This page is for posting e-mails, opinions and feedback that we receive through our website, local news sources and sometimes by snail mail. If you have a comment, gripe, words of wisdom, website link or suggestion we will post it here unedited and without comment as is our policy. Submissions must include name and lot number and may be sent to the e-mail address at the bottom of this page. Any of the views and/or opinions presented in these submissions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Save Apache Wells Committee or their supporters. January 8, 2015 Dear Board members, First of all I would like to know if these new (Fitness Center) rules have been or will be implemented. Also I cannot really see why Sharon Gordon would have to be consulted on this matter. She is not a board member and her weight should carry no more influence than mine or any other member of the Association IE: all dues paying members. If the new rules are implemented simply from the authority that the board has then I would like the board to implement the rule that NO birds are fed by any member other than Humming Birds. The simple reason for no bird feeding is the diseases that they carry and the mess that they create by every light pole in the park. Sincerely Tim Bruder, Lots #105 & #1197 December 5, 2014 The current rules require that anyone under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a responsible adult to use the pool and fitness center facilities. A motion was made by Jim Tilbe, 2nd by Donna Richardson that youngsters 10 to 18 years of age will be allowed to use the Aquatic/Fitness Center facilities when accompanied by a parent. Youngsters under 10 years of age would not be allowed to use the facilities. The motion made by Jim Tilbe, 2nd by Donna Richardson was tabled until Sharon Gordon could be consulted on the issue. December 4, 2014 Tim, Thank you for your recent email. I would like your permission to post your email unedited and without comment on the SAW Opinion Page ( http://www.saveapachewells.com). This would allow others to consider your views. I would also like you to attend a Board Meeting and/or HOA Meeting in the near future and speak to your concerns that were mentioned in your email. I await your response. Bob Teague, Secretary November 29, 2013 This board can really find ways to take our money. What is the EXCUSE this time? Is the BOON DONGLE ever going to be starting and completed. The last time I talked to you told me you were in favor of the project because it would not cost the home owners a cent. Well that is a blatant lie. Just look at the budget and tell me why there is a line item that mentions the "Fitness Center". If we (home owners) are not paying a cent why is there a line for it in the budget. The next thing that I am not at all happy about is the fact that Community Manager Annie Colegrove is on The Budget Committee. She does not live in Apache Wells. So she should have zero influence with what happens the budget. I only wish I had real deep pockets, because I would be taking our board to court for mismanagement. Apache Wells should not be spending our money on a Community Manager-----period. There are many people that live in Apache Well that are more than qualified to run the office without paying the very ridiculous salary. I never made anything near the money we are paying her. And I have several degrees. RANT turned off. I expect a reasoned responce. Tim Bruder, Lots #105 & #1197 December 10, 2012 I just re-read your reply, as I did not see all of your reply after the removal section. For the life of me I cannot understand where these people dream up some of their ideas as to what is "good" for the community. There simply is not enough activity to warrant a "new" Fitness Center. I do not frequent it, but my wife has been there many times. She has never seen more than five people there while she has been there. I would be very interested to see the list of people that have actually signed in. I believe I will be asking for that in the near future. See that there is only three people running for three positions I see no reason why you would not get elected. Unless Brian Johnson plays the same routine that he did to get Joice Lange effectively taken out of the race back a few years ago. You will get my vote. From both properties I own. I can only hope the others that are running are not just more lackeys for the board to have vote their way. I will be in touch from time to time. Tim Bruder, Lots #105 & #1197 May 2, 2013 We would like to thank our volunteers on the security team here at Apache Wells for their dedication in keeping our community safe. They put in many long hours and deserve the special thanks from the residents of AW. So if you haven't given them a special wave or stop to thank them, do it! Thanks for another safe season volunteers! The Langes Lot #1205 December 7, 2012 Lovely Fitness Center plans, I just hope that we homeowners that have never and will never use the facility won't be obligated or burdened with paying for any of it.There was no mention of the approximate cost of this new facility. It's great that those that use the fitness center faithfully have donated monitarily to their new building, hope that continues . Why the elevator, being a "fitness center", wouldn't stairs be more appropriate? The Langes Lot #1205 August 15, 2012
The role of the HOA apathy affliction in circumventing public policy In my prior Commentary, See The HOA apathy affliction: a political dynamic, I wrote about the HOA attorney driven recourse to complete rewrites of the CC&Rs that works because of the apathy affliction that is thriving in HOA-Land. I would like to now add that this approach, in general, is an intentional violation of your state’s public policy. Public policy is expressed in many ways by the actions or inactions, and statements or non-statements by government officials in the executive, judiciary and legislative branches. What bills are made law or not passed, and the intention of the legislature, when and if explicitly stated, makes public policy. In Arizona, for instance, HB 2441 (2011 session) was submitted and aggressively supported by the CAI chapter. It contained, among other things, a provision for the minority control of the CC&Rs amendment process by allowing as low as 33% of the all members to approve an amendment. While the Apache Wells rewrite contains a very vague and loose requirement for amending the CC&RS in contrast to the detail by-laws amendment process, it lacks homeowner protections. There are no requirements for notice, meeting at which the voting is to take place, no approval requirement, etc. (The prior 1987 CC&Rs required a majority approval of all the members). The 50% vote is misleading as to homeowner protections without all of the above in place, as has occurred in the Fourth Amendment rewrite with respect to the minority approval of special assessments (See below and the prior Commentary link).. 10.4. Amendments. At any time this Declaration may be amended by an instrument in writing, executed by the then Lot Owners of more than fifty percent (50%) of the Lots in the Project. Any amendment approved pursuant to this Section 10.4 of this Declaration shall be signed by the President of the Association and shall become effective upon recordation of the same with the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona. Any such amendment shall certify that the amendment has been approved as required by this Section 10.4. But, when it comes to approving special assessments (Section 7.5 of the CC&Rs), which could be almost any amount like the assessments to pay off an $8.5 million loan for a suspect community center building in 2007, the rewrite allows for a 25% approval of any special assessment. (The prior 1987 CC&Rs required a majority ratification of the special assessment by all the members). The point that I wish to make is that the special assessment rewrite is only one example of how minority control fails to protect the homeowner. Another example is the attorney self-interest covenant, 10.2, Administrative Law Proceedings, which states in part, In the event the Association is required to incur any expense, including attorneys’ fees and costs, as a result of the direct or indirect actions of any Owner, the Association shall be entitled to recover all such expenses incurred, including all attorneys’ fees and costs, against the applicable Owner, regardless of whether formal proceedings are actually filed, pursued or awarded . . . . The public policy of the State of Arizona was made clear in 2006 when ALJs were permitted to hear HOA disputes, and no attorney fees were allowed to be awarded in these hearings. The CAI attorneys managed to have the law declared unconstitutional, which resulted in a reaffirmation of the legislative intent in 2011 to provide for ALJ adjudication without attorney fee. The intent of the legislature was explicitly stated in the new bill. The inclusion of section 10.2 in the Apache Wells CC&Rs rewrite can only be viewed as another intentional slap at Arizona public policy, and one in the best interests of the HOA hired-hand attorney. The covenant for minority approval of special assessments, given the history of special assessments at Apache Wells, is another act of bad faith and disregard for public policy. The recourse to CC&R amendment rewrites with the reality of the apathy affliction so prevalent in HOA-Land is a devise to circumvent public policy in order to achieve goals and objectives not in the best interests of the homeowner. The Restatement of Property: Servitudes, Section 3.1, Validity of Servitudes, "A servitude [covenant running with the land] . . . is valid unless it is illegal or unconstitutional or violates public policy." It is only the acts and actions of the people within HOAs that can return them to the American way of life. August 14, 2012
The HOA apathy affliction: a political dynamic. Everyone is unhappy with the pronounced apathy among those living in HOA-Land, where the lack of homeowner protections works for the power-elite, the board and its attorney. *CAI has complained many times about apathy when homeowners complain about the conduct of their boards. CAI also complains how it can’t make "necessary" changes to the CC&Rs to bring them current with the laws. Because of this apathy, homeowner advocates who are aware of the inequities of their HOA predicament cannot get their good neighbors — those who pay their dues and obey the rules — to support them in their efforts to obtain justice for all members. A recent approach being used by **CAI in Arizona is to call for the complete rewrite of the CC&Rs to make the HOA a better place, the ostentatious reason, while including even more oppressive covenants and covenants that are highly favorable to the HOA attorney and its income stream. In order to accomplish this, recourse is made to playing loosey-goosey with the strict Arizona laws for amending the CC&Rs. The law requires a written explanation of each and every change being made, which can be cumbersome, but the law is there to protect the homeowners. It’s a cost of making sweeping amendments all at once. But the homeowners say and do nothing except to sign away their rights as good team players. The political impact of these sweeping changes is made real by the apathy of the majority of the homeowners to agree to whatever the board proposes with the blessings of the HOA attorney, who wrote the revised CC&RS. They can affect your pocketbook, your property rights, and your already weak voting rights. A common change, minority control, was defeated in the 2011 legislative session that permitted minority control of the amendment process, thereby giving the political machine in power basically complete control of the HOA and over its apathetic members. This political tactic relies on homeowner apathy to succeed. It removes a vote of all the members and the long held doctrine of a supermajority vote, usually 67%, and replaces it with a majority vote of only those voting. Even with a 50% quorum as little as a 25% approval can affect the rights of ALL members, whether they agree or not. And with the pro-HOA laws and unconscionable adhesion CC&Rs contract, the members will be just pawns in the hands of the board – just pay your dues and shut up, or else! Homeowner apathy is a serious affliction in HOA-Land. Under the current environment, it is the homeowner who must stand up and fight for his rights, in the HOA and at the legislature to change the laws. Read about the Fourth Amendment to the Apache Wells CC&Rs, one real example. Just scroll down.
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE (CAI) LINKS July 8, 2012 I have recieved several emails regarding the passing of the new CC&Rs, as to whether we as residents will have the opportunity to review the submitted votes - to check for accuracy. The current board has assured we residents, that their stance is" TRANSPARENCY", so denying us the oppurtunity to check out these votes would be the opposite. With all the troubles in the past with votes, it would be a good thing and the right thing to give the residents this oppurtunity. Thank you. Langes Lot #1205 March 7, 2012 My husband & I both attended both HOA meetings regarding the new CC&R's, and until last night, we both were somewhat confused on "exactly" what the new changes were on the voting procedure.... we sure know now what they want to change! The new CC&R 7.5 would eliminate "the majority vote (51%) of all homeowners" on approving any future special assessments. If approved, it would only take the majority vote of half of the residents (about 721) present and voting to pass them. So if only 800 residents vote on a special assessment, and 401 vote "yes", it passes. It's your pocket book folks, but for us, and our friends, our vote will be a big "NO" on these new CC&R changes! I was told that some 1,100 people use the fitness center per month, I counted the names on the sign-in sheets, and only come up with a little over 100 different people using it. Same people using it multiple times? There's no way that 1,100 people use the current fitness center per month. The numbers rose a little in January, but still not 1,100. I spoke with a resident that uses the current fitness center often and he stated that each time he's in there, there's only maybe 2-3 there. He also stated that the facility seems quite adequate to him, and he was amazed when I told him of the plans for the new fitness center, over 5,000 sq feet. The figure circulating is approximate one million for the new fitness center. I purchased my own fitness equipment, no one helped us pay for it. I thought it was a wonderful idea that they started raising monies for the new fitness center. Why not continue that until you have reached your goal and not possibly put an assessement on us homeowners that never use it? Thanks very much, Langes Lot #1205 January 10, 2012 My husband and I went up to the open house of our new homeowner's hall. We were very impressed with how it turned out. Nice and bright, nice choice of wall colors and texture, all in all, very well planned out...... great job to all who did all of the hard work. It's nice that all of the property is part of Apache Wells. Great job Paul DeMond on the purchase price of that building and your tough negotiations. The Langes Lot #1205 July 29, 2011 Mr. Rees's letter of 7/27/11 contains his usual concerns which lack justification or documentation, however he does have one valid question. What did happen to the $10,000 balance of donated funds reported at the last SAW meeting? Many residents that donated in good faith to improve Apache Wells may be rethinking what might be a better improvement and also wonder where that money is. No doubt the treasurer has it in a bank account and can account for the full amount. Many improvements have been made in Apache Wells the last few years, and there is room for more improvements. Well worth thinking about, Thank you Lynn. Tom Finger Lot #1145 Editor's Note: The $10,000 balance from the SAW lawsuit settlement mentioned in Tom Finger's email submission is in a bank account under the watchful eye of the SAW Committee treasurer. In the event that a future legal action becomes necessary, it would provide funds to hire an attorney. We welcome comments from the membership on this issue. SAW is alive and well and wishes to thank recent Boards for their efforts in promoting transparency and openness in managing the affairs of Apache Wells. July 27, 2011 Doesn’t anyone care? I have watched as people in Africa and the Middle East have finally had enough of being ignored concerning their rights and have decided to take action against those oppressive regimes to obtain their rights to govern themselves after decades and even centuries of misrule. And I contrast this with our situation in Apache Wells where we, the members are totally shutout from any voice in how we are governed, in violation of our bylaws which set forth our rights and those of our board of directors, hereinafter the board. We see board after board get elected and sworn in, at the annual homeowners meeting, to obey our bylaws and then immediately proceed to ignore those bylaws during their terms in office: Some examples: 1) Under our bylaws we, the members, are supposed to set policy for the board for the coming year at the annual meeting. This is completely ignored. 2) We are supposed to be fully informed about the business of the board. This is a joke. Secrecy is in and transparency is out. The minutes of the board meetings are too sketchy and uninformative. In most instances they do not mention the amounts of contracts or other items that are paid. 3) The Budget: The board not only prepares the budget, but goes ahead and approves and adopts it without any input from the members. We don’t even know the composition of the budget committee and when it meets and if we are advised of when it meets, it is useless to attend because we are not allowed to ask questions or make recommendations. And it is mostly gobbledygook because the committee only refers to numbered items instead of what is the actual budget item being considered. 4) Property purchase: Another example of secrecy. The board buys real property without a definite plan for it and does not keep us informed about negotiations. And then the board puts us in debt by borrowing money to pay for it without our sayso and approval. All this is a violation of the intent and spirit of our bylaws and without any specific authorization from the bylaws!! 5) Committee appointments: The board appoints committees without stating the mission of the committee and without setting forth the powers of the committee. A glaring example of this is the “documents committee” which was set up in late 2009 without setting forth what its purpose and powers were! The committee then abrogated unto itself the power to change our bylaws and CC&Rs and spent hundreds of dollars of Our money without any authorization and is preparing to put its effort to the members sometime for adoption. This whole effort is illegal and in complete violation Of our present bylaws! 6) The next problem is going to be the razing of the shower room and the workout room. Supposedly, the shower rooms do not match up to those of other associations in this area, although there is no showing of how, who or who made this determination! (Secrecy!!) And then comes the matter of the workout room. Apparently, the board has decided (again, without the knowledge and input of the membership) that this room is not adequate and is planning to tear it down and build a much larger room out to the west to the sidewalk. Now this could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars and the membership is not being consulted about this, let alone being informed of the board’s plans for it and the shower rooms!(Secrecy!) This is a real extra Anza. I probably use the workout room more than anyone else. I would venture to say that not more than 50 different members use this during the year. And during the peak winter months a lot of the users are relatives of members. Spread out over a 12 month period I would say the room doesn’t average more than 20 to 25 users daily. This is terrible waste of our money just for less that 3% of our membership! Here again, the board is acting secretly and not in the best interests, financially at least, of the membership. The very least the board should do is first determine if there is an interest by the membership for this and, if so, then try and determine what is practical and feasible financially. The above are just some random thoughts that come to mind. There are innumerable past incidents of violations of our bylaws, some of which I have mentioned in prior letters. The one thing that stands out in this community is its apparent apathy concerning how we are governed. Very few members even dare to protest against the actions, past and present, of the board. At one time we had an ad hoc organization called SAW which attempted to try and do something about our local government but that has disappeared although there is approximately $10,000.00 of unspent donated funds still remaining in its account. There is an old saying which says “you get the kind of government you deserve” and this is so true. Lynn Rees, Lot #944
May 14, 2011 We wish to thank our current HOA board president Paul De Mond for doing such a great job in our community. He's done the job that he was elected to do... to LISTEN to the residents, and put their needs and concerns above any personal agenda. Thank you Paul and we hope all of our future presidents do such a good job! We have heard from many residents that this past season has been one of the calmest and relaxing winters in a few years with no bickering or fighting. Let's just hope it remains that way. A big THANK YOU to Bob Teague also for doing such a fine job on our web site, keeping us all informed on events and important information on government laws and regulations that may have an impact on HOAs. Thanks Bob! Have a safe summer to all! The Langes Lot #1205 February 2, 2011 Thank God for this proposed Senate Bill SB1148! It's about time! With the horrific happenings over at Sunland Village, this bill is greatly needed there and in other HOA communities. When homeowners are kept out of decision making by their boards or have little input, this is a dangerous situation, especially with an unstable person. Let's hope that what happened at Sunland Village doesn't ever happen in our community. If any of you didn't read the recent article in the Republic, an angry homeowner at Sunland Village allegedly threatened to bring a gun to a board meeting, so the meeting was canceled. All it takes is a little TRANSPARENCY to give homeowners confidence and assurance that our elected board of directors have "all" of our best interests at heart. So "PLEASE" contact your district's legislator, email, or call, in support of this bill SB1148. We homeowners need to show our support for this bill. The Langes, Lot #1205 January 27, 2011 Notes re recent purchase of realty building: A thorough reading of our bylaws leads me to the conclusion that this deal was another in a series of wrongful acts by our board. Section 1. C of Article II of our bylaws entitled "Purposes", reads as follows: "The specific purpose of the Association shall be: "C. To own, buy, sell, lease, rent, manage, repair or otherwise have property, both real and personal, for the use, benefit and mutual enjoyment, of the property owners/or residents of the Apache Wells community." Nowhere in the bylaws does it say anything about the association having the right to borrow money. Under the law, when specific powers are enumerated in a document, the entity given the specific powers does not have any other rights. The entity is limited to those specific powers enumerated. I bring this up because I can foresee somebody challenging this purchase and if it gets into a court of law, the members of the board could find themselves being personally liable for such act in spite of their errors and omissions insurance. Lynn Rees, Lot #944 January 15, 2011
Things I would like to see happen in Apache Wells in the future beginning with the coming annual meeting on January 17, 2011. These are not put down in any particular order of importance: If someone will bring these matters up at the annual homeowners meeting, I think we will be making the first step towards a true "open" board which will make for a much better Operation in the future. This is my hope and prayer for Apache Wells. Lynn Rees, Lot #944 December 30, 2010 Comment on board meeting of 12-23-2010:
It is most distressing to watch this board "operate". I went to the board meeting and asked a few questions. Most of the answers were given with a blunt "no". One of the questions was an inquiry as to whether the board had its own appraisal made. After a long speech by Cheri Whalen to the effect that the seller had an appraisal by a very reputable company, the board president finally admitted that it had not had its own appraisal made! Apparently a mere outlay of $275,000.00 did not warrant getting an appraisal. What a way to handle a real estate sale! Every seller should be so lucky! Other things that came out at the meeting included the following: The board treats us like we are its servants instead of the board being our servants! But this board is no different than previous boards. We are kept in the dark about what is going on in the park. And as long as we do not do anything about this it will continue to "operate" in the same way! And what was the need for this hastily called "special" meeting? It could have waited until the next regular meeting. Methinks the president wanted get this done during his term. Lynn Rees, Lot #944 November 13, 2010 Transparency-Secrecy: Notes re recent board and HOA meetings: A reading of minutes of the Nov. 4 board meeting and the Nov. 9 HOA meeting immediately brought to mind several questions, to-wit:
Re board meeting: Second: What is the item called "signage for activity complex?" How did this come about and just what does it entail? Third: Re the garbage contract motion: What was the amount of the bid? Were other bids obtained? If so, what were they? If not, why not?
Re HOA meeting: Re realty building: What is the present status of this? Is the board determined to buy the building? Do we have our own appraisal? If not, why not? Who, if any, is in charge of this? Why has there not been a committee on this? Is there a plan for what to do with the building, and if so, what is it? And if so, why haven't we, the members, been informed of it? What is the estimated cost of any remodeling of the building? Why was the membership not given the right to decide if we wanted to buy? The building in clear violation of the intent and spirit of our rules? How does the board intend to pay for it? If we are going to borrow to pay for it, where does the board get the authority to borrow, especially without the approval of the membership? These are just a few of the questions that I feel the board should answer. Lynn Rees, Lot #944 October 26, 2010 Re: Transparency, secrecy and "Dejavu" all over again Once again we are being led down the primrose path by our board. Like prior boards, it is ignoring our governing documents, notably our bylaws and articles of consolidation and doing things in violation of the spirit, purpose and intent of our laws. I refer to the matter of the real estate building, hereinafter the building, which is located just south of the ill-fated bank building which has been a matter of some contention in the way in which it was handled. It was all done in secrecy and now the same thing is happening with the building in question. As a result there is a rumor going around saying that the board is going ahead with the purchase of the building without even getting its own appraisal. The rumor says that the board is accepting the owner's word as to the value of the property! If this is true, this is a terrible way to do business. If true, it is even worse than the bank building deal where the board got its own appraisal from a reputable firm and the board president made a deal with the seller/and or lender for a price that was $200,000.00 more than the board's appraisal. At that time we were told that we had the money to pay for the bank building without having to assess the lot owners; but the reality is that we had to borrow the money and we are still paying for it! It is obvious that the board intends to make this purchase without submitting it to the vote of the membership which is completely contrary to the intent, spirit and purpose of our bylaws which intended to give the board free rein in matters concerning the common property of the association, but not for matters concerning such things as buying real property which requires the approval of the membership after being "fully informed" (emphasis supplied.) In other words we should have the power to decide whether or not we want to assess ourselves for such purposes. Needless to say, that is not the situation here. The board does not want to put the matter to a vote of the membership because it fears the outcome, i.e. defeat. I attended the recent budget committee on Monday, Oct. 11, and have to confess that it was not very informative. It was obvious that the committee had had prior meetings or discussions because they were working with prepared figures. There was no mention of the actual budget name, but only reference to the numbered items in the budget. There was one instance where the actual budget name was mentioned and that was when one member referred to the building. I had the impression that the committee was including the purchase of the building in its deliberations. Incidentally, I have never seen anything in the minutes re the appointment and makeup of the budget committee. I hope I'm wrong. It is a shame that we don't have a present functioning SAW committee ready to do something about this and future actions of the board. Lynn Rees, Lot #944 October 8, 2010 The board's action yesterday to change the transfer fee to $500.00 is incredulous! If they did this on the recommendation of the attorney, then the board should get another attorney. Arizona law (33-1806 A & C) states that an association MAY (emphasis supplied) charge a member a "reasonable fee" to compensate the association for "COSTS INCURRED IN THE PREPARATION OF A STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSOCIATION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION." (Once again, my emphasis). Does anyone in their right mind think the association incurs $500.00 in making copies of the documents required by the law? $25.00 should be more than adequate! It is obvious that the board is using the transfer fee as a revenue producing measure which is illegal. Lynn Rees, Lot #944 September 28, 2010 To all AWHOA members: Now that the board members will probably be back for the October meeting we can expect that there will be an upturn in spending activities. The first item that comes to mind is the real estate building. It is obvious that the board is planning to buy it without the membership voting on it just like the bank buuilding fiasco which was $200,000.00 over the appraisal that the board obtained and for which we are still paying through the nose even though the board said we had the funds to pay for it and a vote of the membership was not necessary! It is interesting to note that the present board is saying the same thing now about the real estate building! Another item of interest is the budget committee meeting on Oct. 18. The board has generously allowed us to watch the committee (whoever they are) but stated that we cannot say anything! This is horrendous! It is our money that they are dealing with! Where does the board get the authority to appoint a budget committee and where does the board get the authority to adopt and approve a budget? This is, to use a time honored expression, "like putting the fox in charge of the hen house!" I urge all of you to attend the budget meeting and protest the way in which the budget is handled. After all, to paraphrase a popular TV ad "it's our money and we want to decide how it is spent!" L. Rees, Lot #944
September 26, 2010 House Bill 2768 became A.R.S. 33-442. Prohibition of transfer fees; exceptions; definitions on July 29, 2010, 90 days after it was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 9, 2010. The new law addresses Transfer Fee Covenants. Covenants as we all know are legal obligations and part of our AWHOA's CC&Rs. I have checked through our CC&Rs and find no reference there to any Transfer Fee Covenants. My next stop was to check the Arizona Revised Statutes. There are now 3 including the new A.R.S. 33-442. A.R.S. 10-3302(16) allows Nonprofit Corporations to "Impose dues, assessments, admission and transfer fees on its members". A.R.S. 33-1806(C) allows an HOA to charge a "reasonable" fee to compensate the association for the costs incurred in the preparation of documents required for the resale of property". A.R.S. 33-442 does allow an association to charge additional fees that become due at a close of escrow provided the associations governing documents grant authority for the fee and provides for a specified purpose for the assessment. A.R.S. 33-442 addresses provisions in a "declaration, covenant or any other document relating to real property" that bind successors in title and obligate payment of a fee to a declarant or a third person upon the transfer of property. The statute bans such fees. Currently Apache Wells has a $950 Transfer Fee. Is this a "reasonable" amount under state law? It is my opinion that we are currently in violation of A.R.S. 33-442 and that the AWHOA needs to take steps to bring us into compliance. Bob Teague Lot #196 September 22, 2010 I monitor the activity in the Senior Communities over the summer to keep them apprised of any trends or activity that needs their attention. Apache Wells has had a little activity, but nothing like past summers.
