First to address Nyle Head as the reelected President of the Board. I would like to address some Bylaws, Policies and Procedures that you, as President have neglected.
Harassment- Nyle you have allowed verbal harassment at every meeting that has involved discussion of the road improvement project. It is your duty as President to set the tone at meetings and never allow this to happen.
Nomination of new Board members- The advertisement is to be posted by September 1st and the letters of interest received by November 1st, this policy was also ignored in the recent Board opening.
Annual reports-each officer is to do reports annually- the report that you are required to do by calendar year is a summary of each years activities. If you have done these reports I am unable to find them.
Under “contracting” it is states that all projects over $10,000 must use competitive bidding. Has competitive bidding been used for your proposed Otta Seal Project?
ORS 297.425,435,445
This states that the Board appoints a property owner that is not a member of the board to confirm the annual balance sheet and cash flow are in order and reflect the proposed budget.
First, who did the Board choose to do this task for the previous 3 years? And second, I would suggest the person doing this task should not have been a part of the road improvement committee or in cahoots with the Board in any way. I would like to be assigned to this task.
Lastly, I am making a formal records request to the Secretary: per ORS-192.610-695 you have 5 days to respond to my request and 2 weeks to provide the records.
I request to see all monthly balance sheets and cash flow with attached invoices and receipts to all bank statements from 2019 to current.
Thank you for your prompt attention.
Shiela Gannon
I can't open the attachment from my phone but will try from my PC tomorrow.
This is why there is so much discrepancy with the board. We literally PAY for a website that has a menu option called "Notices", yet it's not posted there. It's not mentioned at the board meetings. This is why I have tried to remove myself from the situation.
As long as it's done "legal", not one of you will inform us via email, the website or on the community board. I'm truly sickened.
It was posted pretty much everywhere - going beyond all legal requirements of notification from the board.
I have not been attending the road meetings because I have been extremely frustrated with everything that has been going on, on top of it being difficult with having a family and owning a business. So, I have been trying to understand the status of the roads by using the website for information, which is difficult to do as it is very limited on the validation process/outcome.
@Whitney Lowe, you stated, "For the validation process an announcement was posted in the papers and anyone who had a legal ground for challenging the method of assessment was given the opportunity to bring that forward to the court.", I have never once heard this or read this anywhere and I feel if anyone else had there would be several of us at the court hearings to challenge the method of assessment. If I remember correctly, in the previous road meetings we were basically told that the board members and attorney's deal with the validation process. Perhaps I misunderstood?
Did anyone else know we were able to go to the court hearings and challenge the method of assessment?
Hi Melody:
Thanks for your message and I wanted to respond and clarify a few things.
You said:
“Suddenly ”you say” that there have been no objections for the road paving so you are just going to go ahead with it.”
It sounds like there may be a bit of a misunderstanding about what was conveyed in the meeting when it was stated that there were no objections to the project. The statement does not pertain to their being no objections to the road project itself. Everyone is aware that there are people in favor and people opposed to the project. The question that was being posed is in relation to how the project would be financed.
Several months ago there was concern that there may be legal action brought against the district to question whether the method of financing the project was legal and valid. That is what initiated going through the validation process. For the validation process an announcement was posted in the papers and anyone who had a legal ground for challenging the method of assessment was given the opportunity to bring that forward to the court. If nobody brought forth a legal objection to the method of assessment, the court considers the method “validated.” That is what was meant by the statement in the meeting that nobody had objected to the road project financing process. As a result, the financing method is considered legally valid.
At the present time there is no contract to view as we have not engaged in a contract with a vendor yet. When a contract does become available, I think it is a reasonable request to view the contract and I would think the board can look at what will be an effective and efficient way to do that.
Sheila: Will you please ask for clarification before making these kinds of accusatory statements with such hostile tone and calling me a liar? I was in Portland all day today away from work, and I actually saw your forum message before I realized you had sent an email to the board. I took almost an hour out of my time to look into some of these issues that you brought up and respond in a timely fashion. So I apologize for suggesting this wasn't done by email. There is NOTHING intentional in this. I simply didn't realize you had sent an email in addition to the forum posting. I would like to request that you offer the same courtesy of communications tone to the board that you are asking the board to offer to you.
Whitney you are lying. My communication was via email and you know it. I copied and pasted it from the email to the forum. You did not move this discussion to email. You decided to answer in the Forum and mislead the neighborhood as usual. I emailed the district and cc'd the county and you know it.
Shiela
Hi Sheila: Thank you for your inquiry to the board. Your message suggests a response from different board members, so I will respond to the content related to my role.
First I would like to address your comments about the election notification timing. As I mentioned in the meeting on Tuesday night, the reason the notifications did not go out under the regular schedule was not an intentional effort. It was purely an oversight on the timing of these notifications. It is my role as the person in charge of communications to be on top of this and so I take responsibility for missing that initial timeline. When we realized that the initial notification dates had passed we made every effort to get the word out as much as possible about the board position opening. Generally we would only do this in the Nugget and with our email list (and perhaps now using the website). We also used the website forum and the independent Panoramic Estates Facebook group (which we don’t have any official connection with). Please understand that there is no clandestine effort to do anything shady with the elections. Missing the initial date was an accidental oversight and that was my responsibility. I was trying to rapidly get up to speed in taking over for Annie’s sudden departure in the fall so if you are looking for an apology on that I apologize for missing that date.
You have on multiple occasions expressed concerns about communications at the Board meetings. In this note you said we have had verbal harassment at every meeting involving the road improvement project. If you could give some specific examples of what you feel is harassment, that will be helpful for us all moving forward. I hear your concerns about communication style and I think one thing that may be helpful is for us to establish some communication guidelines for our discussions at future meetings. We will work on putting some of those together and get input from the community on this process (hopefully by our next meeting).
Lastly, I am acknowledging receipt of your message for clarification on issues with ORS and for specific documents. We need to keep records of communications for a request like this and the website forum is not an appropriate format for this discussion because posts can be deleted and we then lose a record of the communications. I will move this discussion over to an email message and we will be in communication with you about this through email.