This is the second blog in a series about lessons learned at the April 26 Board meeting.
When we don’t get what we paid for, we should send it back.
This blog is about how it is always “lose-lose” when the SCA Board abdicates to attorneys instead of being guided by:
- common sense,
- NRED Board training,
- owner oversight and
- professional management standards of practice.
This blog is about the overuse and wrong use of the SCA attorneys to protect individual Board members and the GM, and actively, purposely hurting owners – all on owners’ dime.
Special thanks go to Rex Weddle and Sandy Seddon for setting the mean-spirited and divisive tone at the top that has prevented all neighborly, amicable resolution of differences on their watch.
Highlights of legal expenditures
- First quarter 2018 – $101,300 more than double the $48,750 budget
- 2017 quarterly budget was $22,500, so $101,300 was nearly five times what was expected to spend in a quarter last year
- In 2015, before self-management SCA actually spent $116,292 for lawyers
- In 2014, $52,219 was spent for the whole year.
- In 2016,the whole year of lawyers was $118,861, but that was before buckets of money were extracted from owners’ pockets in 2017 to pay to be aggressively serviced by the Clarkson Law Group
Again, a special thanks to Rex and Sandy for their utter disregard of best practices and fair play to make owners pay attorneys to keep your dirty little secrets.
What are we getting for our money?
Can we figure it out from the budget variance “explanation”?
“NRED, FAS, Director liability, policy updates, etc.”
Pretty unsatisfactory explanation, I’d say. I’ll also say these ridiculous legal fees are not necessary expenditures. They are only necessary if the Board is duped into doing everything the hard way instead of opting for the ounce of prevention.
Some of these fees are also caused by individual Board members and the GM using the attorneys in inappropriate ways, and the attorney leading, or going along with, unfairly stripping owners’ of their legal protections. The attorney makes big bucks as a quid pro quo for the Board abandoning even the appearance of controlling budget policy.
SCA leaders refuse to be transparent about what they are doing, but I think you all should know what you are buying.
And remember, unlike blogger # 3, Mr. (name redacted), who was drummed out of the legal profession for forging a judge’s signature, I will swear under oath to the truth of what I say, and I will, willingly and openly, back my words up with evidence.
I’ll show you in Lesson 3 why attorneys’ lies about me are so serious and why doing this to one owner hurts ALL owners.