Here is what we are seeing since June 1:
Terri Teton September 15, 2010
In the East Valley Tribune, there was an article titled "Burglary Epidemic" in the Apache Wells area published in October 2004. Why aren't we reading about recent criminal activities here from our Apache Wells news media? This is serious stuff and all residents need to be informed, but not much has been mentioned. If it weren't for the this website for Apache Wells, we wouldn't have heard a word about it. Why is that? There needs to be a special notice sent out via email to all residents when this is occuring. Word of mouth or otherwise, it's important to know, so we can inform our caretakers to be more vigilant in keeping an eye on our properties. Those that continue every year to put the cardboard in their windows or chain their driveways are selfish, it only makes our community more vulnerable. These "scum bags" cruise our area because it's what they do for a living and any home that looks unattended is a target, like a welcome sign, come rob us! Wake up residents, keep lights, radios on at night, give up some of that bingo money and hire a caretaker, we will all be safer for it. Thanks The Langes Lot #1205 September 13, 2010 Why were there 2 weeks ago and yesterday, Sunday, more police at the same location?? Can't it be resolved before somebody again gets hurt?? Why can't residents get a weekly report on what goes on in here so we can know and be prepared?? Also, what became of the 2 reverse 911 calls from the Mesa PD on 9/9/10 at 4:33 p.m.?? Thx! R. Eicher Lot #977 September 5, 2010 I totally agree with your article Bob, and you do a remarkable job with this website to inform everyone in Apache Wells as well as them that are gone for the summer. The original intent of our newsletter was to inform residents monthly or whenever anything newsworthy happened. Word of mouth misinformation nearly destroyed Apache Wells at one time and every effort should be to let people know what has actually happened, not just monthly, but as soon as the facts are known. We have a few undesirable residents that attract the criminal element and bad publicity to our community and residents have to know the facts as soon as they are known. Keep up the good work Bob. Tom Finger Lot #1145 July 24, 2010 Here we go again! I cannot believe what I read in the July 22 meeting of the board! I know that this and past boards have an unquenchable thirst for spending our money together with a plan to keep raising our annual dues, but this is ridiculous! As the Langes' pointed out we are still paying through the nose for the unlawful bank purchase which was never voted upon by the members of the association and now the board is thinking of doing the same thing without we poor misguided members getting a chance to vote on it! DeJa Vu all over again! The realty building is not necessary for use as a workout room as it is too far from the pool and shower room and if it is looked upon as an investment then it becomes a problem for our non-profit tax exempt status! Just because it is for sale does not mean we HAVE to buy it! Lynn Rees, Lot #944 July 23, 2010 Wow, I sure wish Paul was the president of our board of directors at the time that the bank building deal went down, it may "not" have gone down! Thanks Paul and Cheri, for putting the "thinking caps" on and NOT just going ahead and making the purchase of the real estate building like what was done with the bank building..... BRAVO! The same held true for that bank building, we paid entirely too much for it and have sunk a large amount into it since the purchase for upgrades. I know, I know, it's done and over with, but one can still voice their dissatisfaction ! I'm sure the seller of the real estate building thought we would be ignorant enough to pay that high asking price of $600,000.00, seeings we paid over $700,000.00 for the bank building! Thanks again to our current board, especially Cheri and Paul for putting we home owner's concerns up for consideration in this matter. The Langes Lot #1205 May 28, 2010 Reports of real estate building being for sale Where do these reports come from? I have not noticed anything in the minutes of the board meetings about this. Is this somebody's way of starting a drive to buy this building? If so, I think it would be wise to squelch this immediately because all you have to do to get the board interested is to give it an excuse to spend our money and thereby make sure our annual dues will increase in the coming year! Many years ago, in 2006, if my memory serves me, the then board president made the statement in response to a question about the board's spending habits, stated that the annual dues were going to increase every year and if the questioner didn't like it, he could move! So far, this statement has proved to be accurate. Our boards have taken it. But in view of the board's last meeting on April 28 when they awarded a painting contract to heart and spend money like there is no tomorrow! Someone mentioned that a possible use for this building would be for a new exercise room. This would be a huge mistake. Location is all important and having the exercise room next to the pool, jacuzzi and shower rooms if an ideal place. Most eople who use the exercise room like to go into the pool and/or jacuzzi before showering. This would not be very practical from the real estate building. But in view of the board's last special meeting on April 28, before heading for the 5 month "break", when they awarded a $16,000.00 painting contract to the high bidder when there was a low bid of $7,500.00, I would not be surprised at anything it does! I still remember the bank deal where we paid $200,000.00 over our own appraisal on a variable mortgage (trust deed) in which the monthly payments were increased a huge amount 4 months later with no explanation! Lynn Rees, Lot #944 May 17, 2010 Tell us this isn't true? Here we go again, putting us farther into debt, we still owe a ton of money on that bank building, now they want to purchase that real estate building for some $600.000? Sure it would be nice to own that building, because it sits within our community, but in this depressed real estate market, it's too risky to make another HUGE purchase, not to mention the values of real estate is down. I think a select few are bound and determined to get their exercise room. That's what they want to spend over $600.000 of our homeowner's money on? If this continues, our dues will NEVER remain even one year the same, they will have to be raised each and every year. Wouldn't it be a good idea, to at least ask the homeowners how many actually would or do presently use the exercise room to justify spending over $600,000 to get that real estate building for that purpose? It would be a wise business decision, if we could lease out part of the building, only if it could pay the majority of the payment on it. We currently pay $10,000 every month to pay for that bank building, now how much more per month will this investment cost us? I hope our board reconsiders purchasing that real estate building, unless they plan on turning it into a hall for the homeowners! Thanks and have a wonderful summer The Langes Lot #1205 May 14, 2010 Subject: Last minute hijacks of board: At a hastily called special meeting on April 27, the board did some quick business in their haste to get away for the summer hiatus. They approved a bunch of contracts in a most interesting fashion, to-wit: The first contract was a contract for the painting of common area exteriors. There were 3 bids made by licensed and bonded contractors: The highest bid was for $16,795.00 and the low bid was for $7,500.00. When the chairman invited comments from the audience, I mentioned that all the bids being from supposedly reputable contractors, the board should accept the low bid because of its duty to act in the best financial interests of the Association. What do you think happened? They approved and accepted the highest bid which was more than double the low bid! Now comes the interesting and ironic part: The next bid to be considered was a bid for the painting of Rooms A,C and D. There was only a difference of about $200.00 between the low and high bids and a motion was made to accept the low bid because of the duty of the board to act in the best financial interests of the association! Are we not lucky to have such a thrift minded board?! What a nice parting shot for the long hot summer ahead! Is anybody concerned about this board's action in this matter? Lynn Rees, Lot #944 February 11, 2010 I want to thank our Board President Paul DeMond for calling this Special Board Meeting and reversing their decision to do away with the publishing of our Board minutes. It's great that he decided that we residents do have a say in some decisions and respected our input. The decisions made by our governing Board effects all of us in one way or another. I realize there's limited space in our Roundup and there's many different interests in what's published in it. It's so important to know what's going on and what decisions are being made, so if residents choose not to attend Board meetings, they are atleast able to read the minutes via email (if they have Internet access) as to what's going on. So thank you again Mr. DeMond for allowing us to have this input and reversing the decision to do away with making the minutes public. Mr. & Mrs. Lange Lot #1205
Recent Board happenings: It's hard to believe, but it looks as if this present board is going to be worse than its predecessor. First we have them hiring a so called recreational director (salary unknown)! This is beyond my comprehension. Why we need a rec director to tell us how to enjoy ourselves is an insult to our intelligence. All one has to do is look in the Roundup and you will see that there are more clubs and activities than you can shake a shoe at! Anyone who can't find something to occupy him or herself is in a bad way. And now we have the board determining that we can't read the minutes of board meetings in the Roundup! It's bad enough that we can't get the board to publish all the checks issued in the preceding month, but now they are going to prevent us from reading about what goes on in the board meetings! Boards are supposed to work in the best interests of its members and keep us fully informed as to their actions. Our boards do just the opposite. They try to keep us as uninformed as possible! I've said it before and I'll say it again! Our boards exist for just one purpose: to tax us as much as possible and spend as much as they can! Lynn Rees Lot #944 February 9, 2010 Once again our Board of Directors have chosen to make another huge change without the homeowner's input. Now they no longer want to publish "OUR" Board's meeting minutes in the Roundup or via email to the homeowners. It's hard enough to get homeowners involved and attend Board meetings. Now they think they will make a special effort to come up to the office to read the minutes? And if they want a copy of the minutes, will we be charged a copy fee? And "WHY" would they want to keep the minutes from us, where's the TRANSPARENCY? Many, if not most other communities publish all of this information to their residents.... nothing to hide. We all need to be informed as to the decisions made by our elected Board members, not diminish the information venues. PLEASE Mr. DeMond, reverse this decision and keep the openess and transparency for the sake of all homeowners. We deserve to know what is going on in our community. Thank you Mr. and Mrs. Lange Lot #1205
January 19, 2010 HASTE MAKES WASTE As I mentioned in my opinion posted on January 6, 2010 and in reference to the "depth conversion" or "filling in" of the deep end of our community pool..... "This plan came out of the Special Board Meeting held on Tuesday December 22nd at 5:15PM. The Nonprofit Corporations Act (A.R.S. 10-3822) requires that these meetings be publicized at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting. We were given less than 28 hours notice. This is based on when we receive the email at 2:24PM on Monday December 21st." Why were homeowners upset over this? This time it was a vote on a very important decision, one, which I strongly feel, should have gone to the people for a vote or survey or at least the opportunity to speak before the Board on the issue. It was done so hastily that they had to call two members on the phone in order to get a quorum (one of which somehow got disconnected). The meeting lasted 15 minutes. It never ceases to amaze me how the Board continuously just bulls head long to do things in here without any concern for all the homeowners. Even when some of us voice our concerns, it is not taken seriously. We get jeered, booed, laughed at and the Board ends up with praises, standing ovations and applauded for all that they do. This is clearly neglecting their fiduciary responsibilities to ALL of the homeowners. Unfortunately the damage has already been done to our pool, which I feel has been severely compromised and we will be having major problems down the road. My opinion only, but we shall see. I wish the Board would stop pushing things through so fast and without any consideration of the homeowners as a whole and the state statutes. This is very sad and bad for this community. Judith A. Teague Lot #196
Editor�s Note: As a member of the Homeowners Institute I obtained the following opinion on this 'noticing of meetings' issue from one of their attorneys: January 11, 2010 A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum... At least some find the Apache Wells Board Meetings Funny. Okay, I'll play (as one Board member said, just trying to add some levity). The one pleasure, outside of golf for sure, for many here at Apache Wells, is the pool. During the summer months many of us who live in Apache Wells year-round gravitate to the wonderful pool for relief from the scorching heat and the dreaded beat, beat, beat, of air conditioning. Now, if we have a leak at the pool, we need to fix it. The skimmers need attention as well. The cool decking in the summer (can't speak for the winter), is in need of real cool decking. The Board has decided, without input from the community as a whole, to change the depth of the deep end of the pool. This depth conversion decision will change the depth in the deep end of the pool from 8' to 5 1/2'. Many present at the Board meeting - like those FLASH gatherings done through the internet... or the drama - happy to report no drama--just laughter caused by those of us who asked questions... Now you are wondering why this matter of the depth conversion was being re-addressed considering the decision was approved at a Special Board Meeting hastily called on the 22nd of December 2009. As President Whalen stated, this re-address was atypical... so why re-address a voted on decision? I will let President Whalen answer that... for I know not the reason (I think I heard because someone had a question). The depth conversion was re-approved by the Board January 7, 2010... how did they come to that decision and why is the depth being changed? Keep in mind the output here is only as good as the input by the decision makers. Heating cost?? - Isn't the water heated by Solar? (I know you will correct information if it is wrong) - Water costs... okay, I guess 30,000 gallons of water put into the pool once is a huge cost . (the pool had to be drained for repairs anyway, so we will be paying for the refill and the cost for changing the depth)... there are no cooling needs (unless you can come up with a canopy or... )... perhaps the person at the meeting (who provided some numbers ), when called on by a Board member to explain the theory of relativity, could provide a cost analysis... oh, but wait folk's... the decision has been made... no cost analysis, only assumptions (we all know what assuming does). More people can use the pool? Who can't use the pool? The pumps weren't working, that is why it was cool at the deep end? HUH! A Board member did mention a previous Board member had suggested the depth conversion years ago - this previous board member sounds as revered as the Hawaiians revere King Kameamea... maybe we will find out why it wasn't done years ago... maybe the HOA members were more involved. Madame President did offer to meet to explain in more detail why we should do this major depth conversion. We should have taken her up on her offer if it would have delayed the vote... but, of course, we know the vote would not have been delayed. So all in all a funny thing did happen on the way to the forum - it is too bad more of you weren't there - especially those who use the pool in the summertime. Now we have a pool no deeper than 5 1/2' - nice and warm and cozy in the winter, and lacking any relief in the summer. As Joyce Lange suggested, a survey of the community regarding the depth conversion would have been ideal. What is so bad about a survey, one way or the other - it's called democracy. Oh, if only, too late - Happy New Year everyone - more than 60 homes for sale in community - hummm... Perhaps at the next meeting I will bring my resume as so many at this meeting seemed to have done. Can't wait to hear the results of the voting for the new Board members - the past results have looked like the Tudor family. IMHO. Jan Roberts Lot #0042 January 10, 2010 Typical "Whalenese" language. Obviously designed to try and keep the membership uninformed. If she had said the board had approved a contract to change the depth of the pool to five feet (5') I am sure there would have been some backtalk. It is interesting to again note that there has been no information given by the board regarding the cost of the contract and other terms. How much longer are we going to stand for this kind of deliberate misinformation? Is this transparency? Lynn Rees Lot #944 January 7, 2010 As I always try to do, I attended our Board of Director's meeting this morning. Whatever the reason for the unusually large turn out of homeowners, I am glad to see such a great turnout. I wish each and every Board meeting had such a large turnout. What I am disappointed in, is the fact that when a homeowner gets up to speak, which is his or her obligation as a homeowner, is that they get booed, sneered at and laughed at from those that may not agree with their statements, or have the same views. This is so disrespectful and rude. Everyone has the right to be heard. we are all adults and should act so. My concern was simply that we as homeowners should ALL have had a voice in this huge decision to fill in the deep end of OUR pool. A survey would have been welcomed and I believe a necessity. Our pool is a huge asset and we all own that pool and our younger generation love it also. Many would have not even purchased in AW without a pool. Thank you to our Board of Directors for all of your hard work. Expanding Room A was a wonderful idea, but I'm sorry, this filling in of the pool without a survey of the homeowners just took my faith in you back two steps. Our Board of Directors were elected to "SERVE" our community, not to just vote on such a huge decision without ALL of our input. Sadly submitted, Mr. & Mrs. Lange Lot #1205 January 6, 2010 What is this? How many years have we heard the Board of Directors whine and cry over wanting bigger and better amenities to lure the Baby Boomers to our community? So why are they planning to fill in the deep end of our pool? We have this beautiful Olympic size pool and they want to turn it into a wading pool. This plan came out of the Special Board Meeting held on Tuesday December 22nd at 5:15PM. The Nonprofit Corporations Act (A.R.S. 10-3822) requires that these meetings be publicized at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting. We were given less than 28 hours notice. This is based on when we receive the email at 2:24PM on Monday December 21st. Not all of our homeowners have email, although many neighbors who do share information with those who don't. Also, many residents were gone for the holidays, preparing for the Christmas holiday or just couldn't make the meeting on such short notice. No matter, it is a poor way to call a meeting and once again neglecting their fiduciary responsibility to the community. Where is the transparency they promised? And yet they wonder why we don�t trust them and get angry over how they operate. I for one find this unforgivable. We've had this pool since the early 60's. Now they want to save a little money when we have a million dollar plus budget. How did we do it before for all these years? What's next? Sadly submitted, Judi Teague Lot #196 January 2, 2009 What is in a title? Why call an activity by a title that would indicate it is something other than what it is? Why call Karoake entertainment drink and dance? I went to private party here at Apache Wells on New Years Eve. There was Karoake entertainment and also a pot luck meal, so most everyone brought a dish. There was lots of good food. It was a BYOB as well. Most people brought something to drink and not always alcohol. Nor did everyone dance at the party, but everyone there did have something to eat. Everyone there did enjoy the Karoake although not everyone performed. I asked Ernie Shoults why they changed the name to drink and dance instead of Karoake? He said he did not change it. So my question is who did and why? What is the logic? What is to be accomplished? More residents of Apache Wells might attend the monthly Karoake if they knew what they were going to do. Am I misinformed? Are the residents of Apache Wells being mislead and why? There are some residents here that just might enjoy a evening of relaxation and music. And yes a drink and a dance. And every one likes to eat. Lola Daniels Lot #1178 December 31, 2009 AS A CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN APACHE WELLS, I WISH TO CLEAR UP SOMETHING MENTIONED IN MR. REES DECEMBER 23RD COMMENTS ON THE OPINIONS & FEEDBACK PAGE. WHEN I AND THE OTHER CANDIDATES WERE ASKED HOW WE STOOD ON THE WORDING OF THE CURRENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BYLAW I MISSPOKE WHEN I SAID I SUPPORTED "THE MAJORITY OF HOMEOWNERS VOTING". I WAS A LITTLE NERVOUS AS YOU CAN WELL IMAGINE. WHAT I MEANT TO SAY WAS I SUPPORTED "THE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE ALL THE HOMEOWNERS" WHICH IS HOW THE BYLAW CURRENTLY READS. I SUPPORTED A NO VOTE THE LAST TIME AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IT TO "MAJORITY OF HOMEOWNERS PRESENT AND VOTING" WAS VOTED ON AND DEFEATED AND I WILL SUPPORT A NO VOTE WHEN IT COMES UP AGAIN. I'M SORRY IF ANYONE THOUGHT I MEANT OR SAID ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY. THANKS, JOICE LANGE LOT# 1205 December 27, 2009 Response to Tom Finger's reply: It is hard to know where to start to reply to Tom Finger's diatribe against me, but I shall attempt to do so, knowing full well that one gets dirtied when one gets involved in a mud slinging contest. I shall try to be reserved in my reply. First, I would point out that when Mr. Finger accuses me of causing "dissension" in the community, he is obviously overlooking his role in the problems we have had. He was a member of the board when these problems arose, ie, the Long Range Planning Community (LRPC) and its excesses, the bank "purchase" (in which the board failed to do its duty of oversight and protection of members of the association). This is the period when the LRPC and the board spent more than a quarter million dollars, including attorney fees, architect fees, builders fees, entertainment, etc., in its attempt to foist the $8.5 million dollar proposal on us! Re his assertion that spending money on attorney fees is good practice by the board, I would point out that this practice has become excessive of late. During the period 2006 through 2008, the board spent $120,803.51 for attorney fees and as far as I have been able to ascertain, we do not have any written opinions from our attorneys! Interestingly, we only spent a total of $1,854.91 for attorney fees during the prior two years 2004 and 2005!!! Re his statement about voting by absentee ballot: I still contend this procedure that the Election Committee has come up with violates Arizona law and that I should have the right to have a real secret ballot by going to the polling place on election day and picking up my ballot and depositing it in the ballot box as we have done in the past. The procedure set up by the Election Committee does not guarantee a secret ballot when you deposit the ballot in an envelope with your name and lot number on it. And the law does not require the board to mail out absentee ballots to everyone who doesn�t pick one up by a day and time certain! Mr. Finger seems to resent my attempts to question the candidates. My answer to this is that I have been a member of this community for more than 20 years and have the right to question candidates, as well as criticize board actions! And I intend to continue so doing even though I am quite aware that I am beating my head against a stone wall. I do so in the hope that maybe somebody, board member or otherwise, will take notice and become active. The apathy of the members of this association is appalling. Finger mentions the word "logic" many times but I do not discern any logic therein. I have cited bylaws and statutes in my letters in the past, but I see none in his letter. I was a member here for over 15 years without getting involved but when the illicit bank deal came about I began to realize, as did many others, that this association was not being run correctly. And contrary to what Mr. Finger says, I get no pleasure or kicks in having to write these letters. I am 92 years old and do not need this aggravation. Sincerely, Lynn Rees, Lot# 944 Editor's Note: We have been assured by HOA officials that for In-Person Voting, homeowners will be allowed to personally deposit their smaller sealed BALLOT ENVELOPE in the Ballot Box following registration. No information should or will be placed on the smaller BALLOT ENVELOPE. Homeowners who use U.S. Mail to send their ballots to the HOA Office should place their small sealed BALLOT ENVELOPE in the larger mailing envelope, complete the information on the larger mailing envelope, affix a stamp and mail it. When received, the Election Committee will open the larger mailing envelope and deposit the sealed BALLOT ENVELOPE in the locked Ballot Box. Once all BALLOT ENVELOPES are in the Ballot Box on January 12th, they will be opened and the ballots will be counted. Homeowners should read and follow the instructions that are printed on their ballot carefully. If you have any questions or concerns on this procedure, contact the HOA Office at 480-832-1550 from 9AM-3PM. LET'S GET OUT THE VOTE! December 23, 2009 Beware of majority vote! At the recent "meet the candidates" meeting, all 3 candidates, in response to a question, stated they were in favor of majority vote of those voting at an election. This was the expected answer to such a question, but what would have been a more appropriate question would have been to ask if they were in favor of Article X, Section l D (1) of our bylaws which reads as follows: "Special assessments shall be approved by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Board at a duly called meeting at which a quorum is present, and by the majority vote of residential unit owners at a special election called and publicized for that specific purpose." The above quoted section is the clause that saved our association from the infamous $8.5 million dollar scam that the country club attempted foist on us! There is good history and reason for this clause. Most, if not all, states have laws that provide that whenever a proposition is put forth where the taxpayers may have an increase in their property or other taxes, the proponents of such proposition being voted on have the burden of said proposal being passed by a majority of the eligible voters in the district affected by the proposal which means that an eligible voter who doesn't vote in effect is casting a "no" or "anti" vote. This, in effect, means that the majority is protected from the tyranny of the minority in such cases. Legislators, in their infinite wisdom, took note of the fact that many voters did not get involved in elections and decided that those who made proposals involving taxpayers monies should at least obtain a real majority of eligible voters and the same can be said to hold true for those who set up our bylaws. Some states, notably California, have gone even farther, requiring three-fifths (3/5) and two-thirds (2/3) majorities of eligible voters. We would do well to consider such a requirement. In our case, "eligible voters" corresponds to and equates with "residential unit owners." Why do I bring this up? Because I suspect that the next board will once again attempt to change this section which is so vital to our well being. The previous board tried this and obtained a majority of those voting but once again did not get a majority of all the residential unit owners. The present board has, in my opinion, illegally paid a law firm $6,000.00 to make recommendations concerning an overhaul of our bylaws and CCRs and although $6,000.00 of our monies have been wasted, we have no idea of what this law firm has done and what recommendations it has made. Just another instance of the board's lack of transparency and failure to keep we mere association members informed! We have got to be alert and be ready to object to the manner in which this has occurred. One thing we must be ready for is to not allow a vote on the recommendations as a whole! This business of the board ignoring our bylaws and Articles of Consolidation has got to stop! Sincerely, Lynn Rees, Lot# 944 December 22, 2009 In response to some of Mr. Rees�s letters: I have tried and failed to digest the many comments from Mr. Rees on your web site's "comment section" with no detection of his logic. They all start out with "Where's the Rage" or "Here we go again" and then tell how the board is once again in violation of it's duty. But his examples of violation have no logic. My logic is that he is either trying to enrage all residents with senseless examples, or he is amusing himself by stirring the pot of dissention where there is no dissention. In other words a strange mind game that only he enjoys. He seems still confused about a secret ballot. Unless we live under a rock we all know that each vote must somehow refer to each lot so it's known that only one vote was cast per lot. No one cares how you vote, only that only one vote was cast. Unless I'm mistaken anyone can put their ballot in the ballot box.... in person if we wish. Money spent on attorneys is shocking to Mr. Rees in spite of the analysis of everything the board does to insure that they are acting within the law. The board is trying desperately to prevent another lawsuit where the only winners are lawyers. Few residents realize how much dissident's lawsuits have cost us all. In my quest for truth I asked several board members if they had ever explained all of Mr. Rees's concerns in person so he could ask his questions and be shown the documents to answer his questions. Mr. Rees had met with board members in person several times. Nothing derogatory was said about Mr. Rees but I come away with the feeling that they may have had more approval if they had talked to the chair that Mr. Rees was sitting in. A direct quote from one of Mr. Rees's comments "I am convinced that we have a board (and past boards) that doesn't realize that there is a recession and is only interested in raising our dues each year and spending as much as it can!!" One part is true, "we are in a recession" and buying equipment, material, or most anything is more expensive than it was the last few years. The huge $49 monthly dues he thinks we pay. Look around Mr. Rees and talk to residents from other homeowners associations that pay $150 plus per month but have no swimming pool, meeting rooms, wood shop, or volunteers that bust their buttocks to save maintenance expenses for everyone. Mr. Rees's latest complaint that he has been prevented from asking questions at the "meet