This
is to officially request that partially based on the information provided
herein, to invalidate the 2006 CZ Master Association Elections for
district delegates and for directors:
Either
by design, convenience, ignorance, negligence or incompetence or a number
of other drivers, it does not take President Jimmy Carter to figure out
that the irregularities witnessed so far in the 2006 CZ Master Association
2006 do not meet the spirit nor the law of the association CC&Rs or
California Corporate Law.
Withholding
and misleading Information
– CC&Rs call for residents to elect district delegates based on a
quorum formula. District delegates then elect the board of directors. These
facts are glaringly missing and in fact, imply that homeowners are
electing the board.
Although
there are a number of tools available to the association -
such as the association’s website, the association subsidized
advertising piece CotoVoice, the President’s Letter and the community
entrance message boards - to communicate with Coto de Caza residents the
electoral process, it has
failed miserably to do so and
in fact the information advanced is misleading and
used instead to promote personal agendas:
The
board in a sign of arrogance, prematurely announced that cumulative voting
would be used to select two new BOD members.
Common sense follows that residents would be more interested in
finding the right delegate, since once the delegate is elected, there is
nothing else the resident can do – it is then up to the delegate to
elect the board.
However,
ALL the focus has been placed on promoting board candidates, and every
effort has been made to keep residents in the dark with regards to
delegates and the process used to elect them.
As the Keystone, - the property general manager assigned to the
association- puts it “it is
up to the resident to request delegate qualification” – This is
presenting a solution without figuring out what the problem is in the
first place, then because the residents do not know what they do not know,
they never ask the question!
The
delegates are supposed to be the ones with the community context and the
ones who have a pulse on their districts.
They are the ones who know the problems and the ones who are in the
best position to select the right board candidate that can address such
problems – not the average resident! – at least that is how
corporate law and CC&Rs have structured this form of local
governance!
·
The
current website in the What is New Page (CZMaster.org), features community
activities in great detail and a link to the board candidates’ bio – NO
information about district delegate candidates – see figures 1 and 2.
·
The
March and April 2006 issues of CotoVoice have the Easter Egg Hunt in
the front page and board candidate bios somewhere in the body – NO
information about the election process or district delegates.
The President’s Letter contains the same information as is found
in CotoVoice.
·
The
entrance announcement boards feature the Easter Egg Hunt – candidate
elections were never mentioned.
What
is the message being sent by the association
to the residents? Forget
about the district delegates, we already know who they are going to be,
and they are the ones who are going to elect us the two candidates we
want:: Thagard and Zipperman!
In
other words, assume we have passengers, pilots and airplanes, where the
airplanes are the board candidates, and the passengers (the
residents) are asked which plane they want their pilots (delegates) to fly, without knowing if the pilot eventually selected can
fly or even want that airplane!
The
outcome is predictable as indicated by the questions the dismal attendance
present during the April 6, 2006 district delegate elections asked. No one knew what the process was, or what to expect.
At that time the general manager mentioned that he personally had
called residents asking them for proxies to meet quorum and for volunteers
for district delegates.
Another
example is email messages we
receive, such as the one dated April 7, 2006:
Buzz:
How
do we get our new delegate??
The
whole thing is sooooo incredibly confusing.
We
do NOT want our old delegate back!!
Other
irregularities include the following:
- The district delegate meeting was
run as a board meeting. In
fact, the combination of Keystone employees and the board members, as
well as the projected new director, outnumbered the attendance and all
of the motions were either moved or seconded by Varo/Mezger or Thagard! Additionally, Varo was barking instructions as to what
could, or could not be done! Surely
not consistent with the spirit and/or letter of the CC&Rs!
- Modification of candidate
statements - Civ.
Code §1363.03 requires the association to distribute
candidate statements without editing or redacting them. The provision
does not protect the association from liability for those
statements
- The C.J. Klug, GM’s has admitted that contrary to
Civ. Code §1363, Keystone
has participated in the solicitation of proxies and candidates
assuring the status quo. Consistent with the established pattern of behavior,
Cary Treff, Keystone’s senior manager states “There seems to be
a misunderstanding about who was called and why. In an effort to
have delegates elected in every district, CJ asked our staff to call
the existing delegates to encourage them to re-run.
If the existing delegates did not intend to re-run, our
staff encouraged the delegates to talk to their neighbors about
possibly running”. This
action, even in a banana republic is election tampering.
Guess whom the existing delegates voted for in the previous
election? Guess whom the
existing delegate neighbors are going to vote for?
Do we need to bring in a Ph.D. to sort this out?
- During the meeting, the attendance
was discouraged from using ballots and instead encouraged them to use
proxies. Given that audit
of previous elections found these were “validated” by a foreign
entity and a non-homeowner, and “verbally” approved by legal
counsel, this might elicit one or two questions about Keystone’s
integrity and or competence!.
Note:
As the statute is currently written, inspectors of elections are
the only ones allowed to count votes!
- Keystone/the board are proceeding
with the existing proxies – not consistent with spirit and letter of
CC&Rs! NOTE: Board supporters have been soliciting proxy votes after
deadline, giving the board an unfair advantage.
- In board-picked
candidates’ districts, massive questionable projects are not only
quickly approved, but the association even provides enhancements to
the commons areas where the projects take place, yet place artificial
road-blocks to more subdued improvements in other districts. Given the evidence contained-here it, this seems like
either vote-buying or simply arbitrary decisions.
NOTE:
Statute requires owners to print their address and lot number on
the outside envelope. Failure to include this information invalidates a
ballot. The law as currently written also requires owners to hand-write
their address. Using a pre-printed label are grounds to challenge the
election.
Figure
1: Website What is New Page
Retrieved from CZMaster.org 04/08/2006
(http://www.atwebo.com/cotobuzz/2006/CotoWhatIsNew.JPG)
Figure
2: CotoVoice Cover
April 2006
(http://www.atwebo.com/cotobuzz/2006/CotoVoice0406.JPG)
Figure
3: Incorrect Request for
Candidates For Delegates (as sent to Hillsboro District – But reads The
Forest/Tiara/The Arbours/Lyon – NOT Hillsboro! (http://www.atwebo.com/cotobuzz/2006/CZelectionFraud0306.JPG)
Figure
4: Entrance announcements
NEVER announced District Delegate Elections (http://www.atwebo.com/cotobuzz/2006/CZdelegateElections0306.JPG)
