Hi,

Attached today is an email from Dr. Lee Christiansen, a former Board member at Mesquite Country Club, as well as a recent member of the "Painting Committee" which was set up by the Board of Directors to review our options for maintenance issues at MCC.

Dr. Christiansen has written this article in response to the mailing we all received last week entitled "Setting the Record Straight" by the 3 long term Board members at Mesquite running for re-election.

Please take a look at it now. I believe it will confirm what most of us familiar with the issues know to be the correct version of what indeed happened.

Cordially,

Timothy Gaffney
www.mesquiteowners.com 

P.S. If you have received the endorsement letter that we sent out this week for Michael Torhan, Frances Scott, and David Krubinski , please cast your vote TODAY by returning your signed and dated ballot in the envelope provided.

We are also asking anyone who would like to help with the campaign to contact us this week by email. We believe the reform candidates will work hard to open up Mesquite to new ideas and away from the Executive Sessions that seem to have been the norm in the past. I hope you will support them. 

                                 REALLY  Setting   the  Record  Straight

 

At the January MCCHOA Board Meeting questions and challenges were made regarding a letter sent out by Board Member Enrico Pietropaolo.  This was followed by a letter to MCCHO members entitled "Setting the Record Straight" meant to "correct" a number of statements made by Mr. Pietropaolo, one of their fellow Board Members.  Several members have asked for my understanding of what has taken place and this is my response. 

 

In all my years of working for and serving on various Boards, I have never seen such behavior as our current Board Officers (President, Vice President and Secretary) attacking a fellow Board Member, especially when they are current candidates for reelection.  And I also recognize by sending this note I regret I am "joining" in that behavior----but I can not let silence condone such behavior of our Board Officers.

 

As a ten year MCCHOA owner and a former Board member I must say Mr. Pietropaolo was correct in his statements as identified in "Setting the Record Straight" (SRS).  The SRS response is misleading and incomplete.   Specifically, their three charges: 

 

1. The first charge states the all Phase V decisions were in accordance with our bylaws--this is their interpretation of California Code. I do not believe any regular meetings minutes report any Phase V discussions of work to be done and many members would confirm they were unaware of the project. ALL discussions and decisions must have been made in Executive Session and the only mention was Mr. Lubin’s October 2003 motion to select the paint color. Their “according to bylaws” would suggest it was Executive Session, a favorite means of discussing business in closed session by this Board. One of the few permissable reasons allowed  Boards to conduct business in the privacy of Executive Session is "Negotiating Third Party Contracts".  I know of no third party "contract"  necessary to discuss how MCCHOA is to maintain its roads, streets or building stucco!

 

It is unfathomable how any Board would enter into the Phase V project without full discussion and disclosure of the scope of the work to ensure support of the members who are so dramatically affected by such decisions. This lack of communication has resulted in the curtailment of all maintenance work in this area for over one year. And even if their procedures continued those of past Boards who made decisions, within and without the parameters of the Executive Session Code, it is not right and Mr. Pietropaolo was correct!

 

2. Their second charge involving recommendations by the Committees is incomplete and misleading.  The main recommendation by a majority of the Paint Committee was to do a trial cleaning of several buildings with stucco cleaners, "patch and match" broken and discolored areas and redirect the irrigation system to protect the stucco. This has never been done and the minutes do not reflect any discussion.  This Committee recommendation was based on information received stating you only "paint" stucco when you want to "change the color"! Stucco lasts for decades, as demonstrated by many historic buildings in our area and the Southwest. The findings included a variety of effective and environmentally safe cleaning agents to rid the stained "roof run off" areas and do general cleaning to restore complex’s natural beauty of the original colors. Such cleaning would enable the buildings to continue to “breath” without “sealing moisture in the walls.  The recommendation also included updating the existing trim to enhance the buildings.

Please note, the majority of the Paint Committee did not say "don't ever paint"----it said to clean a set of buildings to determine if cleaning is the viable option.  If unsatisfactory then painting should be considered, recognizing there are limitations to painting stucco. MCCHOA would enter a continuing multi-million dollar paint cycle (painting every seven years) whereas cleaning could maintain our buildings effectively and economically for decades. Also, the Board, in its Mosquito information, dramatically misrepresented the cleaning costs by overstating the "stain" remover requirements and not disclosing painting and cleaning labor costs.  Cleaning is considerably lower in that it only requires a garden sprayer, some brushing and a hose and makes maintenance very economical to maintain. Painting would essentially require the same cleaning before beginning the paint process.  Also further procedures for stucco care is readily available from the national Portland Cement Association,  the source for information on the production, application, and the repair and maintenance of stucco and its various products

 

Also, subsequent information submitted by individual Committee members suggested other paint products superior to those used in Phase V with two to three times the life span, allowing for needed “breathing,” and reported energy cost savings. After considerable urging, the Board finally "tested" two of these products this past Fall on two gatehouses which they state as a major "accomplishment".  And other paint options are available and should be considered. .

 

The point is the Board never really tried to follow the submitted recommendations----they simply were convinced they knew what was best and they had the power to take such action regardless of the membership's needs, wants and desires. Painting may ultimately be the best decision but the Board will never know that for sure if it continues its current practices.

 

One other aspect ---you will note in Setting the Record Straight, no mention is given to the Board's practices in addressing Assessments.  In the past fourteen months three assessments have been approved by the Board---one was rescinded after the Committee Report, one was defeated and the last one passed when the “yes and no” resulted in the assessment.  i.e. a "yes" vote approved the assessment--the "no" vote increased monthly fees to provide the assessment. In some places they call this holding a gun to your head!

 

 There simply has been no attempt by the Board to communicate with the membership to assure it is  making the best decisions in the members’ interests and gain the members’ support for their effort----and the Board has still not released a plan to address the issues.

 

3. The third charge is regarding the Deck Issue. The letter sent out by the Board Members running for reelection states: "The details of the warrenty on the upper deck might have been confusing to Mr. Pietraopaolo but not to anyone else."

 

Well, it was,  is,  and probably always will be confusing to me. And I don't believe I am alone!

 

As a former Board Member, I am aware of the Board's past actions and  practices and they have been disappointing. Mesquite is an exceptional complex and it needs leadership and direction to gain the needed support of the members.  For the Board to continue to simply act and then justify its actions is not in the best interest of MCCHOA.

 

My response reflects my major concerns about the Board’s actions and  it is based on information I have obtained from my experiences and in working with the Board.

 

Lee E. Christiansen