the candidates meeting" and the audience was encouraged to leave the room. Wrong again Chester, because people leave the room when you stand up with a hand full of notes. They know your history of commanding the rest of any meeting with mindless questions and statements. This is not to bash Mr. Rees but to ask him to try running his comments past someone of reasonable intelligence before having it posted on the web. Tom Finger Lot# 1145 December 16, 2009 I would like to thank everyone that came out for our "Meet the Candidates" at the church, it was a great turn out, lots of good questions, and only one not so good ! It's a good way to get introduced to those wishing to volunteer their time and efforts in making Apache Wells a better place to live. This fall, the former president of the country club (Mr. Nosbish) wrote a nice article in the Mesa Republic saying that he hopes or thinks that now that the new building is up, that it will help "heal" our community. I was glad to see this article and hoped that it would happen, but after the candidate's meeting, I see little signs of an attempt of trying to heal and go on with the future with treating people kind or letting the past go. I was appauled at a statement from a certain person, mentioning the "Ku Klux Klan", in a church none the less. My word, what could a person running for our board of directors have to do with such a hateful, vile organization as the KKK? I even dislike mentioning this organization. We "all" need to let the past go, move on with the future , for everyone's sake of well being, so we can live here in peace, no more arguing, or nastiness. The building is up, it looks fine, I wish you the very best and we "will" continue to dine in your restaurant as we always have. Just because residents did not submit a yes vote, is no reason to treat them unkind, everyone is welcome to their opinions and points of view, let's put a good effort into being kind and get back to a peaceful existence here at Apache Wells. Thanks much, Joice Lange Lot# 1205 Re Candidates Meeting: Last night's "meet the candidates" meeting at the local church turned out to be another fiasco. It displayed once again the rudeness and discourtesy of the audience, which resulted in the chairperson cutting me off and practically inviting the audience to leave in violation of my right to be heard by a full audience. I was advised later that the chairperson is related to Brian Johnson, which explains a lot. It also showed that the country club people have an intense interest in Joice Lange's candidacy (which speaks well for her!) The highlight, or should I say "lowlight" of the evening occurred when Brian Johnson, a past president of the board, referred to Mrs. Lange's statement that she was not a member of the country club as being a divisive statement and even went so far as to equate it with a statement of membership in the Ku Klux Klan! This was most offensive and unworthy of even Mr. Johnson. It has the smell of "guilt by association" and Mrs. Lange is entitled to an apology from Mr. Johnson, who is the last person in this community to make such statements in view of his record as a member and past president of the board. It was his tenure that precipitated the problems that we have had ever since. And what is wrong with her stating that she is not a country club member? This is important information that we are entitled to know. Why didn�t the other candidates state whether or not they are country club members? I dislike having to write this letter, but I feel I have a right and a duty as a member of this association to speak up whenever I feel that something wrong is occurring. Joice Lange is too fine a person and citizen to let these remarks go unchallenged. I intend to write a separate letter concerning the questions that I was prevented from asking and my reasons therefore. Sincerely, Lynn Rees, Lot# 944 December 8, 2009 Here we go again! Our board has once again violated its duty to provide for us the right to a secret vote in person by coming up with some idea that everyone must obtain an absentee ballot either by obtaining one in person on December 16, 2009 between 9am and 3pm and, if that is not done by that time, then by having an absentee ballot mailed to all who do not obtain the absentee ballot in person by that time! Not only is this more expensive than the regular way of voting in person at the regular voting room as in the past, but it also makes for the possibility of fraud in the electoral process and is in violation of section 33-1812 of Arizona Statutes, which, among others, states that ***"The association shall provide for votes to be cast in person***". This also violates Our constitutional right to vote by secret ballot. This is not surprising in view of past and present events wherein our board spends our money without regard to our best interests, ie, recently spending $6,000.00 without authority and in violation of our bylaws to have an attorney redo our bylaws and CCRs. We have spent untold amounts of monies on attorney fees and as far as I have been able to ascertain, we do not have a written opinion from our attorneys! This is shocking, because attorneys are bound by their opinions and can be held accountable for same if they give bad advice, which appears to have been the case in several instances in the past. Strangely, when I asked our president if the board had a written opinion re 33-1812, she said no because they didn't want to spend money for attorney fees!! This is remarkable in view of the tendency of boards, past and present, to spend loads of monies for attorney fees! And now, when there is a legitimate question of interpretation of a statute, which should be referred to an attorney, this isn't done! Incredible! It would appear that the upcoming election will not be valid. This is unfortunate because the board erroneously feels that if some act is unconstitutional it will be liable, whereas as long as they act in good faith, the insurance we pay for their protection will provide the necessary protection. However, if they act wrongfully after being advised that they are doing so, then the insurance company may decide not to cover them. Lynn Rees, Lot# 944 Link to A.R.S. 33-1812 Proxies; absentee ballots; definition November 30, 2009
Letter to Representative Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD 5th)
Subject: SOCIAL SECURITY I will live long enough to vote! Apparently liars are as scarce on Capital Hill as sand is scarce at the beach. The President recently approved a 2% salary increase for all federal employees effective January 1, 2010. Members of the executive, legislative and judicial branch are due for an automatic pay increase in January as well. All this on the backs of seniors who will not incur any COLA increases for several years. For the first time in history, the Congress will not allow an increase in the social security COLA (cost of living adjustment). In fact, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation predicts there may not be any COLA for the next three years. However, the per person monthly Medicare insurance premium will be increased from the 2009 premium of $96.40 to $104.20 in 2010 and to $120.20 for the year 2011. For this disgraceful treatment we will remember when voting for your opposition. SAINT INIGOES, MD Reference: www.congress.org Bob Teague Lot# 196
November 21, 2009 Response to Judith's letter of 11/10/09 Judith A. Teague's letter made some good points and we should all read them and do some positive soul searching and adjust our attitudes. "It is a shame" that people can live long enough to move into an adult community without learning some basic lessons of life and how to recognize reality. My own views and comments are not cast in stone for obvious reasons, but I share them with no fear of retaliation and have never been fire bombed. Fear of retaliation is a cowards crutch when they are unsure of their own opinions or ideas and these people will remain anonymous thankfully. I was born poor, bullied on the playgrounds of my life and been lied to and lied about. My parents gave me nothing but support and the ability to think for myself. I have been scorned by people of superior or imagined intelligence. And I survived. So I understand Judi's comments, but not her fears. I look down on no one other than people that try to destroy what others have labored to develop. Judi's absolutely right, that it's time to grow up and stop acting like bullies. Yes we are a community of old people, many with positive suggestions and opinions, but some with the inability to sort the wheat from the chaff nor the ability to realize that perhaps their mind may have gone south some time ago. Paul Demond pointed out wisely at the budget meeting that "senseless outbursts have no place at a business meeting, be it a board member or any observer". This was not a rude statement, it was a fact that obviously went over many peoples heads and more foolish questions and statements were still made. Low attendance at board meetings is a clear indication to me that the general membership has confidence in our board. Many observers did not understand budgets nor the detailed explanations of how the budget was written or why. But they will be back....."isn't it a shame"! Tom Finger Lot# 1145 November 18, 2009 Recent Board happenings: It is shameful what has been going on in our community recently. The board is continuing the same old policy of operating in violation of our governing documents and its duty to keep us "fully informed" of its actions. A few instances follow: The recent board meeting to explain the illegal budget proposal and to answer our questions and comments re same was a complete farce. The person in charge began by admitting that they could not answer each and every comment because of duplicating items and were condensing them in order to save time. Never mind that this was our money that we were discussing! As a result, many of my questions and comments were not answered and I am sure that the same holds true for others who submitted them in writing. I am sure the board required the questions to be in writing so that they could be forewarned about our concerns. It is a shame The explanations that were given were difficult to understand. It is noteworthy that nobody used the mike. Was this by design so that we couldn't understand what was being said?. The budget itself is a nightmare. It is impossible to understand. It has repairs being classified as "capital expenditures"; There is no showing of dues income for 2010; "electric" "water" "pool/gas" "utilities" "pool deck repairs" "pool solar repairs" are all listed under three different categories! There is an item called "Carry forward operating funds, $40,000.00" which obviously is at least a profit which under our bylaws and Articles of Consolidation should be returned to we members in the form of reducing next year's dues. This profit is remarkable in view of the obvious attempt by the board and committee to over inflate budget expenses as much as possible! This, of course, has been going on for years,at our expense! Ever since the late lamented "Long Range Planning Committee" wasted almost a quarter of a million dollars in its attempt to foist a $8.5 million dollar plan(?) on us, the board has been over budgeting in its mission to increase our dues each year, even over the wrongful transfer fee! And when I look at what the country club got for approximately $3 million dollars, I wonder where the extra $5.5 million dollars were to go. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "methinks there is something rotten in Apache Wells". And now I see where the board is going to mail out absentee ballots to everyone who doesn�t request one, a pure violation of its duty of fiscal responsibility and violation of Arizona law, even though it has been advised that this is wrong.! It is interesting to note that a board member pointed out that prior to the building of the library, we had approximately $600,000.00 in liquid assets and now we have about half of that! How much longer are we going to allow our boards to waste our money in violation of their duty to constantly lookout for our best interests financially? Lynn Rees, Lot# 944 November 12, 2009 At the AWHOA Board�s request SAW agreed not to publish the proposed 2010 Budget on our website. For that reason we have deleted the specific budgeted amounts attached to the homeowner comments contained in a letter that we submitted to the Board's Budget Committee on November 9th. Homeowners will need to refer to their copy of the budget for the budgeted amounts. View SAW letter of homeowner comments on the 2010 Budget Save Apache Wells Committee November 10, 2009 At the risk of sounding redundant I have to repeat myself on the "ISN'T IT SAD" phrase. Once again it has come to my attention that someone with knowledge of the budget process has come forth with the way it should be done, but is reluctant to make their opinion heard for fear of retaliation, which we know goes on in this community. Just what does this say for Apache Wells and it's leadership. This is not the first person that has suggested solutions to many of our problems, but doesn't want their name or lot # known. It is happening far to often. Isn't It Sad to know that if you voice an opinion or make a suggestion as to how, what, when, or where, someone will retaliate in return? We are supposed to be adults for Pete's sake!!!!! Not little kids (bullies) on the playground at school, the ones who had everything their parents could give them, looking down on those less fortunate � remember those days folks? Pretty sad to see this type of behavior at our ages isnt it? I think it's high time this community grew up and stopped acting like spiteful bullies and stop the nonsense of retaliations when and if someone speaks up with a great idea or plan other than those of the Board of Directors or some other committee. It is time that some people stop considering the good people of this community as "a bunch of old people that don't know anything"!!!! We've all seen the disrespectfulness in many of the meetings held in this community, all the boos, the jeering, the snickering and just plain rudeness. November 12, 2009 � well it certainly didn't take long for another incident of shear rudeness to rear its ugly head again. At the Board of Directors meeting held to accept or reject the proposed budget for 2010, two or more people were treated shamefully for attempting to ask the directors a question or two, it really doesn't matter how many. What is important is that this type of behavior has to cease. If the Board of Directors are truly concerned about why there is such low attendance at their meetings, maybe now they'll know. People are tired of the same old same old. I for one find this type of arrogant, condescending behavior unacceptable and I know that many of the homeowners feel the same way. Just ask them and give them a chance to explain how they feel. I wonder why this behavior is allowed????? I also question how a very small number of homeowners seem to rule this community and it always seems to be the same groups that are allowed to behave this way at meetings. I think it just might surprise you what intelligent things someone other than you might just come up with. Who knows, maybe, just maybe, you might learn something. There also needs to be some kind of directive from the Board President or whoever is conducting the meetings of the Board or our HOA community meetings to make sure that those attending are strongly made aware that the rudeness, inappropriate gestures and behaviors, etc. will not be tolerated now and or at any other future meetings. Maybe then this community will get the feeling of hope that we have all been looking for. This could be the beginning of the healing of this community. Wouldn't that be nice??? Then maybe I wouldn't have to write any more "Isn�t It Sad" letters. I am sure you'd all like that!! I know I would!!!
Sadly submitted by November 3, 2009 The following email was sent to us by a good friend and we thought it might be of interest to our website visitors. Feel free to copy it and send it on to your friends. SOCIAL SECURITY FIX - PUT CONGRESS ON SOCIAL SECURITY? Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Representitives do not pay into Social Security and of course they do not collect from it. You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan. In more recent years no member of Congress has felt the need to change it. After all it is a great plan. For all practical purposes their plan works like this: When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die. It may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 with their wives drawing $275,000,000 during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Congressmen. Younger members of Congress who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives. Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. ZIP!! NADA!!! ZILCH!!! This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Fund. "OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay or have paid into every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer), we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits! Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the members of Congress and put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us. Then sit back..... and see how fast they would fix it! Bob & Judi Teague Lot #196 October 24, 2009 When it comes to taxpayer dollars, the watchword these days is "transparency": Residents are demanding more, and Arizona elected officials are promising they'll get it. Many cities are posting more financial documents online and planning more public budget meetings. The push for government transparency has become a nationwide phenomenon, spurring tea-party rallies, town-hall meetings, new legislation in some states and a presidential memorandum for open government. David Berman, a research fellow at Arizona State University's Morrison Institute for Public Policy who has been monitoring the trend, said that the push stems partly from increased interest in government spending during the recession but more from a spike in the public's general distrust of government. "Transparency is the newest buzzword, and everybody's using it," states Tempe City Manager Charlie Meyer "But it is also fundamental to our system of government. There needs to be more of it, and it has to be in a meaningful way." We wish to commend our current AWHOA Board for adopting a number of new policies that are essential to transparency in our community and feel that by continuing this trend it will lead to greater confidence and cooperation between the homeowners and our elected leaders. We are often asked why we chose the name "Save Apache Wells" for our group in the summer of 2006. The explanation that we give is that we have talked to the "old timers" who have been in Apache Wells for many years and remember when there was a true sense of community. It wasn't "us" and "them", just neighbors and friends. This is the Apache Wells we want to "Save"! We've gone through an unpleasant period of divisiveness over the past few years. We want to nurture the traditions that made Apache Wells the place we all want to be, move past the difficult times that have divided us and move forward towards a better future of openness, trust and community. Perhaps by continuing to work together towards this goal we can Save Apache Wells. Note: Excerpts are from an article on transparency in government published in the Arizona Republic on 10/24/09. Bob & Judi Teague, Lot #196 October 20, 2009 Like many Apache Wells homeowners I have seen the new fence that encloses our swimming pool and have questioned the cost of $30,718. Even our former Board Treasurer was quoted as saying he felt "that was a lot of money for a fence". He later withdrew that statement after talking to two board members who convinced him that the figure was valid. Apparently the information provided to him was not made available to the association members. Since then Board member Jim Bonnell has told SAW website editor Bob Teague that he would provide a full financial accounting of what went into the pool fence project. That information, when it becomes available, will be shared with the homeowners to see, if indeed, they did get their money's worth. The Board has told us that the project was awarded without competitive bidding to the Johnson Construction Company because "they were already there". Over the past few weeks I have gathered some figures on wrought iron fencing, labor and related materials that appear to have gone into the fence and surrounding area from area suppliers.
180' of fence and 2 gates (at $27.30/ft. installed)....................$4931 Total Estimate....................................................................$15,262
Suppliers: My vote against the pool fence project was based on the cost of the fence alone. I look forward to Jim Bonnell�s report. Ernie Shoults Lot #864 Editor's Note: Ernie Shoults is an agent with Apache Gold Realty and is completing his 3rd year as a member of the Apache Wells Board of Directors. October 10, 2009 Thanks to Bob & Judi Teague for posting a photo of Betty Harper's new home on our web site. It's a lovely home and I for one am so happy that Mrs. Harper came back and rebuilt. Welcome home Mrs. Harper! To all of our Apache Wells residents that donated to Mrs. Harper, thank you so much for your kindness and generosity.... it's good to see our community come together and help someone in such dire need. Joice Lange Lot #1205 October 7, 2009 Auditor Brooks statement that "the records were complete and did not have significant problems" leaves me gasping. While I am not an accountant, I have examined records of the association (hereinafter HOA) and found them most lacking in specificity and clarity. I wonder if Mr. Brooks examined the same records? The report that we overestimated 2008 taxes by $9,878.95 and would be getting a refund of that amount at first seems like a good deal, but when one takes the time to think about it, it raises questions, such as: why, and how, does this happen (apparently the same is true for 2006 and 2007)? Who is responsible for this bad planning? Is it part of a deliberate strategy of the board where by overestimating the budget, especially the annual dues, the board is able to keep raising our annual dues each year? The result is we show a profit each year because of our excessive dues and in effect, we end up paying taxes on our assessed dues.! Talk about double taxation! And all the while, we have no say in the adoption and approval of the budget! What chumps we are! And now it appears that the board is turning over the task of amending our bylaws and other documents to an attorney who apparently has determined that "it will cost more to amend them than to write new ones." And the board is going to pay him $6,000.00!!! To do this? This is a complete violation of our bylaws and the board's duty to "manage the affairs of the HOA!" (Article V, Sec. l A. of bylaws). We didn�t elect the board to decide what attorney to hire to do their work! If they can�t obey our bylaws and constitution they should resign! And what is this �Great Boards� that was mentioned at the August meeting? And why are we having teleconferencing board meetings when we supposedly have an executive committee that is supposed to run things during the 5 month hiatus of the board? Also, why is it costing us $300.00 per month to deposit our monthly dues? This is ridiculous! Finally, why do we have to wait 5 months to find out what happened in the April board and homeowners meetings? Readers: I am convinced that we have a board (and past boards) that doesn�t realize that there is a recession and is only interested in raising our dues each year and spending as much as it can!! And the sad part is: we can�t do anything about it! Too many members just don�t care to get involved or interested! So we get what we deserve!! Lynn Rees, Lot #944 Source: Unapproved Minutes of Apache Wells Board of Directors Meeting August 11, 2009 published in the Apache Wells Roundup October 2009. Don't have a Roundup handy, click here. October 1, 2009 In a recent article on the SAW website it was mentioned that at a homeowner board of directors meeting the building of the fence that separates the new country club and the homeowner swimming pool would cost $30,718. One half of that would be paid by the homeowners. It was stated that "Irv St.John, board member felt that was a lot of money." That is true. I expressed that initial feeling. However, I would like to add the "rest of the story". After listening to more of the information from two board members whose knowledge in this area I respect very much, I accepted this figure as valid. Strong safety, security and code factors are important in building a pool fence.....very different from a golf cart pen! If I had been clairvoyant and knew that my first reaction to the beginning of the information presented was going to be used as a tool for the naysayaers of the project, I would have verbally expressed my belief at that time that it was a good decision. Please, do not use the first "quote" in future writings without adding my now expressed belief that it was a necessary expenditure. I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to all those who have worked so diligently to keep the dream alive, even after the lawsuit failed, to plan and develop a wonderful building which will be the pride of the community. Thank you to all those who have donated thousands of dollars beyond their assessment and to the non-members who have contributed. Not only is it great for golfers, but all residents are welcome to use the bar and grill. Perhaps the greatest appreciation will be when that time comes when we will be selling our homes and the value will have increased due to enhanced amenities, provided by your homeowner and country club boards. Sincerely, Irv St.John Lot #114 October 2, 2009 I also do not think much of the way the $30,000.00 fence was handled. It is typical of the way our board has done things for years, i.e. namely making deals with the country club without any notice to we homeowners and in violation of the "conflict of interest" provisions of our bylaws and constitution. It is very troubling to see this board continue the wrongful ways of past boards. We don't know if any bids were obtained and just how the contract was entered into between the board and the country club if there was such a contract. This sort of thing must stop. Lynn Rees Lot #944 ISN'T IT SAD! Here we go again! Once again our AWHOA Board of Directors and the AWCC Board of Directors have been working "Hand in Glove" without any input from the homeowners. We find out after a deal has been made and have to put up or shut up! The AWHOA and the AWCC are two separate entities. The AWCC has their own budget and bylaws, as do we. Our Board has been made aware of this CONFLICT OF INTEREST time and time again and yet they still go against our own governing documents to do as they please. What is the sense of having any ruling documents in the first place??!! Another thing that I have been wondering about is if that wall (where the open bare spot is) was the homeowners and the country club had to tear it down for their project, what is going in there and who is going to have to pay for it? Shouldn't they be responsible for replacing something they have torn down? Also if we paid half for that fence, are we also going to have to pay for any maintenance ie: painting for rust etc.? I am sure, knowing our Board, they will come up with some excuse as to why and how, but "isn�t it sad" after all this community has gone through they still won't abide by our own documents. As far as any bids go, from what I have been told there wasn't any and that our former president of the Board (this was after our money went to pay for the wall and gates around the country club's pumps) went to the president of the AWCC and the deal was made to let the contractor that was working on the building project do the pool fence along with the new pro shop, bar & grill etc., seeing as they were already here??? That may be OK in the private sector, but not in a community with governing documents. I thought we had decided at a Board meeting that there should always be three bids or was this decided after the fact? I feel we have spent enough of our dues for country club expenses and that we have plenty of our own to worry about. If you are wondering what I am referring to, I urge you all to start coming to the Board meetings and listen to what and how they are using our dues. It is a real eye opener. I know we all bought in here to retire and enjoy whatever time we have left here on earth. However, there are things going on in this community that need to be addressed, monitored and sometimes questioned. We have our right to ask without being shut down or ridiculed. Whatever happened to "the majority rules"? I think it's time that the Board of Directors adhere to the governing documents or not run for election. Rules are made to protect the members, not to take advantage of them. In the future I would love to be able to trust our Board as I did when I first moved into this community and feel they are doing the right thing, but until that day comes I will be watching and listening and if I feel something doesn't sound right I will not let it pass. Sincerely, Judith A. Teague (AKA TSB) Lot #196 October 5, 2009 Mr. St. John was right when he originally stated that he felt that $30,718.00 was a lot of money for the fence. His subsequent change of heart just doesn't wash. It is obvious that he, even though a member of the board, was not originally in the know about the fence deal. Apparently he, like the rest of us, was not in on the fence deal. But now, after getting chided (apparently) by other members of the board for his intemperate remarks, he has changed his tune and become once again the good 'ol team player. I recall Mr. St. John's statement last January at the annual homeowners meeting when he said, upon relinquishing his office as treasurer, that he was looking forward during the remaining year of his term to working with the board in its plans for the association for the coming year. This caught my attention because I, and I am sure other members of the association not on the board, had not heard of any plans of the board. And this was the Annual meeting of the association where you would expect the board to announce what Plans it had for the coming year so that we, members of the association not privileged to be on the board, could possibly have some important input into the board's plans, and at least be made aware of what the board had on its agenda for the coming year. Sadly, this has never been done even though our bylaws refer to the annual meeting by stating in part, that the board shall manage the business of the association...."subject to the bylaws of the association and such mandates as may be expressed at the annual meeting of the members or any special meeting of the members." (Article V, Sec. 1. A.) But of course, this board and others preceding it, utterly ignores this provision, and others, of Our bylaws and ruling documents. Lynn Rees Lot #944 October 7, 2009 Seems like $30,000 plus for a pool fence is a bit much. Were 3 bids considered for the fence? Where I worked there were always 3 bids and if a bid was from a personal friend it was rejected because of "conflict of interest". I know of a bid on the pool fence that wasn't even looked at. Oh well..... Rick Eicher Lot #977 May 6, 2009
Editor's Note: The following email was recently forwarded to us by a good friend who's Dad flew P-47s over Europe in WWII and we felt that it deserved to be posted on our website for others to read and reflect on. Living in Apache Wells we are always thrilled by fly-overs of the WWII-era aircraft based at Falcon Field. The volunteers who work to keep those aircraft in the air is a living tribute to all the airman who never came home at the end of World War II.
