan but the ARB may not but, in any event, she asserted that it was under the ARB's purview to make that decision. Upon inquiry to the ARB the issue was further researched with the ARB concluding that there was no prohibition to building across lot lines and that lots had already been legally combined. The owner was appraised and the ARB developed and promulgated a protocol by which such cases would be handled by the ARB. It is also important to note the ARB took a position, completely within its own authority, only providing guidance to combined lot owners. At this point, however, Ms. Fardy completely reversed her earlier position asserting that it was not legal to build across lot lines and that it was not within the ARB's purview to make such a decision. Ms. Fardy claimed the Archtectural Guidelines could not be changed. The TIPOA Board has no authority to state what can and can't be included in the Guidelines. It is the sole province of the ARB. The issue of combining lots is still being resolved. The board's adversarial posture, however, created a riff in the community that was unnecessary and counterproductive.
- The ARB is charged in the TIPOA covenant's to be an independent board and the previous ARB conducted the community's business accordingly. Proceedings were transparent, responsive and generally well received in the community. This did not sit well with the board. Ultimately the board fired the entire ARB for reasons known only to the Board. This was not well received in the community and certainly was not done in the best interest of the community. The effect was the widening the previously cited "riff" and again "discrediting "what was left of the board's credibility.
In short, the "discrediting" of this board has not been done by any element of the community but rather by the consistent pattern of the board's own actions…it continues to this day.
Ms. Vaughn's second paragraph is dedicated to the topic of a master plan for the community. Once again, she creates a conspiratorial precept ("these residents") and proceeds with the false premise that the topics that would typically be considered in a master plan have already been concluded "suggesting the need for expanding etc". She goes on to assert that there "is and has been a master plan for the community since 2001". There was a marketing piece titled "Master Plan" that was nothing more than a plat of the community. Could this be the Master Plan to which Ms. Vaughn is referring? In short, her assertions are misleading, inflammatory and generally a rationale to do nothing.
The third paragraph of Ms. Vaughn's letter addresses the maintenance of the community but is something of a "red herring" in as much as no one has questioned that. It is worth noting, however, that the work necessary to maintain the community's appearance is performed by contracted vendors and committees.
As for the community's fiscal posture, I trust it is sound and can think of no reason why it should not be. That being the case it is curious that some are so ardently opposed to the prudent business practice of a periodic audit. Tolomato has never had one.
The community casts it's votes every December in a good faith effort to elect a Board that will address both individual and collective concerns and desires in an evenhanded and respectful manner. It is not too much to ask. Unfortunately, our governing documents were drawn up to protect the interests of the developer. Boards can use these documents as a guide for the conduct of the community's business or as a shield to insulate the Board from the community. Recent Boards have done the latter. I fear the ultimate effect, if not purpose, of Ms. Vaughn's letter is to stymie community dialog, not encourage it.