|
|
|
|
Coto de Caza, California is a census-designated place and guard-gated private community in the unincorporated Trabuco Canyon area of Orange County, California. As of the 2000 census, the CDP had a total population of 13,057 Coto de Caza - City Info |Coto de Caza - County Info |Coto de Caza - Yahoo Info |Coto de Caza Real Estate Trends | Coto de Caza Profile | Coto de Caza News | Coto de Caza - 1983 Movie | Coto de Caza Directory | Coto de Caza Philharmonic | OC Board of Supervisors | Coto De Caza - Plan Review | Coto de Caza - Photos | Coto de Caza Census- 2000 | Coto de Caza Speed Bumps | Join CZ Yahoo Discussion Forum Maps and aerial photos
Local BOGS/Writings
Local Links: 2004-2005 CZ Masters Goals and Objectives Proposal Rights
and Responsibilities California Assembly Housing Committee and Community Development California Legislative Action Committee
|
Continued Funding of CotoVoice is mis-use of Association funds January 12, 2006 Coto de Caza, California The continued
funding of CotoVoice is yet another instance of board members pursuing personal
agendas over association interests as indicated below. NOTE:
The 2003-2005 Coto de Caza Home Owner's Association board of directors led by
Bob Varo and Jerry Mezger introduced a costly glossy monthly newsletter as a
"new marketing campaign". After the flop, they decided to
finance CotoVoice to promote their personal agenda of turning the Coto de Caza
community into a city - CotoVoice bills itself as "The News and Views of
the Coto de Caza Community". 1.
In the words of CJ Klug, “anyone can put up a web site to inform or mis-inform”.
Seems like the current board/Keystone has decided to use the CZ website
to mis-inform: The site is poorly
maintained and contains factual errors, perhaps a reason why it is rarely used.
Yet, instead of using the site to maintain residents informed with
specific, factual, relevant, timely information, the board decides to pay for
advertising in CotoVoice. 2.
In advertising, placement is everything.
Jerry’s wife continues to get premium placement in CotoVoice.
It does not take a rocket science degree to understands that this is not
coincidence, but smacks of conflict of interest. 3.
The January issue of CotoVoice contains an article praising the quick UPS
action. But the association has
refused to even acknowledge the various complaints submitted against UPS and UPS
personnel, including the incidence where a person suffered a mis-carriage
shortly after she was belittled and embarrassed by the folks responsible for the
transponder program. Edmonds never
responded to requests for action. Additionally,
neither Keystone nor the board has been able to develop key business indicators
to assure that service providers are doing their job. The concept of service level agreements seems to be foreign,
except in the case of the CHP – the CP contract has received the most
scrutiny, as if indeed the agency was composed of extortionists.
Yet in the case of UPS, a statement of work has never been produced and
the board now is using association funds to try to repair the service
provider’s image, while calling the CHP extortionists during a board meeting!
A clear case of misplaced priorities. 4.
In the January 2006 issue of CotoVoice, CJ Klug worries about vandalism
in the Estates and Villages – last time I checked the CC&Rs, the
association is not responsible for the Estates and Villages – perhaps you can
clarify? 5.
In the January 2006 issue of CotoVoice, CJ encourages readers to used the
CZ website to check for delegates. Yet
Keystone has refused to clarify status of Sean Larkin – still listed in the
website as district delegate. 6.
The January 2006 issue of CotoVoice dedicates a lot of space to discuss
the Orange County Board of Supervisors action with regards to repealing section
6-4-200 and in the process mis-informs and tackles a political issue which if
not illegal now, shortly it will be. Clear
division of work in unincorporated areas between the Sheriff and the CHP is a
political issue between Sacramento and the county of Orange. At the moment, Coto de Caza as a private community can only
have pro-active traffic control through the CHP, unless the board continues to
pursue personal agendas and create a CSD. As
Jay Leno says, if a cash card is as good as cash, why would you even buy a card?
Likewise, if the only reason to turn Coto into a city is to buy proactive
traffic control services from the Sheriff, why not buy it directly from the CHP.
After all, as Supervisor Wilson has testified, pro-active traffic control
by the Sheriff will be very expensive In
the same article, CotoVoice states there is NO FINANCIAL IMPACT from the repeal
of the ordinance. Clearly
misleading. Misleading as well is
the final note in the article stating that “Residents of Coto de Caza and
other un-incorporated areas were dis-appointed”.
Which brings into question exactly what CotoVoice I supposed to do, if
not advance personal agendas? Especially
since the tools currently in place to inform CZ residents are being so grossly
mis-managed!
| Post comment | Read Comments |
|
|||||||||||||
January 12, 2006
Hello All: Jerry Mezger does not understand the concept of conflict of interests. It does not bother him as a sitting Board Member that Universal guards at our gates that we all pay for are handing out ads for his wife's business which clearly (unless his wife is really smart) he is benefiting from in terms of family income. Gosh, I would have loved to use the Association to support my wife's favored charity when I served on the Board; but I and the others who served with me always understood the line between service to the community and self servicing behaviors and actions that smell from the peaks of the Pinnacles to the hills of Weatherly.
Fair Use Notice
|
FAIR USE NOTICE |