When that individual read the response from a Luke AFB officer, it must have stung quite a bit.
The complaint: Whom do we thank for the morning air show? Last Wednesday, at precisely 9:11 A.M., a tight formation of four F-16 jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall, continuing west over Bell Road at approximately 500 feet. Imagine our good fortune! Do the Tom Cruise-wannabes feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying to impress the cashiers at Mervyns early bird special? Any response would be appreciated.
The response: At 9 a.m. on June 15, his family and friends gathered at Sunland Memorial Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a husband, son and friend. Based on the letter writer's recount of the fly-by, and because of the jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear the 21-gun salute, the playing of taps, or my words to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave them their son's flag on behalf of the President of the United States and all those veterans and servicemen and women who understand the sacrifices they have endured. A four-ship fly-by is a display of respect the Air Force gives to those who give their lives in defense of freedom. We are professional aviators and take our jobs seriously, and on June 15 what the letter writer witnessed was four officers lining up to pay their ultimate respects. The letter writer asks, "Whom do we thank for the morning air show?" The 56th Fighter Wing will make the call for you, and forward your thanks to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable formation of their lives. Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.... Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom. Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr. May 2, 2009 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Jessen, I read your recent article that you chose to publish on our SAW website. What a wonderful article. I commend you for your generous donations to the Apache Wells Country Club and for even planning to double your donation amount. That's wonderful. Please continue such a generous gesture. Apache Wells is truly blessed with so many wonderful volunteers that give of their time and energy. I see no negativity amongst them and that's one reason why our dues are under $50.00. They also are to be commended. We all greatly appreciate our volunteers that support our community and once again keep those donations coming. God bless you! Mr. & Mrs. Lange, Lot #1205 May 1, 2009 A short time ago my wife and I made a donation to AWCC to aid in the purchase of patio furniture for the new clubhouse. We received a nice thank you note, which was much appreciated. The donation was meant as a thank you to all past and present AWCC and AWHOA Boards, committees and volunteers. I purchased my home in 1979 and my first service fee was $47.26 plus $12.36 for water and sewer. As mentioned above I think all of our friends and neighbors who have served us are to be highly commended. Thirty years later the community is in good financial condition with lots of improvements which among many include a well maintained golf course with a soon to be completed new clubhouse which is open to the entire community, new library, new AWHOA office building, new exercise building and so much more. All of this and our service fee is still under $50 per month. Lately we have experienced some negativity, which I do not think is abnormal for a diverse community of this size. If you are a negative thinker, try being a "volunteer". From here on let's be positive and enjoy Apache Wells, support our elected friends and neighbors and all those who volunteer and it will certainly be a better place to live. Right now I think it is the best area in this valley. Let's get together and make it even better. We feel very strongly about this and being unable to serve because of health, we are doubling our donation and urge everyone to serve or support.
Norman & Shirley Jessen April 17, 2009 It's a shame that the meeting to discuss the proposed bylaw amendments wasn't held earlier for more homeowners to attend and to hear what they want to add and or change. The only bylaw amendment that was rushed to a vote in 2008 was the bylaw amendment to change our voting procedure on special assessments. As it stands now, the majority vote of residential unit owners counts. Julie Couture's committee wants to change it to majority vote of those residential unit owners present and voting. This amendment was already voted on in March 2008 at a substantial cost to the association. It failed to get 2/3 of the votes and was defeated. NOW they want to stick it back in there for a vote AGAIN! Why did we hold the earlier vote if what we want is now being dismissed? If this bylaw change goes through it will make it easier to pass any special assessments. We homeowners would be stuck with paying for the country club's building right now, if this amendment would have been in effect in February 2007. And it sure wouldn't be a mere $6,020 either! Our current board, in my opinion, is doing a much better job of listening to the homeowners and have already made some significant changes to comply with state statutes, but sticking this bylaw amendment back in there after we already voted "NO" starts up the animosity again, just when things we're starting to run a bit more smoothly! Darn it, for those of us that come to AW to vacation, can't we come down one year without a struggle on our hands? "PLEASE" VOTE NO ON ITEM 12 ARTICLE X FINANCIAL SECTION 2 D SPECIAL ASSESSMENT if it ever comes to a vote! Thank you, The Langes Lot #1205 April 13, 2009 This business of the board constantly violating our rules and regulations has to cease. A day of reckoning is going to come someday. You may find yourselves in personal difficulty if you do not stop your wrongful ways. Bloating the budget in order to justify the annual raising of our dues is wrong as is the practice of not allowing the membership to adopt and approve the budget. We should have input and approval of it.
Not keeping us informed as to your plans and actions is wrong. I realize the board is determined to avoid letting the membership have any sayso in the spending of our money as required by our bylaws, but raising money by an illegal transfer fee is wrong!!! You should realize that your primary obligation is to work for the financial betterment of the association and do so within the framework of our ruling documents and if you do not you may be personally liable for your actions without the protection of your errors and omissions insurance policy. One thing insurance companies love to do is collect premiums. The one thing they hate most is having to pay out monies and they will look for any loophole to avoid paying out money. Your failure to abide by our ruling documents may be all the insurance company needs to justify denying any claim for protection.
Sincerely, April 8, 2009 I would like to bring another fact to the table that seems to have escaped the sponsor of this HB2434 and others. We have heard from the CAI lobbyists regarding "other legislation", namely HB2434 that "this legislation is changing the governing documents AKA CONTRACT". Apparently it has been lost on those who can vote YES or NO that this legislation HB2434 is "really" changing the governing documents. But I guess "changing the documents" only counts when the lowly homeowner wants to have a chance at having a say about how their communities will be governed. What I will say is probably not popular with most people including homeowners and advocates for homeowners. I can't count how many times I have heard CAI and Legislators opine that "you signed" and "it is a contract". So here it is.....the CC&Rs, Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation are a CONTRACT, a CONTRACT between me, Pat Haruff and my HOA. There is no one else involved in this contract, that's right.....no one else is a "signer" to MY CONTRACT!! So if we want to honor contracts and contract law then in my opinion the percentage voting threshold shouldn't be 30%, 50%, 75%. The requirement for ANY passage of ANY issue in my HOA should be 100%, yes that's right 100%. Unless every single person who has a contract votes (100%) then the election is invalid, NOTHING PASSES. Sure the cry will be, and it already is, "but we would never be able to change anything".....but who is that crying, the HOA Attorneys who where the ones who wrote the documents to begin with....it just didn't work out the way they anticipated and now they want it changed. Then they can get Boards to change documents to help them beat down the homeowner even more.... So HB2434 should DIE a painful death on the House floor.....this never should have left the first Committee, the Commerce Committee.
Pat Haruff "If you really want to understand something, try to change it"....Unknown
Sorry I'm so late with this.... Pat Editors Note: If you wish to see HB2434 defeated, contact your District 19 Representatives via email by going to Arizona House of Representatives. Don't forget to include District 19 in the subject line of your email as suggested by Rep Rich Crandall at out last SAW meeting. UPDATE: HB2434 was "retained on calendar" on 4/9/09. What that means is the bill is "on hold" for now as no vote was taken by the House on Thursday at the request of the sponsor. According to Pat Haruff, the sponsor may have felt their were not enough votes to move the bill along. Pat will let us know if and when HB2434 comes up again for a vote. Keep your emails handy as we may need to fire another volley! April 6, 2009
TO: Homeowners Association members and Board of Directors I have lived here for more than 20 years. A few years ago I became aware that our past and present boards have not been following our bylaws, rules and regulations and Articles of Consolidation. The first indication was when we were advised, after the fact, that the bank building had been purchased without any information or notice to the members and without any vote of the membership on a matter that is going to cost us over a million dollars, with interest, on a deal where our board had an appraisal of $535,000.00 on which the selling price was $735,000.00!! $200,000.00 over the appraised price!! All this done by one man, the then president of the board, while the board was in recess for 5 months!!! To this date we have never been advised regarding the negotiations that went on, including how the board intended to pay for it!! The only thing we were told was that there was funds available for it. This has become an expensive "white elephant" for us. Just look at the illegal budget where the interest and principal payments are set forth. Next came the illegal $6,200.00 plus assessment that the board tried to put over on us and which now appears to be a problem for the country club. Another question that has never been answered is what happened to the cancellation of the previous swimming pool contract? The minutes show that the then president ordered our lawyers to contact the company and cancel the contract. It has been widely reported that we suffered a loss of over $9,000.00 as a result, but there has been no information about this from the board. These are instances of our board not keeping us informed as to what is going on in violation of their most important function, namely to keep us fully informed regarding financial matters and transactions. Another example is the recent covering of the water mains which supposedly cost about $13,000.00 and which the country club allegedly paid half. Here again we were not informed as to just how this all came about. Besides the obvious possible "conflict of interest" of country club members of the board, we have no information as to just how this came about. At the recent so called "annual homeowners meeting" in January, Irv St. John, upon announcing his retirement as treasurer, stated that he was looking forward to working with the board on its plans for the coming year. Here again, we have not been advised as to what these "plans" are. We are entitled to know what, if any, plans have been made for the spending of our money. I would like to remind the board that its primary duty is to work for the best financial interest of the members of this association and to obey our rules and bylaws, etc. The board also has a primary obligation to keep us fully informed of its actions and future plans. Not doing so could result in personal liability for a board member.
The Board should be advised that its errors and omissions insurance policy will not protect it if it does something that it has been advised is wrong. I hereby advise you that in my opinion , the following is your duty: L. Rees, Lot #944 March 18, 2009 At our Homeowners meeting last Thursday I wanted to ask our treasurer Paul DeMond the question as to whether or not the country club has paid the homeowners back for paying for their wall around one of their well sites. I was told that Mr. DeMond was no longer the treasurer and that Sandra Johnson was. Many of our homeowners have had this same concern. I was told that the country club cut a check to the homeowners the day before the meeting. This was backed up by a representative of the country club that attended our meeting. I understand the reasoning behind Bing Miller's decision to take homeowner's funds out to cover the cost of the country club's well wall, but I do not agree (as many others do not agree) with using our homeowner's funds to pay for anything related to the country club. We are two entirely separate entities. The country club has their own funds and should pay for any and ALL of their responsibilities. I hope these kind of dealings do not occur in the future. PS.. I did tell the AWHOA Board that the well that the homeowners paid for looks very nice. Thanks, The Langes Lot #1205 March 17, 2009 The "Anti Homeowners" Homeowners Meeting! The more things change the more they seem the same! Like her predecessors before her, Board President Cheri Whalen is making a mockery of the annual and monthly homeowners meetings. For years the Board has deliberately managed to prolong homeowners meetings so that when it came time for the open forum where homeowners could express concerns about the way in which our board is running things everyone present would be tired and the president would sympathetically declare that there was not much time left and would restrict the time for homeowners to voice concerns, usually to two minutes, which as anyone who is familiar with our association knows, is simply not anywhere near enough ftme. President Whalen and her board has reduced this to a fine art. Every meeting begins with interminable committee reports that go on and on and after each report President Whalen has to add a few thousand well chosen(?) words. This results in the meeting going on for anywhere from an hour and a half or longer so that when it is time for homeowners to speak, President Whalen declares that there is not much time left and restricts comments to a couple of minutes. It is interesting to note that the Board has dispensed with committee reports at its meetings. They are not a necessary item at our homeowners meetings as they are always reported in the Roundup. The sad thing about the whole matter is that the majority of homeowners have no idea of what is going on and apparently do not care. The result is we get a Board that does whatever it pleases without any input from the rest of us. Wake up, Apache Wells!! Lynn Rees, Lot #944
March 3, 2009 Editor�s Note: Robert Pickering recently sent this letter to Arizona State Rep. Rich Crandall, of East Mesa�s District 19. It was published in the East Mesa Independent today under the title "Is the Apache Wells (Country Club) board neglecting its own bylaws?" It is published here with his permission. Rep. Crandall, It has been recommended to me that I should ask you for your help with this matter. I understand there is legislation on the table directly related to our problem. As a detriment to the member/owners of Apache Wells Country Club, it seems the board of directors is not following the bylaws of our association. I own a home in Apache Wells and am a certificate holder of the Apache Wells Country Club. This is an age 55-plus community and all 485 owner/members all own equal shares of the country club. This letter serves as a timeline of the questionable acts of the board. Our problems started early in December 2007 when the board of directors passed a motion to build a new clubhouse with assessments of $6,200 per owner/certificate. They indicated that a vote would take place in February 2008 for this $3 million venture. In December 2007, the board also passed a motion not to accept mail-in ballots for the assessment vote. And shortly before Christmas, the board advised us that the assessment vote would take place on Jan. 11, 2008 instead of in February. The Jan. 11 date violates the 21-day prior notice before a meeting as stated by the bylaws. It seems that the decision to have an early vote was made because there are at least 129 owner/certificate holders who spend the holidays with family and friends and wouldn�t be back to vote. Also, many of the people who received the ballot found it very confusing and it is my belief that the results should be thrown out and a new vote taken that complies with the bylaws. The latest blunder by the board has been to send out a ballot for three bylaw changes and a ballot for board of director candidates. The letter provides the ballot with a return envelope requiring that the back of the envelope have the owner�s name printed and signed, dated and their certificate number. The letter states that the ballot will not be counted without this information. How can this be a secret ballot if I have to put my name and certificate number on my ballot? I look forward to hearing from you regarding any assistance you can give me in regard to the board�s behavior and neglect for the bylaws.
Robert Pickering (Lot #38 The Village at Apache Wells) January 11, 2009 In regards to the mass mailing of the absentee ballots, many of my friends have mentioned, "what a waste of money to send those to each and every homeowner". I most certainly agree, mine went straight into the trash, that is a waste! I voted in the presidential election via absentee ballot before leaving for Arizona, but I had to call and request the ballot, so there was no waste there. This mass mailing should be given a second thought by our board and ballots should only be sent out to those that call and request one. Also, in regards to Tom Finger's recent comments... we may have over 1,400 homeowners here, but you never see more than a dozen or so of the same concerned residents in attendance at the board meetings. It's very difficult to get more homeowners involved in the business of running this community, so I don't think you have to worry about that many attending the meetings and the time restraints. We were only allowed to speak for the first 15 minutes, then after that, (most) were not allowed to speak up during the rest of the meeting, even when things were brought up that should have homeowners' input. I think it's wonderful that we homeowners will now be allowed to speak during the meetings and before the Board takes formal action on an item. We shouldn't, as Tom suggested, have to "run for the board", just to have our concerns voiced! One more thing, this "Nominating Committee" should be discontinued. Why should a certain group be allowed to nominate who they deem fit to run? It's usually or since I've been here, that country club members or candidates that are sympathetic to the country club's needs are who they nominate. Thus, anyone running strictly for the homeowners are never put on that elite list of nominees. Lynn Rees had a wonderful suggestion at Saturday's SAW meeting. He stated that the newly elected and current Board members should be sworn in each January at the Annual Meeting and swear to uphold the concerns and rights of ALL the homeowners and to always have ALL the homeowners' best interests at heart. Joice & Dennis Lange Lot #1205 January 6, 2009 Cost of recent mailing of absentee ballots: I think we homeowners should be aware of the cost of the recent mailing of absentee ballots by our board of directors. The postmaster at the Hallmark store next to Bashas said the stamp on the envelope cost 59 cents. Multiply this by 1410 and you get a total of $831.90, the cost of mailing absentee ballots to every homeowner. This is a horrendous waste of money in view of the fact that our bylaws and Arizona law does not require this. Every homeowner is entitled to vote, but those who wish to vote by absentee ballot should have to request an absentee ballot. This is the way most states handle absentee voting. This is a matter that the board should be made to stop. Lynn Rees, Lot #944 January 4, 2008 In response to the concerns of Bob & Judy Teague regarding the 12/18/08 board meeting. A.R.S 33-1803 does state that residents may attend and speak within a reasonable amount of time which our board does provide. The law also states that the board must provide for a reasonable number of residents to speak on either side of any issue. With over 1400 homes and possibly 2000 residents in Apache Wells one might wonder, What would be a reasonable number of residents allowed to speak? And how long should all them residents be allowed to speak without turning every board meeting into a marathon board meeting? As far as allowing numerous residents to speak during any meeting on any issues before any decision can be made, How long would that take? Usually residents that want to be a part of all Homeowner's decision's. will run for the board and be a part of Apache Wells and the decision making process. There is no question that all laws and rules are written with the best of intentions. In my opinion applying them rules & laws requires using some common sense in order to get the job done in a reasonable amount of time with the most satisfactory results. In regard to penalties and the notice to members of violation; The 4 questions are easily answered and have been answered many times.
1. The provision of the community documents that has allegedly been violated. If you have ever filed a Concern form you will see the first request is "Would you please look into"... which indicates that the resident is not sure it's a valid complaint but they are concerned. Two different words. Myself or my co-chairmen will then look into it and determine if the concern is valid and if it is a valid concern we then file an official complaint with the date and our signature. If you have ever received a complaint form look for the date and who signed it as well as on the back to read which violation is referred to, what must be done, and where it can be found in our phone book. While you'r at it, look for the office phone number and email address. It' there. Concerns and complaints have been my job on the board for some time now and it has been my pleasure to meet most of you. Tom Finger lot #1145 December 24, 2008 "Concerned's" letter of 12-18-08 Things have come to a sorry state of affairs when a homeowner is afraid to sign her name to a letter for fear of retaliation by her neighbors. We should all be concerned and ashamed for allowing this to happen. We should all be "concerned" about "concerned's" worry about the opinions of the candidates for the board that majority vote of those voting should be the rule in elections of every kind. This does not bode well for us in the future. I don't know the percentages, but I am sure that most states have the rule that when propositions concerning fiscal matters such as taxes or assessments to be paid by taxpayers are proposed, the law requires that such propositions must pass by a majority of eligible voters and a non vote is counted as a "no" vote. In our case it means a majority of the 1410 or so homeowners who own lots in Apache Wells. This rule in financial matters if meant to protect the majority of homeowners from the "tyranny of the minority", i.e. the board and its supporters. We should be thankful for this bylaw which prevented the country club and the board from imposing the illegal assessment on Apache Wells homeowners which the Superior Court sadly had to decide! This bylaw also prevented the board from attempting to change it this past year. It appears that we can anticipate more of such actions by the board in the future. I hope not. I was concerned at the candidates meeting by their apparent lack of concern about the way our budget is handled. None seemed to care about the fact that we homeowners have no say in the adoption and approval of the budget which concerns our monies. Further, none of the candidates seemed to care about the cost of mailing absentee ballots to every homeowner even though our bylaws and state law does not require this. I hope those who read this will consider it carefully. Lynn Rees, Lot #944 December 18, 2008 I ATTENDED THE CANDIDATE'S MEETING TUESDAY EVENING. WHEN ASKED WHO OF THEM WERE COUNTRY CLUB MEMBERS, LINDA LEWIS RAISED HER HAND, BUT ALL FOUR OF THEM SAID THAT THEY WERE FOR THE NEW COUNTRY CLUB BUILDING AND VOTED "YES" ON IT IN 2007. THEY ALSO SAID THAT THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT, TO CHANGE OUR *BYLAW, TO "PRESENT & VOTING" FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. THIS BYLAW CHANGE WAS ALREADY DEFEATED ONCE. SO WHY IS IT STILL A SUBJECT OF TOPIC? DO THEY INTEND TO BRING IT UP AGAIN FOR A VOTE, TILL IT PASSES AND THEY THEN COME AFTER US AGAIN TO HELP PAY FOR THAT BUILDING? IN TODAY'S ECONOMY, I CAN NOT AFFORD, NOR CAN MANY OF MY ELDERLY FRIENDS AFFORD TO BE FORCED TO HELP PAY FOR THAT BUILDING THAT ALSO WAS DEFEATED, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY JUST KEEP HASHING THINGS OVER, TILL THEY EVENTUALLY GET WHAT THEY WANT, NO MATTER HOW MANY TOES THEY HAVE TO STEP ON. SIGNED: CONCERNED Editor's note: The letter above was submitted by Joice Lange Lot #1205 on behalf of an elderly resident who wishes to remain anonymous for fear she would be harassed by her neighbors. The current *BYLAW referenced in the letter requires "a majority vote of residential unit owners" for approval of a special assessment. Currently that is 50% + 1 of 1410 lots or 706 "YES" votes. December 14, 2008
Submitted by Jack Atwell Lot #0621 October 1, 2008
East Mesa Independent Newspaper
Reader explains drainage problems: If you will notice earlier on in the article, the president said, "Ms. Holmes's late husband, Robert, actively tried to eradicate the situation in 1993," then it goes on to say what the HOA people did. It's not my fault the pipe and inlet are eight inches to a foot higher than the drain pipe. Maybe if I had done it that might have happened, but those who know how to do this sort of thing did it, not me. The only way I am able to ex�plain this setup is: The drain is like on the table top, but the water is on the floor, so the two are not going to get together. Maybe the next time the roaches turn up in the house, the bill should go to the HOA after the water comes in again. I have my yard sprayed regularly by pest control, so it's not a case of nothing being done. We have lived here since 1983 and they are the company who has taken care of this since then.
Ruth Holmes, Lot #1071 E-MAIL COMMENT After talking with Mrs. Holmes and viewing her situation, it appears to me that if what she says is true, then the matter is a problem for the City of Mesa and/or the Apache Wells Country Club. To let this matter go on for 25 years is scandalous. When you see the great amount of rainwater that collects in the area of the golf course in front of the Holmes home and others on both sides of her, I cannot understand why the golfers put up with it. Lynn Rees, Lot #944 August 14, 2008 Where is the outrage? Wake up Apache Wells homeowners! Why isn't there more outcry from assn members about the recent filing by the board against Walt Stromme? This is a pure case of retaliation against Stromme for his part in the SAW lawsuit against the board and assn. It is also a simple case of selective prosecution which is characteristic of people in power who do not care about rules and regulations and the law, as we have seen in the past years of the Bush administration. I certainly hope Stromme has filed a counterclaim for damages against the board and the person or persons responsible. And why hasn't Stromme and his attorneys been able to find out who filed the original complaint against him? Under our system of justice every person charged with an offense has the right to discover his accuser and confront him in court. This violation of his constitutional rights should warrant punitive damages as well as ordinary damages. This is just another example of the illegal secrecy in which our board operates and has operated in the past.
Some other examples that come to mind: We have a real problem in this community with country club members being members of the board. While I have no bias against country club members, many of whom I know and admire, I note, with sadness, that the present board is continuing the policy of mixing Country Club business with Association business. There is a legal axiom that says a person cannot serve two masters. I think this applies in our situation. There is only one solution: vote for association members! I don�t think this will happen, however. So our only answer is to be constantly vigilant against the board's excesses. We must never let our guard down! If only we could get an Ombudsman to protect us! Re the Stromme case: If the board is so concerned with their little backyard wall which his neighbors don't find worrisome, why does it allow developers to willy-nilly violate our architectural rules re the 55%-45% lot restrictions? (See rule A 4a and F 1 and 3) We pay for the monthly publishing of the Roundup magazine. Why doesn't the board publish a list each month of the checks that are issued in payment of all expenses of the Association? This should be a simple matter to accomplish. Why the SECRECY?? The boards, past and present, have treated the homeowners like second class citizens. It is time we exercise our rightful duties and powers such as using the annual meeting to examine and approve or disapprove or change the budget and to set policy for the coming year! It is not right for the board to prepare and approve its own budget without our approval! L. Rees, Lot #944 July 30, 2008
From: Kathy Turnbull To: The Apache Wells Homeowners' Board of Directors We are the back yard neighbours to Walt and Judy Stromme. We would simply like to state that the wall in question not only enhances the appearance of the Strommes' property but ours as well. Therefore we do not see a need to change the structure of the wall in any way.
Kathy and Ross Turnbull July 29, 2008
From: Lola Daniels What a shame you do not have anything better to do then harass homeowners. Spend the money on trying to undo all the damage you have already done. Mend some fences instead of tearing down your neighbor by forcing them to bow to your every whim. How about love your neighbor or would that be asking too much from you? Who will you select for your next victim? Jim & Lola Daniels Lot #1178 May 17, 2008 Editor's Note: The following letter appeared in the East Valley Tribune on May 1, 2008. It was submitted by a resident of Sunland Village following the recall of Homeowner Advocate Pat Haruff from their Board of Directors. We felt that it was necessary for us to respond to this condescending letter from Jeanine Hummel on Pat's behalf. UPDATE: The response below was published in the Tribune on May 19th. Save Apache Wells Committee Publication: East Valley Tribune; Date: 2008 May 01; Section: East Valley Opinion; Page Number: A14
Letters The Village has spoken! Sunland Village's "Resident Committee For Taking Back Our Village" stated they would take back their village and did just that on April 12. Pat Haruff was recalled from our board of directors with a triumphant vote of 1,005 yes votes to 275 no votes. Haruff, a CHORE advocate, has been involved in HOA communities in Arizona for years. The Sunland Village Board of Directors held their first meeting after the recall April 14. How pleasant it was to be in the audience of an orderly, well-run meeting. We felt no animosity, just people working together for the betterment of our community. Is it time to protect your property values and your lifestyle? Is it time for you to take back your community?
JEANINE HUMMEL
Response
We were appalled at the comments made by Jeanine Hummel in the Tribune's May 1, 2008 Opinions Section concerning Pat's recent recall from the Sunland Village Board of Directors. We find it difficult to believe that Pat had "taken over" her community like some third world country dictator and was ousted by a "triumphant vote" of the people. It sounds to us like Pat was blind-sided by a well-organized group of people whose goal is to have pleasant, orderly and well-run meetings. Perhaps Sunland Village will now be known as Shangri-la now that Pat has been given "the boot"!
Bob Teague, Website Editor April 22, 2008 Will our board really turn AW over to a management company? I sure hope not, from what I've discovered in much research, it would be quite costly, among other things. Their initial start up fee to run AW for the first year would be $1,200, going up each year there after. Their on site staff salaries will be a direct cost to AW, PLUS 30% employer burden for taxes, insurance, benefits, etc (no clue what the etc might be!) Not only would AW be responsible for their staff that they bring in, but we would have the extra burden of supplying our current office staff with a 401K plan, (etc) ! If they bring in their own office staff, why would AW still retain the staff we currently have now? The board also approved a request from Enga, to pay for her schooling for Management. I would love to get my schooling paid for by someone else ! We homeowners should not have to pay for other's schooling, which by the way, is over $900.00. These companies send someone out on a weekly basis, to do inspections on our homes & yards. Fines, liens and foreclosures can or would be implemented. Can this be true, that they even take a percentage of each home sold here in AW? They have a huge staff of attorneys behind them, if the need arises, we as homeowners could not afford to defend ourselves with such backing.
Some of their charges may or do include the following; I do see one very positive action , and that is that the Association accounting books & records SHALL be subject to examination by ANY member of the Association/homeowner. Most of these figures and statements, come directly from a property management proposal that was submitted to our AW board, they are not just one's opinion . Their slogan is "Caring For Communities", but (and this "is" my opinion), I see it as THEM caring for themselves. I truly hope our board does NOT turn our beautiful community over to a property management company.
Thank you, March 31, 2008 I see the board finally had the business sense to at least send a thank you to the volunteers for their service on the election committee. Of course they didn't until someone probaby told them that the call to a much respected volunteer was in extremely poor taste. Of course it was not the first unprofessional behavior as we know from the Gazebo night. I wonder how they plan to handle (what they call elections) should they come up with a change to the by-laws? What a group of unprofessional people. Sad that of all the talent we have available in this adult community that we are directed by such inapt people. Thanks again for keeping us informed. Ken and Jan Christo Lot #1092 March 24, 2008 Open Letter to the President and Board of Directors of AWHOA Dear President Miller, We are aghast to hear that you have recently dismissed Dee Miller from her long-standing position on behalf of the AWHOA. We know Dee as a dedicated, conscientious volunteer for eleven years and must question your judgment in letting her go. Even if the Maricopa County Election Board were to take charge, it seems Dee's assistance would be invaluable to them. Treating her in the manner you did was not only an insult to her, but to many of us who greatly appreciate her excellent service. Last Fall during the pre-election meetings, we heard a lot about "healing the community" and the candidates seemed sincere in wanting to represent all of Apache Wells Homeowners. We hope that is still possible. Sincerely, John & Bobby Atwell Lot #621 March 21, 2008 So.....if you don't like the election results, you dismiss the person who organized, supervised and conducted an honest voting procedure! Sounds illogical, unjust, and is an unacceptable way to treat someone who has served this community well for 11 years as the Chairperson of the Election Committee. It also is an insult to those who volunteered to serve on this committee, to question their integrity just because they belong to SAW. Freedom of choice and democracy have taken a step backward at Apache Wells, and so has the healing process we were all hoping for. Thank you, Dee, for your years of service to this community. This is a sad time in the history of Apache Wells, when a dedicated member is treated in such a vindictive manner. Jim and Lois Mascorella Lot #573 March 19, 2008 E-MAIL #1 Having just read the email on Dee Miller and the AW Election Committee being removed from this job, it is necessary as Paul Harvey would say to hear the rest of the story. When the next election of AWHO board members takes place on 1-6-09, Maricopa County Election Board will be in charge. Therefore, it will not be necessary to have this local committee any more. Isn't this what SAW asked for before the vote on the new community building last spring? It seems that no matter how hard people try, SAW can never be satisfied. It was felt that since there is continued tension and distrust whenever elections take place and since Maricopa Cty. Election Bd., a neutral group, was available to handle this election from beginning to end, this move will make people feel more confident about the vote. Dee Miller and her committee need to be congratulated on a job well done for the past 11 years. This has not been an easy task for them. Now is the time to move on. Mickey Peterson Lot #890 E-MAIL #2 I would like to reply to the firing of Dee Miller. Who will be next? The volunteers on the Beautification Force. Where is the unification of the residents of Apache Wells we were promised. I think we are moving backwards instead of forward. We are residents of Apache Wells for 18 years, 15 of which were wonderful years. God Bless! Les Schek Lot #1214 March 18, 2008
John Atwell Lot #621 March 9-10, 2008 Editor's Note: The following letters have been sent to the AWHOA Board of Directors at the Administration Office via their email. A copy was also sent to our website for posting on this page. Bill Picton, one of our homeowners, is well-versed in Robert's Rules of Order which govern our Association as outlined in ARTICLE XII PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY of our Bylaws.
March 10th, 2008
AWHA Att�n President Miller Dear Mr. President: Further to our conversation this morning during which you stated that you intended to call a short special meeting and then proceed with a vote on the proposed amendment, I wish to draw to your attention bylaw Art VIII Sec4 which dictates that notice of meetings shall be posted and publicized at least fifteen days in advance and that the notice shall specify the place, day, and hour of the meeting. No notice of a special meeting has been given. Because this bylaw has not been followed, a special meeting tomorrow will be out of order. Yours truly,
W.R. Picton Lot #1048 Cc: Bob Teague March 8th, 2008 VIA EMAIL
AWHA Att�n: Board of Directors Dear Board: The AWHA Newsletter, March 7th, announces that there will be a special election held on March 11th. This procedure will prevent any discussion of the important issue to be decided. It will set the precedent which would allow bylaw changes to be voted upon without any discussion by the homeowners. I�m sure that you�ll agree that this is a dangerous development. Fortunately, the bylaws address this problem. Art XIII Sec 1 D � �Approval of amendments shall require a two-third (2/3) vote of the members present and voting at an annual or special meeting. Voting shall be by ballot, prepared for the meeting by the Secretary.� (My emphasis) This section states that an amendment cannot be approved without a meeting. An election is not a meeting. There is no reference to an election in any of the provisions of Article XIII. It follows that even if the election vote were positive, it would not approve the proposed bylaw change. Yours truly,
W.R. Picton Lot #1048 Cc: Bob Teague March 7, 2008 One of my favorite historical characters is Sir Winston Churchill who served as prime minister of England during World War II. He was an exceptional public speaker and the author of scores of memorable quotes, some which seem quite appropriate in our time. "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." "Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." Michael Kelley Lot #892 February 11, 2008 This is in response, to the Golden's comment regarding what I brought to the people at the gazebo on February 2nd. I spent many hours, researching, not only Rossmar & Graham management company, but others, our homeowners deserve the right to hear what our appointed board members are proposing, after all, they DO have a proposal already, from this management company ! I've stressed the importance of attending the board meetings, to keep the people informed, if they do not attend, how will they stay informed? Should we keep things from them? This is an issue that could impact us all, so YES, it was something that needed to said! These companies come into large communities such as ours, they impose fines, fees, charges that impact our residents. Every little thing they can think of to make money, they impose on us. They even propose to take a percentage of every home that's sold here at AW. We would not only pay them over a thousand dollars to manage each month, but we would be responsible to pay their employees's benefits, taxes, on top of paying the two office help we currently have, AND in addition, we would have to pay for their 401K plans! So anything that would effect our homeowner's dues, IS something that needs to be said. Thank you Joice Lange Lot #1205 February 3, 2008 We would like to say that the SAW meeting went very well today, until the end. We felt individuals were listening and that maybe everyone would start to listen to each other and to respect each speaker. We felt that when Mickie Peterson got up to state her opinion she was not given the opportunity to finish. This was rude and we felt she was disrespected just as the one other lady had said about the general meetings where she was booed for her opinion. We feel that everyone should be able to speak with out being harassed, and that goes for both sides. Until WE ALL can act like adults and let everyone speak and have their say. without interruption from anyone, and to give respect of the members of this community, it is going to be hard to get along. We all know that not all of us are going to have the same opinion on any topic, and that is Ok. We just need to be respectful of each other as there is nothing worse than having everyone talking at once or booing the speakers. This especially goes for our Homeowners meetings. Second I, Bobby, would like to point out a statement made by Ernie on the spa. He stated that the inspector had told him that everything was fine with our spa and that nothing had to be done. I was at the board meeting where he was asked to get this in a written statement from the inspector so it could be put into the official files. This would protect the board and the community from any legal issues down the road if the next inspector would tell us to shut down the spa. He was also asked to get written bids from the individuals that quoted him $2,000.00 to repair the showers. As far as I know he has never provided the board with the written document or bids, and that is why nothing has gotten done. Ernie is a business man and he of all people should know that you need to get things in writing, and not rely on verbal quotes or bids. We felt it was premature for Joice to speak about her research on Rossmar-Graham until she knew for sure what the Board was going to do about a Homeowners Association Manager. It was not something that needed to be said at that meeting after Bing Miller's explanation of what transpired at the board meeting where he had handed out the binders with information on how to run a HOA. We both felt that Bing had answered and explained everything very clearly that had been on the SAW agenda and hoped everyone listened to him with an open mind. We also hope that those individuals that still have questions will make an appointment to visit with members of the board at the Citizen's meetings on the first of the month. Charlie and Bobby Golden Lot #1106 January 22, 2008 In response to some negative feedback regarding the letter I submitted to the opinions: I want to begin by saying how much I appreciate the SAW website for allowing people to have a voice in our community. I believe there was some misunderstanding regarding my letter. I read the link to the AZ Republic story regarding the CC vote. There were two comments below the article stating information that I found very enlightening... considering the article which stated that the vote passed by an overwhelming majority. All I was trying to do was bring attention to the AZ REPUBLIC articles two COMMENTS and ask others to read those comments. My name and lot number at the bottom of the posting was in following the rules of posting a letter, not stating that I wrote the comments. I found the information very upsetting to know that once again a vote was made without everyone being involved. I was merely trying to bring attention to the WHOLE STORY. It appears that some CC members don't want to voice their opinions for fear of retaliation....clearly I can see why. To those CC members who were not allowed to vote....my opinion is that it was "UNFAIR and WRONG". To all others that disagree You can't take my opinion from me....that is what makes AMERICA a great country....we have a right to voice our opinion! Linda Vander Kamp Lot #1562 Response to Vander Kamp Letter: I am a home owner and member of the HOA.... also I am a member of the AWCC.. I read the "FULL" letter you printed written by Linda Vander Kamp ( why did you pull most of it ? ). There was only one thing I could agree with her on, I would like to see everyone get along, but what I do not get is why she feels she can voice an opinion in regards to the vote or the out come of the vote, when she is not even a member of the AWCC. We did not step on her toes.. so get off ours. These kind of things are what brought about all the dissension. This is the first time I have every said anything to any one in regards to these matters and will be my last. Sincerely Gail E Van Dyke Lot # 1525 AWCC # 1170 Editor's Note: The 2 comments, which were not part of the Vander Kamp letter, were removed from this page because the authors were unidentified. They remain available on the AZ Republic website at the bottom of Art Thomason's article. Response to Gail E. Van Dyke: There were two reasons I wrote the letter ...FIRST, I have a right to my opinion when i feel that something is done unfairly and hurts people that I know and care about...(I have friends and family that are affected by this vote). Let me clarify that if there was a vote to change the by laws so ALL were able to cast a vote and it passed I would not care, but ALL did not have a say. SECONDLY, there are many people that are afraid to voice their opinions (as I stated in my letter) because of the backlash they will receive. It is a sad thing when people are afraid to voice their opinions and share their feelings (especially when they are substantiated), for fear of retaliation. I for one believe that this was done unfairly and it does not matter that it does not directly affect me. Do you agree with the war....and do you have an opinion about it? Just because I am not in the war or my husband or family are not currently involved in it...does this mean I can't voice my opinion? Let's get real.....This is America as I stated earlier......we all have a right to our opinion....and I refuse to stand idly by when I think something is done unfairly. And to set the record straight I have had CC members who voted FOR the building and they agreed it was not fair that every cc member could not vote. Linda Vander Kamp Lot #1562 January 19, 2008 When will this madness end???? For those interested in finding out some opinions on the recent AWCC vote...I recommend you read the article listed from the Republic story link (in the Jan. 18 story on the SAW website) and the comments that go along with it. It makes for some enlightening reading...in case you were not aware of the whole story. Seems we once again have a situation going on, only this time with the country club members. When will all of this unfairness cease...so we can go on and live in peace and harmony? Linda Vander Kamp Lot #1562 December 16, 2007 An Open Letter to members of the Apache Wells Homeowners Association: AWARE does it again! I note with some sense of sadness that AWARE has recently produced a flyer endorsing 2 of the 3 candidates handpicked by the Board's Nominating Committee with the third being Cheri Whalen who was nominated by petition. Jim Brockmann, who was nominated by the Board's Nominating Committee for some unknown reason didn't make the AWARE endorsement list. Could it be that Brockmann was dumped by AWARE because of his comments at the Meet the Candidates forum which seemed to indicate some sympathy for SAW? It appears to me to not really be much of an endorsement. Nowhere do I see any reasons given by AWARE for the endorsement. THIS IS NOT MUCH OF AN ENDORSEMENT! IS IT POSSIBLE THAT AWARE REALLY HAS NOTHING GOOD TO SAY ABOUT THE CANDIDATES? IS AWARE JUST A FLUNKY FOR THE BOARD? For a committee that professes to have been formed for the purpose of "Reuniting and Educating" we poor uneducated members of Apache Wells, I don't see much that enlightens us in this endorsement. Also, in examining the brochures, resumes or should I say "spin sheets" of the candidates that are attached to the endorsement, I see nothing in any of them where any of the candidates refer to any of the recent problems that the present and past boards have created and which have caused so much grief and expense to the Association all a result of the failure of the Boards to obey our Bylaws, CC&Rs and Articles of Consolidation. Nothing is offered by these candidates concerning their opinions about the recent problems and what they would do about them. Their little "puff" sheets do not give us any indication of what they intend to do about the secrecy of the board and the failure to keep us informed about what is going on. Nothing about the failure of the Board to present the proposed budget to the membership for approval; nothing about the failure to publish the monthly list of checks issued and paid! These are some of the matters about which I would hope the candidates would address. I can't in good conscience recommend any of the candidates endorsed by AWARE! Lynn Rees, Lot #944 December 2, 2007 Open letter to SAW members: Re: Doshier, et al., vs. Apache Wells Homeowners Association, Inc. I note by the SAW website that the SAW attorneys are going to amend their complaint to include a request to have the reinstated transfer fee defeated. While they are doing so, I suggest that they also request that the transfer fee, together with the illegal $100.00 gift to the country club, be set aside completely, or failing that, that it be reduced to a sum of not more than $50.00. Judge Downie's decision seemed to indicate that our bylaws have no provision for the imposition of a transfer fee. In any event, transfer fees are not supposed to be used for the purpose of raising revenues as our board contends and should have some resemblance to the costs incurred by the association in doing so. In our case, all the association does when there is a change of ownership is to make copies of our bylaws, CC&Rs and Articles of Consolidation which never amounts to more than a few dollars. Also, while the attorneys are amending the complaint, I suggest that SAW urge them to add another request to have the cancer building "purchase" set aside and declared null and void and further equitable action be taken such as ordering the building sold or rented until we recoup the $723,000.00 wrongful debt that was incurred in this deal. The record is clear that this action was in complete violation and disregard of our bylaws and articles of consolidation. The decision of the administrative court in this matter was a gross miscarriage of justice and should be corrected. Lynn Rees, Lot #944 November 17, 2007 Open letter to all members of AWHOA: The annual meeting is coming up soon and we must be ready to put forth policies for the coming year to direct our Board to follow. In the past the Board has called this a regular homeowners' meeting, but under our Bylaws it is the ANNUAL MEETING AT WHICH WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SET POLICY FOR THE COMING YEAR TO DIRECT OUR BOARD! In the past the Board has wrongly called this a monthly meeting in an obvious attempt to prevent us from exercising our rights as members. We must remember that the Board is our elected representatives directed to carry out our wishes. Some of the things that I think we should consider for this meeting are:
1. We must swear the Board into office by making them promise to obey our Bylaws, Articles of Consolidation and CC&Rs and the laws and constitutions of Arizona and the United States. (This has never been done in the past.) These are some items that come to mind. I am sure that you can think of others matters that need to be addressed and I urge you to air them here. REMEMBER: THE ANNUAL MEETING IS OUR MEETING AND IS OUR CHANCE TO HAVE A REAL SAY IN HOW THE ASSOCIATION IS RUN.!!! Thank you. Lynn Rees, Lot #944
Editor's Note: Applicable Bylaw below can be found on page 16 of the 2007 Apache Wells Telephone Directory.
November 2, 2007 NEW CC BUILDING AS I TOLD THE AWCC AND AWHOA BOARDS JUST AFTER THE LAST ATTEMPT TO GET HOMEOWNERS TO BUILD A NEW BUILDING... I WAS CO-CHAIRMAN FOR THIS PROJECT WITH BERNARD CONNERS AND WE WERE ALL SEATED IN CC BOARD AND THEY WERE GOING AROUND THE TABLE WITH COMMENTS AS TO WHAT TO DO NEXT. WHEN THEY GOT TO ME I TOLD THEM THAT IF THEY WANTED A NEW BUILDING THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD IT THEMSELVES. IT GOT VERY QUIET AND THEY MOVED ON VERY FAST. THEY DID NOT WANT TO HEAR THAT. BEN JONSON WAS PRESIDENT. SOME TIME BEFORE THIS JOINT COMMITTEE WAS FORMED TO SELL A NEW BUILDING. A GROUP WAS FORMED CALLED FOR THE BETTERMENT OF AW. THIS WAS THE JOHNSON BOYS, BING MILLER, BERNARD CONNERS AND A VERY FEW OTHERS. THEY PUSHED THIS THE FIRST TIME AND AFTER THAT ONE WAS DEFEATED THEY STARTED TO PUSH AGAIN. THEY GOT PICKED CC MEMBERS TO RUN FOR THE BOARD SO THEY COULD GAIN CONTROL. BEN JONSON WANTED A BIG DANCE HALL. THIS WAS DISCOVERED BY A SURVEY I RAN. THEY SPENT A LOT OF TIME GETTING THE RIGHT PEOPLE ON THEIR COMMITTEE SO THEY COULD PUT FEAR IN PEOPLE AND BRAIN WASH TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY. THEY, THE CC ARE INCORPORATED AND OWN THE BUILDINGS AND THE GOLF COURSE. THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE ALWAYS RENTED THE HALL FOR THEIR MONTHLY MEETINGS. THAT SHOULD CONTINUE. HOMEOWNERS HAVE NEVER USED THE HALL FOR PARTYS IN THE 13 YEARS I HAVE LIVED HERE. IF THE HOMEOWNERS COULD TAKE OVER THE GOLF COURSE, BUY THE CERTIFICATES, REMODEL THE HALL OR REBUILD IT WITH NO RESTAURANT AS IT IS LOSER AND MAYBE OUTSOURCE A BAR WITH SANDWICHES AND ALSO THE PRO SHOP. ONLY ONE BOARD! GOLF PASSES COULD BE SOLD EVERY YEAR FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF PLAYERS THEY HAVE NOW OR MORE IF BETTER ORGANIZED. THIS WOULD UNITE THE PARK. CHARLIE LAIR #1200 October 13, 2007 Hi, Jerry and I recently sent letters to various members of both boards with some suggestions and questions. In an effort to keep the community as a whole in the loop, we are also sending copies to all interested media outlets: The Roundup, and the SAW and AWARE websites. See the attached. Read Complete Mangini E-mail Attachment Respectfully, Liz & Jerry Mangini, Lot #1541 Editor's Note: If you have suggestions or questions that you would like to share on this subject, send us an e-mail and we will publish it on our OPINIONS & FEEDBACK page. Our e-mail address is at the bottom of our HOME page. Let's join the Manginis and open a dialogue on solving some of our community's problems. October 10, 2007 A MISSED OPPORTUNITY ISN'T IT SAD? THAT ONCE AGAIN A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO REUNITE AND HELP HEAL OUR COMMUNITY WAS MISSED AT THE FIRST MONTHLY HOMEOWNERS MEETING HELD IN FIVE MONTHS (10-9-07)? WHAT WAS OVERLOOKED WAS THE FACT THAT THE WELCOME BACK GET TOGETHER HAD BEEN CANCELLED AFTER A MASS MAILING OF THE NOTICE THAT IT WAS BEING HELD. IT WAS PUT BACK ON TRACK BY A WELL KNOWN MEMBER OF THIS COMMUNITY OVER TWO WEEKS AGO. THIS MEMBER WENT TO TWO BOARD MEMBERS PLUS MADE CONTACT WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OFFICE AND VOLUNTEERED TO DO THE WELCOME BACK GET TOGETHER. SHE ALSO WENT BEFORE THE BOARD MEMBERS AT THEIR FIRST MEETING (10-4-07) TO GET THEIR APPROVAL. THEN JUST BEFORE THE HOMEOWNERS MEETING STARTED, SHE APPROACHED LINDA WOOD AND PRESIDENT MARV STOLL TO SEE IF SHE NEEDED TO ADDRESS THE MEETING OF WHAT SHE FELT WAS NESESSARY TO GET THE COMMUNITY AWARE OF, WHO TO CONTACT, ETC. SHE WAS TOLD "THEY WOULD TAKE CARE OF IT FOR HER". DID I MISS SOMETHING?? I MUST HAVE BLINKED OR DID I HAVE A "SENIOR MOMENT" AND NOD OFF? NOOOOOO! I EVEN CHECKED WITH THE PERSON SITTING TO MY LEFT TO SEE IF THIS PERSON'S NAME WAS MENTIONED. NOPE, NOTHING WAS MISSED. WE WAITED PATIENTLY FOR THEM TO ANNOUNCE WHO HAD VOLUNTEERED TO HEAD UP THIS WELL KNOWN GATHERING. NOT A WORD WAS SAID OF HOW IT HAD BEEN CANCELLED OR WHO HAD GRACIOUSLY COME FORWARD TO GET IT BACK ON THE SCHEDULE OF EVENTS. NOW FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ATTENDED THE HOMEOWNERS MEETING AND THOSE OF YOU THAT DIDN'T, I FIND THIS VERY DISHEARTENING, TO HAVE TO ONE MORE TIME, SEE HOW ONE-SIDED THIS B.O.D. IS. I FEEL THAT IT IS THIS TYPE OF TREATMENT OF ONE OF OUR HOMEOWNERS THAT DIVIDES THIS COMMUNITY. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HAD TO HEAR HOW "THEY NEVER VOLUNTEER FOR ANYTHING, JUST B.... B.... B....!!!!!" WELL THIS PERSON DID VOLUNTEER AND SO DID I OVER A YEAR AGO TO BE ON THE BOARD'S BYLAW COMMITTEE. NOT A PEEP WAS HEARD IN EITHER CASE. ISN'T IT SAD? ONCE AGAIN THEY SHOW HOW THEY PICK AND CHOOSE WHO GETS RECOGNIZED AND WHO DOSEN'T, WHO GETS NOMINATED AND WHO DOESN'T? THEN THEY WONDER WHY SO MANY OF US ARE UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY THEY RUN THIS COMMUNITY??? ISN'T IT SAD? ONCE AGAIN THEY SHOW HOW THEY REFUSE TO WORK WITH US AS HOMEOWNERS. THAT WE HAVE TO FILL OUT A 3X5 CARD WITH OUR QUESTION(S) ONLY TO HAVE IT UNREAD FOR WHAT EVER REASON? ISN'T IT SAD? ONCE AGAIN THEY SHOW WHY IT TAKES A COURT ORDER TO GET THEM TO HEAR OUR CONCERNS. "ATTORNEY/CLIENT CONFIDENIALITY"??? I FOR ONE, AM VERY WEARY OF THEM HIDING UNDER THAT COP-OUT. ISN'T IT SAD? MY OPINION IS, THAT IT IS "THEIR WAY OR NO WAY"! THIS HAS HAPPENED TIME AND TIME AGAIN. THAT, DEAR PEOPLE IS THE VERY ATTITUDE THAT IS HURTING THIS COMMUNITY. ISN'T IT SAD? ISN'T IT SAD? WE ARE CONSIDERED THE BAD APPLES OF THE COMMUNITY?? ISN'T IT SAD? SOMEONE CAN'T EVEN SAY HELLO BACK? ISN'T IT SAD? THEY CAN'T EVEN LOOK AT YOU OR BE PLEASANT? ISN'T IT SAD? THAT THEY THINK THEY ARE ALWAYS RIGHT AND WE ARE SO WRONG? OH, WELL THAT IS THEIR PROBLEM. I FOR ONE WILL CONTINUE TO SMILE AND SAY A CHEERY "HELLO" OR "HAVE A GOOD DAY" EVEN THOUGH I RECEIVE NO RESPONSE. MAYBE SOME DAY THEY'LL WAKE UP TO THE FACT THAT WE (SAVE APACHE WELLS COMMITTEE MEMBERS) ARE NOT THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEMS HERE. ALL THAT WE HAVE DONE IS RAISE SOME SERIOUS QUESTIONS AND HOLD MONTHLY MEETINGS TO KEEP THE PEOPLE INFORMED AS TO WHAT IS GOING ON LEGALLY AND OTHERWISE. AFTER ALL, NOT EVERYONE HAS A COMPUTER. WE HAVE TO GO FIVE MONTHS WITHOUT THE ROUNDUP OR ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INFORMATION FROM THE B.O.D. ETC. YET THEY SCORN US FOR WHAT WE TRY TO DO? ISN'T IT SAD? WITH THIS I WILL END - FOR NOW, BUT ISN'T IT SAD???
JUDITH A. TEAGUE LOT #196 October 9, 2007 Response to "Are You Aware" flyer distributed Sunday October 7, 2007: Once more I must question AWARE's sincerity when it professes to want to educate, inform and reunite our community. As far as I am concerned, this latest flyer does not meet any of its professed goals. First, the historical background set forth is nice to know but it has no real relevance or significance to the problems of our community with our delinquent present and past Boards of directors. Second, your listing of other community transfer fees is of no significance. You completely miss the point that transfer fees are supposed to bear some reasonable relationship to the actual cost incurred by the association whenever there is a change of ownership in the community. Transfer fees are not supposed to be a revenue raising measure. Incidentally, just because other communities may be illegally imposing higher transfer fees does not mean that we should do likewise! This is arbitrary and capricious as the Administrative court ruled. If AWARE really wants to inform and educate we poor, uninformed members, it should print Arizona law concerning transfer fees as Mr.Teague did in his critique of the flyer. I was very interested in your item numbered 8 re legal expenses of $53,802 for 2007. You conveniently forgot to mention the reason for same, namely, the wrongful actions of the Board concerning the February voting! Also, it would be nice to know how much has been paid by the insurance carrier. How about demanding an accounting of this from the Board? We have a right to know. Is AWARE interested in finding out? I am particularly intrigued by your item numbered 12 in which you make the often heard statement that the new garbage contract has saved us hundreds of thousands of dollars, in this case $749,000, according to you. The first question I have is: Where did you get this information? SAW has been unable to obtain this information. The next question is why don�t you give us the full information about the garbage contract and the prior contract which apparently was much higher? What is the total amount of the garbage contract as well as the terms and conditions of it? Why wasn't the contract made known to us before it was entered into and why wasn't the membership given the opportunity to Vote on it if it was as big and good as you claim? Instead of "spin", give us facts! Also, your statement in item no. 12 that the savings on the garbage contract was enough for the board to purchase the administrative (bank) building is really laughable in view of the fact that the Board never authorized or approved the illegal bank contract! Finally, I would be interested in knowing how many members of AWARE's steering committee are members of the country club, whether golfers or not. Lynn Rees, Lot #944 October 8, 2007 About 5 years ago my husband and I drove around Apache Wells and I told him that "someday I want to live here". We then found my mom and dad a place in here and they moved in. A year later I helped my sister, who lives out of state, find a place here and she and her husband bought a place in Apache Wells. Shortly after that, my husband and I bought a house here...that was 3 years ago. I thought this was going to our retirement home...our last move. Lately, I have been thinking a lot about moving out of Apache Wells, (I hate living in a community with such dissention). We have the most wonderful neighbors. We could not have found better ones anywhere. They are the reason we choose to hang in there and not move at this time. All of us in this community need to remember that EVERYONE has a right to their opinion. It does not mean that anyone is right or wrong. It just means that we should express our own opinions, without hurting others. It means that we are individuals with our own mind and feelings. This is our right. Each person will interpret things according to their own understanding or in the way they perceived it. The most important thing to remember is the way we proceed to deliver the information we are trying to get across. The way we deliver the message may be perceived differently by each person. For example, I recently read some info about the Pool Remodeling and I get the impression that because there was a second contract of $24,000 that was less expensive than the first contract of $32,000, that someone is trying to justify the loss of the $9,422 deposit. In my calculations...and I may be wrong...but this is my understanding of what was written...If someone on the board made a bad decision and signed a contract and gave a deposit ($9,422), and then it was discovered that there was a better option...and it cost less...that still does not justify the loss of $9,422. If I originally had signed a contract for $24,000 and paid $9,422 down, then my balance would be $14,578. This means that the $24,000 contract only cost me $24,000, not $24,000 and a deposit of $9,422, for a total of $33,422. Which means we lost the deposit from the first contract of $9,422. It appears that someone is trying to justify the fact...that a lesser contract was signed to make up for the loss on the first contracts deposit? This insults my intelligence. This in my opinion is a cop-out or cover-up. This is someone NOT accepting responsibility for their mistake and trying to pass it off as justification. If I am wrong in my understanding of what was printed, please let me know that we only paid $24,000 for the pool remodeling and not $33,422 as the article states. I am happy to admit I may be misunderstanding what is being said. If I am correct then WE DID lose $9,422 not $1376 as stated in the article I read. Next, it again appears that someone is trying to justify spending money on a bank building by informing all of us that the money saved on the garbage pickup almost covers the cost of the new building. GUESS WHAT...If we would not have bought the new building we would be $749,000 richer in our funds /spending. I personally do not agree that any board of directors should be able to spend an outrageous amount of money without a vote. That again is my opinion. I believe there should be a limit on board spending without approval. If more than the limit is to too be spent, then a vote of homeowners should occur. I believe that in this community communication needs to improve drastically. I believe that this community should be a win-win for both the Homeowners and the Country Club Member Homeowners. I believe that there are many alternatives that have not even been considered that could benefit everyone and reunite this community. I believe it begins with people respecting others opinions and ideas. Lastly, I believe that with a lot of hard work and thought going into it...country club homeowners and the non country club homeowners could reach a happy medium when it comes to REMODEL vs. BUILDING NEW. I, as many others believe that multiple options must be given...NOT just one option VOTE YES OR NO for a new building. What about giving the Apache Hall back to the HOA to run functions that will earn money and then the Resturant/Bar could work together with the HOA to earn extra money to be shared between both the HOA and the Country Club. What about giving back to the community when monies are earned/saved! What about being a community that shares in the successfulness of its profits with it's homeowners. Let's be a unique community that people want to live in...because we CARE about ALL HOMEOWNERS. This will make it a desireable community. I have heard people say that the new group now needs another group to correct their info. When will this end? I hope I have not offended anyone by expressing my opinion on my perception of things. If I have offended anyone, I apologize as it was not my intention to do so. I just want to live in a community where people get along, communicate honestly and respect each other. This is my prayer. GOD BLESS. Linda Vander Kamp, Lot 1562 September 27, 2007 I couldn't wait to move to Apache Wells last year. My parents had lived here for nearly 30 years, as well as my Aunt, Phyl Hegman. Some of you may remember my Mom, Glady Finger. I never heard anything bad about Apache Wells in all those years. But I've heard your rumors and read about my Dad on the SAW opinion page enough to last another 30 years. Maybe it helped gain a few signatures for your recall petition. Here's the truth, my Dad has done more for people in this community than most of you will ever know, he's honest and hard-working, the kind of guy who will lend a hand then never speak of what he's done, he's devoted his time to Apache Wells freely for many more years than some of you have lived here. Nothing will change how proud I am of him, or how ashamed I am of you. Dorie (Finger) Ray, Lot #32 September 26, 2007 AWARE Letters I guess you will have a problem retracting some of your accusations when you are given the facts, which by the way were available in Board publications when these things were being done. Lee Johnson Lot #282 September 23, 2007 Let me introduce myself, my name is Sharon Norman. I live at 2362 N. Nicklaus Dr. in Apache Wells and have lived in Apache Wells for 12 years. I�ve had relatives living here since 1982; so I feel somewhat familiar with the community. I've met some pretty nice people here and made some very strong bonds with them. I would often boast about what a great community I live in, that is until now; frankly I'm rather ashamed. What are we doing to ourselves? We now have neighbor against neighbor, committees forming to oust the standing Board, another committee trying to oust the opposing board member, lawsuits going back and forth, legal appeals going back and forth, even a lawsuit of a personal nature has occurred. To what end? What are the ramifications of being an association without a board of Directors? Wouldn't it be nice if we could all be ONE community with ONE community center? When are we going to have our own center, where can it be built and how will we pay for this without an assessment? Have we stopped to think about all the negative publicity we've recently generated with the two newspaper articles and local radio station and the affect it has on our homes? Do we think those pieces are going to help attract new home owners to Apache Wells and continue to raise your property value as it has over the last 40 or so years? I doubt it. Every one of us must consider their actions and the consequences they pose to the future of Apache Wells. Before this situation worsens and we reach that "point of no return," I strongly suggest that both sides of this quarrel sit down immediately with a professional mediator, and get their differences out on the table and settled. There are many ways to handle disputes; and spitting over the fence at one another never settled a single one of them, ever. Let's start acting like a community that we can all be proud of and continue the heritage of Apache Wells for the next 40 years. Thanks you for you time. Sincerely, Sharon Norman Lot #1146 September 22, 2007 AWARE Thank you for your response. The sentences prior to my "adding $345,000" stated, "...the Board has collected an additional $900,000 (approximately) over the amount that would have been collected if dues had remained at $22 per month from 2000 to 2007." It was perfectly clear to me that the next sentence would refer to that same concept. However, Tom Finger seemed to take great delight in his newsletters saying he had to write at an 8th grade level. That could have been taken as a put down to the homeowners, but perhaps he was right, although most of us have high school or college degrees. To me, it was just another example of Board arrogance. At any rate, you have stated to me that you now understand my meaning, although you blame your lack of understanding on me. So you wrote your new understanding to me, but still have not clarified it in your newsletter. SAW has permitted me to clarify the statement in the "Opinions", and I feel that you should clarify it in your next newsletter. Otherwise, your supposed intent to "set the record straight" is a sham. Joe Davis Lot #232
Mr. Davis:
Thank you for your interest. September 19, 2007 Response to email #4 of Brian Johnson entitled "Response to SAW's letter entitled 'Why Consider Recalling the AWHOA Board?'" I dislike having to respond to Mr. Johnson's latest spin message, but I feel that this person must not go unchallenged. He has no credibility as far as I am concerned. He is the main reason, as I see it, for the terrible situation the Apache Wells Homeowners Association (AWHOA) is presently in. In the first paragraph, after nit-picking quotes by Burke and Santana, he again repeats Burke's famous quotation re the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing and as I have said before and repeat here, I agree and SAW's actions are proof that good men are doing something to prevent the evil that has been done here for which we should all be proud! Then he says he is writing to set the record straight and proceeds in full spin mode! Re the Bank building: This is especially good! He admits he signed the contract and asserts that he did so with the unanimous approval of the Board! This is palpably untrue! I challenge him to show anywhere in the records where this appears. I have reviewed all of the minutes of Board and homeowners meetings between February 2006 and December 2006, and there is no such showing. There is one item in a March 2006 meeting where someone (unknown) says something to the effect that "Marv and Brian can handle the bank building", or words to that effect, but that is all! This hardly constitutes approval of a deal that took place on June 1, 2006, some three months later when the board was on vacation! It is obvious that Mr. Johnson did the whole deal on his own. No wonder he didn't want us to know what was going on! And the board's abdication of its responsibility in this matter is truly shameful! Johnson's assertion at the administrative court hearing that the bylaws say the bank purchase was correct is just not true. He refers to page 13 of the bylaws as justification for this, but a reading of Article II does not clearly state this. In fact, it says the opposite, namely, that the association can assess members when necessary to carry out its purpose to buy real property, to paraphrase Sections C and D of said Article . It is unfortunate that the administrative court was not fully advised of all the facts surrounding the deal, as it could have easily found the bank deal was void. Johnson's assertion that the bylaws "quite clearly" state that the bank deal was correct is a real stretch! Re the Community Center Building project: After first irrelevantly citing all the time and effort involved by volunteers, he says, among other things, that the committee "relied on the advice of lawyers and experts". This is most interesting because he and the board have consistently refused to make known the legal opinions they have paid for when requested, hiding behind the "attorney-client" privilege, which he and the board knows, or should know, does not apply to the client, namely, we, the association! Re the SAW Vote Yes signs: This attempt by Johnson to try and explain the board's actions in this matter by saying the signs were put up in February 2007, a day before the SAW committee registered its trademark, is truly shameful! He knows full well that the SAW committee was established in June, 2006, shortly after he announced his so called purchase of the bank building and the SAW committee has held public meetings regularly since that time. This was a "dirty trick" of the kind that the Nixon campaign used in 1972 and was designed to confuse people about SAW�s intentions.
Re failure to adhere to the bylaws, CC&Rs, etc: This has been thoroughly documented in prior letters and includes such as the following:
Re fiduciary care and responsibility of board: Johnson challenges us to name some. Here is a sampling: Re his complaint about SAW funding: This is truly outrageous! He says SAW should be willing to share financial information! He knows that many donors do not want their names and donations published and that their wishes have to be respected. However, the same is not true for the board which has been spending our money without telling us why, for whom, what for, etc.! We have a right to know these things, such as attorneys fees, postage, architect's fees, ASU professor's fees and any other contracts! But the board says NO! Finally, in passing, I want to say that I am disturbed and disappointed by the lack of interest shown by non-country club members. Approximately 175 failed to vote in the February election which not only concerned their pocketbook, but also concerned the manner in which the board was running this association in complete disregard of our ruling documents. The voting at the annual election of board members is even worse. The country club manages to get a much greater percentage of its members out to vote. We have got to get more non-country club members involved! I am tired of being treated as a second class citizen. We have got to get this community run correctly! Lynn Rees Lot #944 September 18, 2007 E-MAIL #1 RESPONSE TO AWARE: Since you have not chosen to address the last e-mail that I sent (to awareaw@yahoo.com), I will attempt to clarify it once again. Your chart of dues increases makes my point very well, so I will address my comments using your exact numbers. From 1993 to 1998, dues increased $5 or 29.4 %, a dollar amount any of us might have expected and afforded. From 1998 through 2001, the dues remained constant. From 2001 to 2007, dues increased $16.50 or 75%, a hugely increased dollar amount and percentage for no stated reason. The figures below indicate dues amount per month times 12 months times 1412 residences, the latter being my best estimate. Increase from........................................$22.00/month
2001 $22.00X12X1412=$373,768 2001 Income from dues.........$0
2008 $42.35X12X1412=$717,578 2008 Income from dues.........$343,810 Total of dues increases since 2001 when it was $22.00 per month is $32,888
$ 73,553 If dues are raised again add $343,810.
$888,640 You stated in your newsletter that the $345,000 was wrong and that your figure of $65,234.40 was correct. That was comparing apples to oranges. As you can see, the $343,810 was the cumulative result of raising dues 10% per year since 2001, from $22 to $42.35 if dues are increased yet again. Your figure was a 10% increase for one year. I believe that you owe it to me to clarify to your readers that you did not understand what I was saying, but it is all here in black and white. The reason why the slight decrease in total revenue from the dues increases was that I didn�t have the exact numbers used for the dues and used the 10% per year. The number is still more than significant. The bottom line is that for the first time in Apache Wells history, the dues have been raised annually by approximately 10% per year since 2001, with no explanation given, but with huge amounts of money spent over and above the costs of daily operations and maintenance of the common property. If you are truly trying to be factual, you would publish this kind of information that bears heavily on homeowners trust or distrust of the current board. Where did this money go or where is it planned for it to go and is it legal? If you still do not understand the information provided, please contact me and tell me what you don�t understand. If you want to attain any credibility, you shouldn�t ignore it. There have been a couple of very good opinions addressed in Angelfire. Trying to negate a couple of opinions does not make a case for ignoring all of the legitimate concerns addressed. You could take a lesson from Angelfire and if you are going to challenge something you read there, give the author of the point a chance to respond. Otherwise, it will just be like the good old days when the Board didn�t want anybody�s opinion but their own. Lastly, the Manginis said that they have been told that if they are not on the bandwagon, they should move. I wonder why those that moved to Apache Wells and thought they could change it to their idea of what it should be like without regard to the current residents moved here in the first place. We went to one focus group meeting and were disgusted with it. The one woman who wanted the most changes had lived here for three months. We wondered then why she had bothered to move here. Most of us moved here originally because we really liked it and thought it was an ideal, well thought out place to spend our winters and our retirement years. We never dreamed we would be expected to pay for a new country club. Joe & Sandy Davis Lot #232 E-MAIL #2 For the past three nights I haven't slept as in my mind I've been thinking about what I'd say in this email and how I would say it. Today I have decided to writeiit down and hopefully then I will sleep because I've said my piece. First of all, let me introduce myself. My name is Mickey Peterson. My husband, Jann, and I have lived in AW since 1996. In 1995 we spent a week in AW in a mobile home that Dee Miller rented to us as we were there to visit friends. After being there that week and meeting several great people, golfing and attending AW Church, we decided that AW would be our winter home. Coming from Wisconsin, we wanted to get out of the winters there but do return each summer to be w/ our family and friends. Thus, we became snowbirds. So about a month after our visit, we ended up buying a double wide mobile unit on Higley and had to rent it out the first year because I was a year away from retirement. My husband and I had careers as educators. Jann started in 1958 and I in 1971. In between those years, we had three sons, and I went to college so we lived on a single teacher's salary for several years and had to be very frugal in order to pay our bills each month. But, our families had taught us that saving was very important so we faithfully did this on a monthly basis. As a result, in the end, we were able to own two homes. Jann was a teacher/coach, principal, and a school superintendent, but he was there before the big salaries came along for administrators. We have six Grandchildren and four Gr. Grans. Our family is the light of our lives. Getting back to AW. We decided to buy stock in the golf course immediately (1995) because our firends had paid $5,000 and prices were raising to double that or more. So another investment was made by us in AW as we certainly knew that golfing was going to help us meet people and give us much fun and exercise. In Dec. of '99 we moved to a stick built house on Lema. This house was built in the '70's as were all of the houses in this area. It never had mobiles on it so there goes the message that AW was always just a mobile park. Each of our properties we remodeled in order to help w/ the resale if and when we sold. We did sell our Higley home after renting it again for a few months. Since being in AW, we've been involved in many things. Jann was on the AWHO Bd. for three yrs. and was a part Veep and Pres. of the AW Shrine Club. We joined the AW Church and sing in the choir. Other things we did/do are: AW Security Patrol, Stitch and Chat (me), member of the Nine Hole Swingers (Pres. for 2 yrs.), been on the AWCC Social Comm. for several yrs. (chaired it one yr.) and I'm still on the AWCC Steering Comm. for the Soc. Comm. We use the swimming pool, exercise room, pool room, play cards and have gone to bingo. You can see that we became active members in AW upon our arrival there. Our calendar became filled each day so we were very busy and loved it. Now to get back to why I'm emailing you. Before I started writing, I sat and read your opinion page which took me more than an hour, but I wanted to see what had already been said so that i didn't repeat it. I'll try to adhere to this. The beginning of the building program started w/ each homeowner getting a survey which was to give the LRPC an idea of just what people wanted in the future for AW. I immediately sat down and filled it out and sent it in. No way was I NOT going to give them my input. I wonder how many of you took the time to do this. Then I started going to all of the meetings and everyone was encouraged to get involved. One of the first ones let us select which group we wanted to work on. I picked the building itself because fo my involvement w/ the AWCC Social Comm. and saw the need for a new hall. I really was interested in the financial comm. but have no expertise in this field. I was glad to see people who dealt in banking on this comm. as they could give us input before we had to pay for outside help. I also attended all but one of the town meetings (I forgot it) and eventaully hosted a neighborhood coffee as I wanted those who hadn't heard what I was hearing to be able to get this information. When the Finance Comm held a meeting in the library where they were going to discuss the nuts and bolts of how to do it, I was there. I listened w/ great interest as they talked about the cost per lot ($6020). I listened w/ greater interest as they discussed how they could address all incomes of people in the park. The first group that was discussed were the ones who just couldn't afford it. The idea of a deferred plan was divised where a person would not have to pay until they died or left their property to others. Of course in order to qualify, someone outside of the park would have to verify their financail status. I was soooo happy to hear of this plan. Next they talked about the ones who might be leaving the park in a few years due to age or health issues or just couldn't afford the $6020 amount in one or two paymjents so the $50 per month plan w/ interest was created. Then knowing that there needed to be money up front for this project, they decided to offer those who would pay all or half in one yr. and half in the other w/ a no interest plan. What creative financing!!! I felt great relief. Before the meeting ended, I asked them how long it would be before this building would be built. I was astounded when the answer was 3 years!! I said you know most of the people in the park are retired and don't have lots of time left. Their response to me was that they wanted everybody to be educated on the need of this project and WE DON'T WANT THEM TO FEEL WE RUSHED THEM AND CRAMMED IT DOWN THEIR THROATS. When I left this meeting, I felt lots of great thinking had gone on. Several things upset me about SAW. It appears that there's no way the LRPC can win w/ them. I was astoounded to hear at a homeowners' meeting that all people would be getting an absentee ballot. What's this world coming to? It's a privilege to be able to vote but along w/ this comes a responsibility. You go vote OR you request an absentee ballot like we do each fall before we leave WI. Yet, many SAW people were outraged about this decision. I, too, was upset because I wasn't sure how many absentee homeowners were up-to-date on the needs of the complex. I knew that the vote was going to be close. If I'd been a SAW member, I think I would have been dancing in the streets w/ this decision but many SAW members spoke against this. Another thing that distresses me is that SAW found it necessary to get the newspapers involved in AW business. Now we're really important to them because bad news and contraversial issues sell papers. What was SAW's purpose in doing this? Do you think that people in the area who read those papers are going to want to come and buy in AW--a place that is full of friction, negativeness and ill-feelings? No way, as they want peace and happiness in their retirement yrs. I have heard that there are a few houses selling in AW, but most of the people who are buying are doing so because they're from out of state and know others in AW. Now, not only do we as well as the whole US have to deal w/ the housing crisis, but you've compounded the problem w/ this bad press. Remember how many times people spoke at meetings and said we must protect our investment by planning for the future of AW? Yet SAW people persist that we must regress---get rid of the stick built homes, hate the golfers, divide the community!!!! Or as one of your member stated he just wanted AW to return to what it used to be. I'm hoping he's talking about friendliness and not keeping all of the old facilities. BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU WISH FOR!! How I wish the newspapers would not give the adjective of luxury when talking about the new building. I've had many chances to go to other senior citizens' complexes and believe me I've seen luxury in some, but our plan is not luxurious. It'd be a new, modernized building. Also, believe me when I say we have lots of competiton out there and we're way behind. Im worried about our two investments (home/golf course) as well as your's if we do not make the decision to tear down the 40 yrs. old complex that has more problems than can be addressed. There's a time to be frugal AND a time to make a wise investment. Do you feel that we just must wait until the building inspectors come and close down the building because of the mold, termites, old wiring/plumbing, etc. Did you go to the meetings and see the pictures of the problems in this complex and come out feeling that these things can be repaired? If you did, then you and I don't have the same perspective on this issue. I've seen people trying to keep up w/ the repairs and this is no longer feasible. Getting back to the newspapers. I'm wondering why they didn't educate the public on the 4-way payment plans given to the AW people instead of just saying that a one-time payment of $6020 would be required of all lot owners. This would have been the REST OF THE STORY and maybe given others an idea. Many times I read that you were told if you're not happy, move out! I'm sure this was told to you in frustration, but this is an option for you if you don't want to follow the By-Laws which say that assessments can be made for uop-keep and/or replacing properties in the complex. When you move to a senior citizen complex, these rare the rules. You WILL be assessed when necessary and you MUST pay these assessments. If you move out into a residentail area, just make sure that you have curbs and gutters and that your gas and water lines are good or if they're not you will b e assessed for payments, and you must pay. But, moving out is a very good option for you and maybe if you're so unhappy w/ the way things are going in AW, find another palce to live. Let me go back to my first annual meeting for the AWCC. As I sat there and listened to the reports before we voted on issuing the monies, the needs were being given for repairs for the electrical/plumbing, appliances, etc. It was then that I found out that the golfer (485 certificates) owned the pro shop, restaurant and hall. It was part of the package when the golfers purchased the course---a great asset to the community I might add---and that the swimming pool, exercise room and strip mall was owned by the homeowners (1410 lots). This was a surprise to me to find out that the building was a PRIVATE facility, but the ALL homeowners could use it. Any private club I knew of allowed members only. Since the 1980's WHAT A GOOD DEAL FOR THE HOMEOWNERS, BUT A BAD DEAL FOR THE GOLFERS!!! Another thing that REALLY bothers me is that SAW thinks that the way to solve the problems in AW is to SUE. How many law suits have you started? Let's see there was the one against the vote, one to stop the $950 maintenance fee, one for assault placed by one of your leaders which he lost, and one for an injunction. I see in your website that you are continually asking for money to pay the lawyer's fees. Aren't most of your peopole the ones who said that they coudln't afford this building project? Some day they are going to tell you that enough is enough. Then who's going to pay your lawyer's bills? I was shocked to hear last spring that one of your members put up $5,000 to help pay the lawyer. Please tell me that this was a rumor as why would one be sooo willing to pay for lawyres when $1020 more would have paid for his/her share of the new facility. I just don't get it. Oh, yes, your newest champaign is to recall all but Ernie from the board. What a slap in the face to these people who have dedicated sooo many hrs. working for the betterment of this communhity only to have you knock them down and try to recall them. But there is some good news in that both of these tactics are the last straw for the people who are supporting the bukiding program in as much as many more are willing to get involved. The bad news is that this is just delaying the building program which is only getting more expensive w/ each day and will eventually have to be built. Wouldn't it have been great if all of the time, energy, and money that has been put forth during this time of suing and recalling could have been used to protect the future of AW---SAVE AW!! SAW members also have us in a Catch 22. They complain about paying for the plan BEFORE they voted. Now really, would you have voted for it if there had been no plans? It reminds me of the poem Ring Around the Rosie. Let's see how does this go? Ring around the rosie, Pockets full of posies. Ashes, ashes, and WE ALL FALL DOWN. One last thing and then I'm done. Some of your SAW members appear to enjoy spreading untruths about the LPRC and the golfers. The one that really upsets me is when they say the the AWCC is running in the red. It reminds me of playing telephone in my childhood. I can just hear the first message. Boy, the golfers must be going in debt, just look at how long they've been working on the pump. It ends w/ people saying, the golfers are in debt and want the homeowners to bail them out. Well, only one who is NOT a AWCC MEMBER would repeat such a message. Here's what really happens. Each yr. this group has an annual meeting where a budget is given for the following yr. This is approved by a vote from the members. Sometimes things come up that aren't expected like the pump going down or new water systems. When this happens, the members are assessed to cover this bill. A vote is taken on the amount of the assessment and yes, some people vote for it and yes, some vote against it, but the majority have always won and have voted for it so the assessments are paid. EVERYONE pays no matter how they voted!! When shocked me was when the vote on the proposed building passed and the majority of those who voted, voted for it (88% participation), and many of SAW members inclulding some your the leaders were telling the members not to pay. What was the quote from Mr. Stromme, I believe it went something like this. "They're not going to get one cent out of me!" I might add that this was before the law suit. Also, many peop[le who live on the golf course are not golfers, but they benefit from this location as the lots/homes are worth more so in the end it's a great investment. However, they do not have to pay for the expenses of keeping up the course which in my opinion is the greatest asset AW has right now. So instead of bad mouthing the golfers, everyone should be thanking them. NEVER BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU!! In conclusion, Walter Stromme stated that SAW just wants to "get control back in this park." Tell me if I am wrong but I think he's only lived here 2 to 3 yrs. and the park WAS in control before he brought his negativeness and untruthfulness to AW. But, we too want to get things under control, but SAW's way is not the answer. Mickey Peterson Lot #890 September 17, 2007
John & Bobby Atwell Lot #621 E-MAIL #1 I ask that you publish this but expect you will remind me of the one-letter-per-household limit you imposed. Did you conveniently forget about your limit when you decided to publish a second letter from Lynn Rees? Kitty Howlett, former janitor at the Country Club, wrote a letter in which she attacked all Country Club members as a "bunch of spoiled rich kids that (sic) had never been accountable for anything". She is convinced that the messes she saw in the restrooms were created by Country Club members. Messes are created everywhere in our park. Vandals are vandals. Graffiti was sprayed on the screens at the gazebo, and the screens had to be replaced. Soap has been poured into the fountain on 56th on several occasions, and it takes hours of work by volunteers to clean up the mess. The swimming pool has been vandalized many times and it takes hours to remove the furniture, boulders, and other trash from it. Is it logical to look at these acts of vandalism and conclude that all Apache Wells homeowners are "spoiled rich kids"? I think most homeowners would reject such thinking. Unless Kitty Howlett has done some DNA testing on the feces she saw, she should not lay the blame on Country Club members. The pro-shop restrooms are used and abused by numerous persons who are not Country Club members, just as our entire park is used and abused by persons who are not residents. Isn�t it logical to think that persons with no ownership stake are the ones involved in acts of vandalism to homeowner property and country club property? You seem to like quotes, so here's another one for you. "A lie which is half truth is ever the blackest of lies. A lie which is all a lie may be met and fought with outright, but a lie which is part truth is a harder matter to fight." Alfred Lord Tennyson - 1864 Kitty Howlett's letter is such a half truth. She no doubt saw feces on a wall. However, she writes with emotion not supported by reason. Letters such as this should never be published anywhere. You made a decision to limit letters to one per household. Perhaps you will also refuse to publish letters like Kitty Howlett's which are half truths, the blackest of lies. Brian Johnson, Lot #368 Editor's Note: The reason SAW opened up the OPINIONS & FEEDBACK page to homeowners who support the AWHOA Board of Directors was to provide them with an opportunity they do not enjoy; to present their opinions publicly online on issues that have divided our community for over a year. It also provided our supporters insight into why they have opposed our views so strongly. We imposed a one e-mail per household limit to prevent a small group of them from dominating the page. We also reserve the right to waive that limit. It is the prerogative of SAW to control what it does and does not publish on their website. We make every effort to publish what we believe to be the truth on our pages. The validity of comments from e-mail contributors posted on the OPINIONS & FEEDBACK page, unedited and without comment, are the sole responsibility of the author. September 15, 2007 Comments on AWARE flyer: After reading AWARE�s first flyer entitled "Apache Wells Advocates For Reuniting And Educating", I became aware that AWARE is not aware of what is wrong with our community and what should be done about it. Re Position Statement: AWARE says recall of board members is an attempt to abridge voting rights of "our community". Obviously, AWARE is not concerned with the rights of non-board members. Our bylaws and Arizona law gives members of the association the right to recall board members. Often this is the only remedy members have when dealing with a runaway, secret board that has no regard for rules and regulations, bylaws, etc. Why isn�t AWARE concerned with this? All its statements about great volunteers and hard working board members are of no consequence when it comes to dealing with a board that ignores its duties and responsibilities. Re "Setting Record Straight" on page 2 of the flyer: AWARE's statement about the appraisal of the bank building and collateral for the loan is a bit of "nit-picking" and is of no significance re the bank deal. The important thing about the bank deal that AWARE should concern itself with is the failure of the board to approve the deal and its abdication of its responsibility to do so together with its failure to live up to its duty and responsibility to keep the membership informed of negotiations. That there has been no mention to date of the negotiations is incredulous! That there could be a deal involving $723,000 of our money without our approval is scandalous! This was a clear violation of the intent and spirit of our special assessment bylaws! It is obvious that the board did not want us to know what was going on! Re my statement that the monthly dues were raised 10% each of the last 15 or so years: I plead guilty to being overly zealous. I should have said that it seemed like the dues were raised 10% the last 15 years or so. However, your report shows that they were raised in 9 of the past 15 years. So I guess 9 out of 15 isn�t all that bad! However, here again you once more missed the real point of my statement re the raising of the dues, namely, that it was done by the board without any explanation of the so-called "rising costs" in clear violation of the bylaws mandate that the general assessment dues are to be used only for the costs of the daily operations of the association and the maintenance of the common property. Also, you ignore my point that our constitution, the Articles of Consolidation, which founded this association, provides that any excess of the dues after paying the costs of the daily operations and maintenance of the common property is to be refunded to the members. This has never happened! I would think that this is something about which AWARE should be concerned! You should remember that the provision for assessing monthly dues is not a fund raising provision. Any funds for special projects and "slush funds" are to be handled by our special assessment provision!
I think AWARE, if it really wants to reunite and educate this community, a most worthwhile objective, would concern itself with some of the complaints that have been mentioned many times previously, such as: In general, claiming blind allegiance to the board is not necessarily a good thing. Better to concern yourselves with making sure the board lives up to its duty to faithfully work in the best interests, especially financial, of the association and its members and to always keep us fully apprised of its machinations! Then AWARE can be a real asset to the community. I look forward to your doing so as you can be a real asset to our community. Lynn Rees, Lot #944 Read AWARE Flyer distributed to Homeowners on 9/11/07 September 12, 2007 Neighbors: As we awaited the reaction of both sides in the light of Judge Hick's decision, we naively thought that it might make one side contrite and give the other the validation to negotiate. There are some on both sides who have made mistakes in actions and reactions. My husband and I attended and had coffees, went to board meetings and focus groups, distributed fliers for both sides (because we had friends on both sides of the issues) and tried in April of 2005 and then again in the fall of that year to get on any of the LRPC's subcommittees. My husband managed after several calls to get on the Land Use committee. My calls were not returned or by the time they were the committees had been filled. So we were trying to be involved. We tried again this spring, but to no avail. Here are the concerns we felt were never addressed or were overlooked:
Concern (1) UNIDENTIFIED COSTS ABOVE THE $6020
Concern (2) RESPECT OF NEIGHBORS AND THEIR RIGHTS
Concern (3) CENSORSHIP OF AND FROM NEIGHBORS
Concern (4) CONSIDERATION OF PRESENT NEIGHBORS
Concern (5) INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS Unless and until we all can get beyond the sophomoric rhetoric and come to the table with a truly respectful and inclusive attitude, this community is not going to heal.
Respectfully, September 6, 2007 E-MAIL #1 Mr. Teague--in the newspaper column-.dated Aug. 28 you were quoted as saying that the golf course has had a positive influence on home prices in our community--however that you would like to sit down with the committee and discuss the condition of Apache Hall. I am wondering if you have been misinformed regarding the ownership of these properties. They belong to the Country Club--including most of the parking lot on 56th. A person who is not a Country Club member would not have any responsibilities for the up-keep of these properties. Sharon Chambers, Lot #277 September 5, 2007 E-MAIL #1 Reading these opinions is like watching Fox News debates between liberals and conservatives. Lots of shouting, but no minds are changed. I seriously doubt if compromise will be successful and make everybody or anybody happy. The compromising, if there was any hope for success, should have been done in the initial planning stages of the new buildings. In the beginning and through the planning stages, any one not in agreement with the Board and supporters were scoffed at and called naysayers and just ignored as not being progressive. Your extremely well written September 4 Letter to the "Homeowners of Apache Wells" is the best summary of the position that many homeowners hold that I have seen to date. It has also permitted me to delete much of the opinion that I was going to submit. It is also interesting that the Board/ Country Club group is so eager to take advantage of the privilege offered by SAW that was denied homeowners in the past. I was glad to see that if the current Board is recalled, all homeowners will be given the opportunity to express their opinions in the AWHOA Roundup newspaper. I believe that in the late 1980s there was a court ruling that opinions should be allowed in the Roundup, but it was never permitted. I have been associated peripherally with Apache Wells since 1968 when my parents put a mobile home on its present site. In my opinion, the current problems occurred as a result of the change in bylaws (When did this happen?) when the Board could not spend more than $10,000 without homeowners approval, and when they began raising monthly dues 10% a year (as allowed by the bylaws but never done) without an announced reason. From 1968 until 2000 the monthly dues fluctuated between $16 and $22 as needed. After 2000, the Board raised monthly dues 10% every year because they could, and this led to the tax and spend philosophy that we have seen since then. By my calculations, which were made without access to the exact numbers, the Board has collected an additional $900,000 (approximately) over the amount that would have been collected if dues had remained at $22 per month from 2000 to 2007. If they raise it another 10% next year, that would add another $345,000. I imagine that the extra money went to the "slush fund" mentioned in the letter, and permitted the Board to spend Homeowners money freely. The expenditure of 100s of thousands of dollars for the cancer building, focus group studies, architectural renderings should have been discussed and other opinions sought with input and approval from all homeowners before the money was spent rather than the rushing headlong to get what the Board of Directors and Country Club wanted at the expense of all homeowners. Whatever happens in the near future, I think that there should be a return to the $10,000 spending limit (or a limit appropriately adjusted for inflation) to preclude such misadventures in the future. We can't afford a tax and spend Board. Also, planning and spending for large new projects should be approved by all homeowners before any money is spent. Country Club members all over the nation pay for their Country Club amenities without asking members of the neighborhood community to help bear the expense. The simple solution for the current impasse is for the Country Club members to refurbish or replace their current facilities and to pay for it. I see no other way for the "healing" to occur and for the Country Club to get the facilities that they want. If other facilities are needed that will benefit all Homeowners, then a new vote with clearly stated rules should be conducted. Joe & Sandy Davis Lot #232 E-MAIL #2 I was employed by the Country Club for 1 1/2 years. I worked cleaning the restaurant, hall, and golf course restrooms. I learned a lot about the people that use those facilities. First of all there was no pride of ownership shown anywhere by anyone that I saw. The lounge and restaurant was trashed every night with popcorn, stir sticks, food and drink thrown on the floors and carpet and walked on. The restroom by the Pro Shop was the worst that I have ever seen. Many times feces were smeared on the toilets, floors, and walls. On one occasion a pair of soiled underwear were hung on the toilet paper holder. The toilets in that room were on several occasions stuffed with toilet paper and flushed repeatedly until the water ran out into the hall. I felt that this was vandalism as there is a floor drain in that restroom, and they would have to flush many times to get the water to run out in the hall. On one occasion I cleaned the women's restroom in the basement. It had a water leak that ruined the ceiling tile. I cleaned it up and cleaned the toilets. They were in perfect working order. I was told that I should not have cleaned them, because they were going to have an inspection and they wanted it to look bad. There were some very bad leaks in the other rooms down there. No one tried to find out where they were coming from. It was like sewer water. This is under the kitchen where they serve food. The hall is another story. On one occasion we were setting up for one of the many parties. A group came in to tell us how they wanted it set up. I asked the people not to put the old tables on the wood dance floor, as the plastic shields were missing and they would scratch the wood . I was told in no uncertain terms that they didn't give a damn because they were going to come in with sledge hammers and tear it up anyway. Every year they have two 50's parties where they bring in two old style golf carts. The first party they broke the tile off the hall entry way. A week or so later they did it again, this time tearing the door closer out of the molding and finishing off the tile. The tile stayed broken till the fall when a volunteer returned to fixed it. I could not believe the work they created for us by sticking stickers saying Save Apache Wells Vote Yes everywhere and then all of the happy faces we had to scrape off the mirrors, door knobs, etc. How juvenile can you get. I felt like I was working for a bunch of spoiled rich kids that had never been held accountable for anything. Just do what you want and someone else will pay for the damage. In this case the homeowners will build them a new building to trash. well I for one do not want to buy them a new building to trash in about a couple of months. I know some people won't like this, but it is the truth so help me. Kitty Howlett Lot #981 September 4, 2007 E-MAIL #1 Several years ago, Apache Wells engaged the services of a consultant from ASU to give direction to the efforts to improve our community. Hundreds of volunteer homeowners have spent countless hours serving on various committees to come up with recommendations for the best way for us to proceed. The Steering Committee then was able to put all these ideas into a prioritized, workable plan. Now, because of the actions of a few negative people, this whole long range plan has been jeopardized. Even if the plan is approved at a later date, the costs will escalate, perhaps 10% or more per year. Meanwhile, Apache Wells will be a less desireable place to live, with no adequate community center, a substandard exercise facility, and a sub-par restaurant. Home values will not keep pace with the real estate market. Apache Wells is in danger of becoming a low-cost bedroom community with an easy commute to adjacent business and financial centers. Some of the members of SAW are landlords who own 4, 5, and 6 properties here, and they feel that it is in their best interest to keep all the costs down. We can only hope that this does not mean that we will become a "slum" community. Hopefully, some of the members of SAW will volunteer to help make Apache Wells a more desireable, attractive, friendly place to live. The present Board of Directors is made up of conscientious, hard-working volunteer homeowners who have done their very best. It seems unconscionable for a very small group to seek to recall this board with no alternative plan to improve the community. The Board we have represents the best cross-section of qualified, capable, devoted leaders, and should be retained. Ray and Caryl Johnson Lot #362 E-MAIL #2 Brian Johnson included the quote from Edmund Burke that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" in his e-mail. I agree heartily with the quote and I contend that the actions of the SAW group is an example of good men doing something to prevent the triumph of evil, i.e., in this case doing something to prevent Mr. Johnson, the HOA Board and the Country Club from carrying out their illegal plan to stick the Apache Wells Homeowners Association with the country club's problems! Bravo for SAW! Re: Mr. Johnson's statement regarding the bank building: This is most incredulous! He says all contracts of the HOA are signed by the Board president and only the president. He forgets to mention that all contracts signed by the president must be with the approval of the Board. (Art. VI, Sec. 6 (4). Nowhere in our records is there a showing that the Bank/Cancer Fund building contract was approved, unanimously or otherwise, by the Board. The contract was executed on June 1, 2006, according to Johnson, when the board was on vacation and in recess and obviously not in session, and there is no showing that the so-called Executive Committee ever met and approved the deal, and there is no showing that the board, at its first meeting in October, 2006, approved any action of the so-called executive committee, as required by Art. V, Sec.4 E of our bylaws.. In fact, there is no showing in the minutes of any meeting prior to June 1, 2006, of the appointment of an Executive Committee to act during the summer season!! In the minutes of the April 6, 2006 board meeting there is the following statement: "Community Long Range Planning : The purchase of the Cancer Fund building was discussed. A motion was made that the committee of Brian Johnson and Marvin Stoll has the ability to swing a deal for purchase of the Cancer Fund building. Motion seconded. Approved. Since there is no additional assessment required this would be accomplished without a special meeting or a vote of the Bank building contract." Does this constitute unanimous approval of the Bank building contract which does not take place until June 1, almost 2 months later. Does this set forth the details of the Bank building contract which the members of the association are entitled to know? Also, it is curious to note that in the minutes of the Board meetings, there is never any mention of who made the motion, who seconded and what the vote was. What a way to run our Association! This is an example of the Board's abdication of its duty regarding contracts! This is comparable to Congress' abdication of its duty to declare war by passing a resolution giving Bush the authority! This is disgraceful! Mr. Johnson, as president of the Board, and the Board in particular, had the duty to fully inform and apprise the members of the commercial activities of the Board and nowhere, even to this date, has there been any explanation of the negotiations concerning this $723,000.00 transaction! In fact, it appears that Mr. Johnson and the Board were determined not to allow any news of what was transpiring to leak out! Why wasn't the deal made contingent upon the approval of the members of the Association, as is done in many contracts these days, ie., union contracts? Incidentally, we have never had an explanation of where the money to pay for this variable trust deed is coming from! As to Mr. Johnson's contention that the Administrative court approved the bank building deal, a reading of the transcriopt of the hearing shows that the case was woefully handled by the plaintiffs and the court did not have any of the above listed information available for its decision which would have resulted in a decision holding the bank purchase void. Re: the transfer fee: This also was woefully handled by the plaintiffs. It should have been reduced to less than $ 100.00... $50.00 would have been too much. However, where does the board and Mr. Johnson get the authority to put $650.00 into an escrow account without the approval of the Court? There is none! This is another example of the contempt the board and Mr. Johnson has for rules and authority! Re: the community center building project which has been declared invalid by the court: This was an illegal venture from the start. The board had no authority to mix HOA business with country club affairs! The HOA board is elected to act in the best and most prudent financial interests of the association and its members. A majority of the board members were counry club members and on the Long Range Planning Committee, hereinafter the LRPC, was stacked in favor of the country club members. The law is clear that a person in a fiduciary relationship cannot serve two masters. The so called LRPC had no business entering into, and paying, a contract with the ASU professor and also an alleged $28,000.00 fee to architects! There has never been a report on how these illegal contracts were made! A note in the Jan. 19,2006 meeting of the Board containds a statement as follows: "a contract has been signed for architects fees, 75% HOA and 25% CC." This is the only statement regarding this! Re: the failure of the board to adhere to bylaws, CC&Rs, etc., The most glaring example is the annual raising of the monthly dues by 10% each of the past 15 or so years. All the Board says in explanation is in a letter stating that the board has raised the annual dues by 10% "due to rising costs.."or in words to that effect. No explanation of these rising costs is made in violation of the Board's duty to fully inform and apprise the membership! We all know that the cost of living has not increased anywhere close to 10% per year for the past 15 years or so! Yet we homeowners have no sayso in this matter. We have no input into this.! This is wrong! And it is also in violation of Article V, Section l A of our bylaws which reads as follows: "The business of the Association shall be managed by a Board of Directors, subject to the bylaws of the Association and such mandates as may be expressed at the Annual Meeting of the members or any special meeting of the members."! This holds true for the budget, also! Also, the board under our bylaws and articles of consolidation, has failedl to return to us any excess of the dues remaining after paying for the costs of operating the office and maintaining the common property of the association . (See par. 4, page 3 of Art. Of Consolidation.)
Other examples: It is really ironic and sad to hear Brian Johnson make these statements. He is the one who stated at the April, 2006 board meeting, in response to a question from a homeowner, that "the annual dues were going to be raised 10% every year and if you don�t like it you can leave," or words to that effect.! As to treatment by the board at its meetings, I can attest to this personally. Then president Johnson cut me off many times when I attempted to criticize board actions, limiting me to 2 minutes each time as I tried to speak and even cutting off the microphone one time. It got so bad that I would preface my remarks to the uncordial crowd by asking them to save their boos until I had finished speaking. Paragraph 13 of our Articles of Consolidation provides as follows: ":The corporation shall not lend money to or use its credit for the benefit of any director, officer or member." Obviously, this whole deal with the counry club is a violation by those HOA board members who are country club members. This whole project is a scheme to alleviate the negligent country club from its financial problems with the restaurant and golf course at the expense of the association! And the $100.00 "gift" to the country club is a direct violation of this and an example of the misfeasance of the board. Another example of the secrecy of the board is the fact that they do not publish in the Roundup a list of the bills paid each month ! This is really scandalous! The result is that the members have no idea of what is going on. For example, we don't know what we are paying our employees! There are rumors about a bonus or bonuses being paid to employees, but there has been no clarification or denial of this by the board. Another example of the board's secrecy is that of avoiding answering questions by saying it is protected by the "attorney-client privilege" which Johnson has used often. This is a complete lie, as Mr. Johnson and the board know, or should know! The attorney-client privilege applies only to the attorney and not to the board, and restrains the attorney from divulging any information or conversations, etc. with the client, but there is no restriction on the client! As a result, we don't know what advice the board is getting from their attorney, whether good or bad, and what we are paying for it! All of which we are entitled to know! This is another example of willful misfeasance by Mr. Johnson and the board. The SAW committee came about as a result of people feeling that our board was not following and obeying our bylaws, CC&Rs and articles of consolidatiion. Events have certainly proved that the SAW committee was right! Lynn Rees Lot #944 September 3, 2007 E-MAIL #1 After reading the 'Pro-AWHOA' opinions, one trend is obvious: When a Judge's decision is in their favor, it's 'See, I told you so!"; when the Judge rules against them, it's "It should not be decided by the erroneous decision of a single court judge." Talk about being narrow minded. It would be refreshing to see more Pro-SAW and fewer Pro-AWHOA letters. Thanks. Brian Notch, former homeowner E-MAIL #2 Since when does the minority rule? We bought in Apache Wells 2 years ago. One of the reasons we purchased property there was that we believed it to be a progressive community. Now there is an injunction on the facility that the majority of those voting approved to build. What on earth is happening to our vision of an even more beautiful park and the caring community that we first saw? As far as board recall. Shame on you. Personally, we are simple folk with farming/teaching backgrounds and are just sick at the talk of having other decent, hard working, concerned people willing to volunteer so much of their time in danger of recall. They received the majority of the votes in the election campaign...we trust them to do the job we want done, if you would just leave them alone...guess the majority doesn't rule there either. Dave and Leanna Schneider, Lot #1330 September 2, 2007 E-MAIL #1 I am writing in response to the letter posted on the Saw website July 26,2007 by Bob Domit entitled "Building With Cents". I read the letter several times and could not make the numbers add up so I started doing a little figuring. Bob stated that the cost of the proposed Community Center ($8,500,000) was way out of line with today's construction costs. This is just not true. If you divide $8,500,000 by 25,000 square feet you get $340.00 a square foot. Compared to Bob's numbers that seems high but it includes everything..no surprises or hidden costs. Bob's numbers are too vague to make a realistic comparison. It is important to understand that the $8,500,000 represented a completely finished building. It included land, parking lot, utilities such as sewer, water, electrical, and gas. It included new furnishings inside such as floor coverings, window treatments, furniture, even the dishes, everything! There was a million dollar contingency fee included in the $8,500,000 figure. That means any unforeseeable expense would be covered by this fee. If we don't need that money we don't spend it, we keep it! Bob states in his letter that the two buildings on the south side of McKellips were built for $273,000. That does not include the land or parking lot. Using those numbers the cost would be $10.50 per square foot. It is impossible to build a commercial building shell for $10.50 a square foot! A more realistic number would be 10 times higher. He goes on to say in one end of the building he built a restaurant for a turnkey cost of $651,000. That comes to $191.00 per square foot. He fails to tell us what that turnkey cost includes. Does it include land or parking lot? Does it include the building shell or is it just the interior costs? What's inside, any furnishings? We just don't have enough facts to come up with a true square foot cost. I recently built a 15,000 square foot building for rental purposes in Minnesota. It's much like the McKellips building. It cost approximately $120.00 per square foot. This did NOT include any interior construction or furnishings which varies according to rental use. The use determines the finishing cost and it could easily double or triple the square foot cost. Bob mentions a fitness center his company built in Scottsdale, again not enough facts. After trying to make sense out of Bob's numbers I decided to call him. We discussed his construction numbers and he determined that he had indeed made a mistake. He said he would write a correction for the Saw webpage. We waited for a correction letter but it did not appear. On 8/30 I printed Bob's letter from the webpage. This letter is exactly like the first except for two changes. The 7/26 original letter said two new buildings were built for $273,000. The 8/30 letter says two new buildings were built for $273,000 EACH! The other change is in the total cost. It went from $1,000,000 to $1,200,000! I thought a correction should be obvious, clearly stated, not just inserting a word or changing numbers without notice. As to blueprints being available, Bob you should know blueprints are not prepared until the project is ready for the bidding process. Estimates are used to determine the cost of the project. That is why the contingency fee was added. Using the estimate, with plans for financing in place, the blueprints are drawn. If the actual bid exceeds $8,500,000 we could reject any or all bids. In our phone conversation Bob said his company would not bid this AW project. They do not bid projects where they have people personally involved. Bob told me he was leaving the park which should make his company eligible to bid if the project becomes a reality. With Bob's numbers we should get a really low bid from his company! Finally, my wife and I want to thank our present and past Board of Directors, our Long Range Planning Committee, and all the other wonderful volunteers. They have done an outstanding job. They put in countless hours for the benefit of ALL homeowners in spite of all the criticism they receive! Thank you!!! To all these people we say, "Courage does not always roar. Sometimes it is the quiet voice at the end of a day saying, I will try again tomorrow." Anonymous. To the SAW group we say, "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." G.K. Chesterton Dub and Judy Ferrell Lot #264
E-MAIL #2 This communication is in support of the Apache Wells Homeowners Association Board of Directors. In our opinion any movement to recall the current Board of Directors would be a misguided effort to nullify the will of the majority of homeowners who chose them in a properly conducted election. The current Board, as well as past Boards and members of the Long Range Planning Committee, have acted in both a fiscally responsible and progressive-thinking manner to represent the best interests of residents of the Apache Wells community. We thank you for those efforts ! The existence of a recall provision for elected officials is generally recognized to be for actions detrimental to, or neglect of, their official responsibilities. We have read and disagree with the suggested reasons for recall outlined your August 27 entry on this website. We find no factual support for the allegations, which were admirably and factually refuted in the August 30 response of Brian and Susan Johnson. In our view none of the Board's actions meet any criteria for a legitimate recall. Rather, such an effort smacks of a vindictive attitude by a minority of residents which could further divide a community in need of cohesion. If a recall effort does materialize, let it proceed and have the majority express again their confidence in the Board ! Regarding the recent controversy over the legitimacy of the February vote on the proposed new community center and associated facilities, we believe the fate of this project should not, and we certainly hope not, be decided by the erroneous decision of a single court judge. We strongly encourage the Board to aggressively appeal this errant interpretation of the Association's By-laws. The movement toward construction of new homes and new facilities in this gem of a community is called "progress" and it will happen despite setbacks that may occur ! Jerry and Susan Christie Lot #286 September 1, 2007 E-MAIL #1 SAW Committee: I would like to be counted among those who support our dedicated AWHOA Board of Directors.. I want to thank my fellow residents for not only standing up and voicing your support of the Board but also signing your names to your comments instead of hiding behind the cloak of anonimity or pen names. I want it to be known that I absolutely love being able to live in Apache Wells. My husband and I purchased a manufactured home in 1999 from the Devigs on Lindstrom. We realized that it would not accomodate our family who like to visit us. There are 28 of us including children and grandchildren. We purchased a "stick house" on the corner of Hermosa Vista and 56th Street in 2001. Considering my age and family longevity I could possibly spend another 30 years in Apache Wells - God willing. Therefore, I feel I have alot at stake in the future of Apache Wells. There are a few areas upon which I would like to comment or question. In the recent SAW article "Why Consider Recalling the AWHOA Board? Reason #4 stated "The Board sanctioned the opposition's name on posters stating "Save Apache Wells Vote Yes" to confuse voters who were opposed to the project." Remember where I live? The infamous corner of Hermosa Vista and 56th Street. I purchased the materials and made the bright yellow signs. My intention was not to confuse anyone. But, to express my position on the issue. Sorry to say I did not call the Board of Directors and ask their permission. I think the Consitution of the United States still guarantees my right to free speech! If you read the February 10, 2007 entry on the SAW web site it states as follows: "Signs have already surfaced around the community on mailboxes, vehicles, golf carts, and front yards. We hope that all homeowners will respect the principle of free speech and expression and allow each homeowner to express their position on this issue. Signed: Walt Stromme, SAW Committee Chairman; Judy Teague, SAW Committee Co-Chairman; Dee Miller, Chairman AW Election Committee. QUESTION? How can the Board of Directors be held responsible for my actions? Maybe you didn't really mean what you said after all about respecting free speech? In response to the e-mail of 4/06/07 from J (Supporter of SAW) whoever you might be: Your e-mail stated "Ernie Sholtz...is not a CC member. They (Board of Directors) are all a bunch of wealthy bank officials, all own expensive stick built homes here, and look down at we manufactured or mobile home owners." For your information Ernie Shoults IS A COUNTRY CLUB MEMBER. He owns AW Country Club certificate #817 and lives in a stick built house. He claims to be an independent candidate who is not a SAW supporter. QUESTION? Why is he not being recalled from the Board? Perhaps he really is a SAW supporter. LET TRUTH PREVAIL!! To Bob Domit, Lot 1366: As M. Eisenzimmer asked, I also question? Why didn't you volunteer your expertise during the past 3 years of planning? Where were you when they were looking for volunteers for the Long Range Planning Committee? I'm sure I'm like most residents of Apache Wells that there are things I do not want or will not use. Maybe we should look at each area and the actual cost of having it. Then assess the actual cost to those who use it. Since I don't use the pool (seldom), the shuffleboard courts, the softball field and surrounding trails, the bingo/card room, the woodworking workshop, the library, the ceramic room, the art room, the exercise room (even though I should), the doggie park (I have a cat), and the Gazebo (well maybe, once in awhile) I would get by pretty cheap. But I do use the parking lot when I go to the restaurant, I enjoy the view of Red Mountain, the blue sky, the palm trees, sitting on my patio and visiting with passing neighbors, and the beautiful landscaping in the park. I suppose there should be a fee for that. If all the volunteers quit we will need to be assessed to cover the cost of hiring independent contractors to do the job. Yes, I do golf. I'm not very good at it but I find it is another great way to get to know the wonderful people who also live in Apache Wells. I'm just kidding about assessing everyone based of their useage. Like I said before I LOVE LIVING IN APACHE WELLS and consider it a blessing. Maybe some day my grandsons ( ages 6 mos. and 3 yrs.) will consider retiring here. Hopefully, by then all the "Hell Raising" will be over and the "Spirit of Community" will have been restored. Sandra Johnson, Lot #870 August 31, 2007 E-MAIL #1 To the �SAW� organization; As a full time resident of Apache Wells I find it necessary to write in support of our current board of directors. I strongly believe in the democratic process from which our nation, let alone our Board members were elected. Equally, I believe in freedom of speech and the right to live where we choose. The state of Arizona , the place of Apache Wells, was a 15 year dream. I lived day in and day out in a negative environment working in the prison system. My dream was a long time coming but one day I arrived, purchased my home, and pleased with the first move of my life. I chose Apache Wells for many reasons; the golf organizations, hobby shops, pool/hot tubs, hiking clubs to mention a few. With that said, I am thankful for many others amenities of which I have become involved with. I shall be for ever grateful to our volunteers for with out them, we would pay dearly for services rendered. The once friendly environment is no longer. It now saddens me to visually see the unrest amongst ourselves. Where once I walked the streets too chat with neighbors, I am surprised if one raises a hand to gesture hello. The negativity and lack of humanity has given to nothing short of separation, hostility, and unrest amongst one another. The battles of law suits continues to bring unrest and only lawyers shall reap the rewards. With the above said, I question how much more this will cost above the asking of $6,020. I suspect a great deal more. I for one will stand up for our current board of directors, a board voted by the residents of Apache Wells via a democratic process. A board that has carried forward plans of those who held the positions prior, a board that works endlessly for the betterment of �OUR� community. ENOUGH SAID! Signed: Tina Davis Lot #1079 E-MAIL #2 We believe in the democratic process, and the right to dissent, however SAW seems to be on the wrong side of every issue that comes before the AWHOA, even when they are beneficial to homeowners.
Points in case: 2. The $950.00 transfer fee--this does not cost any existing homeowner anything, and provides a source of funds to keep homeowners monthly assessments down. SAW OPPOSES 3. Acquisition of the building and parking lot from the Country Club and construction of a homeowner center. SAW opposes, therefore we will continue to have no AWHOA owned facility large enough to accomodate homeowner meetings. 4. Recall of the board of AWHOA--SAW initiates action to recall all but one director based on false premises, creating more dissension. We have been blessed with hardworking, intelligent board members, who for several years have researched, continually requested homeowner input,enlisted professional advice and direction and presented a building plan supported by the majority of voters. SAW now wants to recall the board. SAW--you are on the wrong side again. 5. Building a unified community. SAW continues with diatribe about the absence of unity among homeowners etc. SAW has seemingly taken every step possible to create disharmony. We believe it is time to take a serious look at these actions by SAW and ask "What has SAW proposed that is a positive step for our community?" SAW has never set forth any plans or ideas for the betterment of Apache Wells. Now Walt Stromme states, They (SAW) "wants to take over control of the Park." Wrong again. John and Jeraldine Simonson Lot #1028 August 30, 2007 E-MAIL #1 Good morning, you have indicated you would welcome responses or e-mails from Apache Wells Homeowners and would print them unedited. Thank you for opportunity of letting us thank our current and previous Boards for everything they have and are doing for the community. We support them wholeheartedly and recognize they have and are always acting in and for the best interests of the entire community. Have the opponents of this Community Center EVER presented any other positive alternatives for this project? Do the opponents actually know the work and expense involved in putting together a design that would meet the needs of the whole community? There was plenty of time for them to come forward with other plans during the various stages of this project. How many of them have stepped up to fill the volunteer positions now available: ACTIVITY DIRECTOR, ROUNDUP DIRECTORY COORDINATOR, BINGO COORDINATOR to name a few? Who and how many will step in to volunteer in the activities that beautify our community and help keep costs down? Marv Stoll and our current Board members we support and thank you! Sincerely, Ben & Marilyn Johnson Lot #284 E-MAIL #2 I have lived in AW as a Homeowner and Golfer since 1995.
1. All I hear from SAW is that the project will cost everyone $6020.00,
and the golfers are the only ones who will benefit. The committee
worked very hard to arrive at a plan where everyone could afford it. My plan would be to pay $50.00 a month, and even if it was the rest of my life, it would be a bargain for the improved services. Anyone who would take time to read the agreement between both parties would not be making statements that the homeowners are paying for the golfers benefits.
Lee Johnson Lot #282 E-MAIL #3 I feel terrible that so many people in Apache Wells think the golfers are a group of people that are hated by so people in Apache Wells. We are people from all walks of life just like all the people that live in Apache Wells. Just because we like to play golf should not put us aside or disliked by the non golfers in Apache Wells. I read one comment from a person writing to your web site which suggested the golfers were a group of retired bankers, that is so far from the truth. I am a retired school teacher living on a set income. My friends in Apache Wells are golfers and non golfers, most of my neighbors are non golfers and are wonderful people. I am not rich as many of the people I have met in Apache Wells. My wife Joanne I are not young, we built a new home in Apache Wells ten years ago, so we could enjoy the remaining years of our lives. We were also hoping to see a new community center in Apache Wells that all people in our wonderful park could enjoy. The same thought we had when we built our new home. It would be something we could enjoy the remaining years of our lives. We were willing to give up a summer vacation or some other extra to see Apache Wells grow and be of service to all our residents. Fred & Joanne Switzer Lot #423 E-MAIL #4 This is a response to SAW's "Why Consider Recalling the HOA Board" memo. You attempted to add a little class to you memo by asking readers to remember philosopher Edmund Burke's famous quote, "Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it". We believe you'll find that Burke didn't say this. The quote should actually be attributed to George Santayana, not Burke, and Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". [The Life of Reason, 1905-1906, vol. 1, Reason in Common Sense.] Burke did say, however, "You can never plan the future by the past", [1791, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly]. Since you claim to like Burke, perhaps you should follow his advice: quit looking back to the past and start looking to the future. Another statement attributed to Edmund Burke is this one: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". We are writing to set the record straight rather than doing nothing. We'll address some of the points in your memo. BANK BUILDING: You state that the HOA acquired a former bank building which was purchased by a former Board President on his signature with $123,000 of our money as a down payment and a $600,000 mortgage. I, Brian, am that former Board President, and of course the contract was signed by me. All contracts of the HOA are signed by the President and only by the President... This is the way contracts have always been signed. The Board unanimously approved the purchase and I signed the contract. You also say that "loopholes in our bylaws prevented the Administrative Judge from ruling in [SAW'S] favor". No, not loopholes. The bylaws state quite clearly that this purchase was correct and legal, and that's what the Judge confirmed. TRANSFER FEE: The truth here is that the decision of the Administrative Judge was appealed to the Superior Court, and this appeal will be heard on September 5, 2007. Why did you throw in all that nonsense about how the Board has ignored the Administrative Judge's ruling since it was issued? That's the nature of an appeal. As you know, the extra $650 of every transfer fee collected is being held in escrow pending outcome of the appeal. COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING PROJECT: You continue to state that this project was intended primarily for the benefit of a minority special interest group. This project was worked on by some of the most dedicated people in our community for nearly three years. They relied on the advice and counsel of experts in all related fields including architects, contractors, surveyors, tax experts, inspectors, lawyers, and others. It was designed as the best community center possible for the money available, and was to be for ALL homeowners. To say that it would benefit only some small group is not true. The Community needs you to be truthful, and suffers when you are not. You say the Board refused to consider alternatives, even though you have been told over and over the numerous alternatives which were considered before arriving at this project configuration. You also know that the Long Range Planning Committee held a special meeting with representatives from SAW specifically to hear what your aternatives were, and you had none. Not one single alternative. You also say the Board refused to meet with homeowners who opposed the building plan. We're amazed you can print such false statements. You know perfectly well that there were 54 coffee meetings organized specifically to meet with small groups of homeowners to discuss the project. Every one of the 803 homeowners who attended these meetings had an opportunity to raise objections and ask for clarifications. You also know there were approximately one dozen town hall meetings held for the same purpose, there were two Board meetings and one Homeowner meeting every month, and the Long Range Planning Committee invited all homeowners to come to the 7:00 a.m. meetings each Monday morning if they had questions. These meetings were held for nearly three years. How could the entire project have been more open to questions? Where were SAW members in all of this? SAVE APACHE WELLS -- VOTE YES: You continue to contend, incorrectly, that the Board "sanctioned the use of the opposition's name on posters stating, "Save Apache Wells Vote YES" to confuse voters who were opposed to the project". You and your group of protesters are guilty of trying to confuse voters simply by calling yourselves Save Apache Wells. Save Apache Wells from what? The fact is that if someone wanted to register the name "Save Apache Wells Vote Yes" it could be done by paying the $45 registration fee. The "Vote Yes" signs were in place on 2/7/07 and were shown on your website. Judy Teague filed to reserve the SAW name on 2/8/07. The Board had nothing to do with those signs and you know that, but once again you persist in spreading misinformation. ELECTION RULING BY JUDGE HICKS: You say the special assessment election on February 21, 2007, "was recently ruled invalid by the Judge based on their [the Board's] misinterpretation of the special assessment bylaw". You also state that "they have announced plans to appeal this decision". Neither statement is accurate. The Judge ruled based on HER interpretation of the bylaw, an interpretation which we believe is wrong, but at this date there has not been any announcement regarding an appeal. To say that the Judge's ruling disregards the wording in the special assessment section of the bylaws is an understatement, but we all know that O.J. Simpson was found not guilty too. The legal system makes mistakes. FAILURE OF THE BOARD TO ALLOW INSPECTION OF THE AWHOA BOOKS: Again, this is just not true. Every homeowner has access to all the minutes and financial information of the HOA. You know this, but you persist in writing about how homeowners are being denied. Please give some concrete examples next time. You might also start making SAW's financial information and member lists available to everyone. FAILURE OF THE BOARD TO ADHERE TO BYLAWS, CC& R'S, etc.: Here again we challenge you to give some concrete examples. You may recall that Walt Stromme made similar charges against Jim Bonnell regarding architectural rules, and he failed to back up his charges with even one example even though Jim repeatedly asked him to do so. SAW MEMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN TREATED NICELY: We don't condone name calling or obscene gestures, but such things aren't reserved for SAW members alone. Board members have been called some pretty terrible things too, and it has been done by SAW formally in legal documents. The fact is that if SAW members state that Board members are deceitful, selfish, malicious, intimidating, and act with complete disregard of the welfare of the members, the really can't expect those Board members and their supporters to regard them as friends. Friends don't act that way. FIDUCIARY CARE AND RESPONSIBILITY: You charge once again that this Board is "guilty of neglecting their fiduciary duty of loyalty and care to all the members of the Association". We can only say that this Board, like all other Boards in the past, takes its responsibilities very seriously. This includes exercising fiduciary responsibility for all homeowners, and the 2006-2007 Board has done this. SAW'S EFFORTS ARE TOTALLY FUNDED BY SUPPORTERS, etc: If it were true that you were totally funded by supporters who contribute to your legal fund, we suspect you'd be more willing to share your financial information. You contend that the Board doesn't disclose information, and yet you don't let your members know what your financial situation is. We totally support the current Board and will do everything possible to prevent their recall by SAW. Brian and Susan Johnson Lot #368 August 29, 2007 Editor's Note: The following e-mails were received from homeowners who support the current Board of Directors and oppose our recall effort. The text of those letters is presented here unedited and without comment. Members of SAW and their supporters can only hope that in the near future their opinions on AWHOA issues will be published unedited in the Apache Wells Newsletter and in the Roundup newspaper. It should also be noted that supporters of the Board of Directors are currently circulating a recall petition for Ernie Shoults. We leave it to the majority of the homeowners of Apache Wells to decide the future of the current Board of Directors. E-MAIL #1 I have read your article on the recall of the AWHOA board and I have a few questions and or statements. The first question I have is on the statement in the recall letter about the $950.00. Why does SAW object to this as it is not hurting anyone and it is benefiting everyone? This is being paid by the buyer not the seller. Yes, I believe that money was going to be used to help pay off the new building but it also was going to pay for the much needed security of Apache Wells. This means that our homeowners dues may go up or we else we may lose the security patrols. In your statement 3, you state that the Board refused to consider alternatives or to meet with homeowners. I have to disagree with that statement as there were so many meetings, coffees and full page right ups in the Roundup, and in all our newsletters. to discuss these issues that I can not for the life of me figure out how you can even make a statement like that. I felt the Board did all they could to inform the homeowners. Statement 4, I don't believe that any of the Board Members sanctioned the use of the oppositions name, in fact I was told that we could not use Save Apache Wells Committee as that was your sanctioned name. I saw both signs in yards, Save Apache Wells Vote NO, and Save Apache Wells Vote YES, I was not confused by the signs because I read the meeting notes, I attended the meetings and I voted based on how well informed I was on the issues. As to your statements 6 & 7, I wish you would give more specifics as both are pretty broad statements. Without knowing who wasn't allowed to inspect the books and or the reason for the denial and what Bylaws and CC&R's are not being enforced does not help me to make any sort of judgment of right or wrong, so at this point I could not judge any Board member as to their failure to comply with the rules. We had elected and reelected Board Members prior to the final voting on the new building, and to vote out this Board just doesn't make sense as they were not the ones that started the ball rolling. This Board, as I see it, is doing a good job, they have been fair, honest with ALL the homeowners and I believe they deserve thanks rather than a vote out.
Charlie and Bobby Golden E-MAIL #2 NOTE TO ALL READING THIS MESSAGE The letter below was written by several AW Home Owners in support of the Board. I and they urge you to support the Board and the Democratic process and to share this with your friends. The Democratic process requires that the electorate be fully informed before casting their vote. All must participate in order to become fully informed and exercise a considered and responsible vote. Don Voita THE SILENT MAJORITY MUST NOW SPEAK!! It is time for the silent majority at Apache Wells to speak. We have been silent much too long. The members of our Board of Directors have been attacked ruthlessly and needlessly! Marv Stoll, our president, has worked very hard to be fair with all the homeowners. He is a very caring and fair person that doesn't deserve the criticism that he is getting. We need to let him know that there are many of us that will support him as vigorously as those that have attacked him! Some people seem to have forgotten that we ALL are property owners in Apache Wells. Some, have chosen to become Country Club Members so they can play golf at their home course. Some do not play golf so they are not Country Club members but still homeowners. The fact remains that we are all in the same community and all own our homes and want them to appreciate in value NOT depreciate any more than they have already due to the decline in home sales and building in the entire country. If we had a new community center, to attract new owners, it would be in the best interest of all of us. If we have nothing to offer new comers, such as a beautiful community center, do you think they will buy here or will they go somewhere that has more to offer than we have? A community center would be wonderful to hold our meetings, enjoy some entertainment and some other fun things that we like to do without leaving our own little community. Bob Resset, Linda Wood, Jim Bonnell, Tom Finger, Jo Gregory, Bing Miller, and Irv St John all have worked very hard to do what is best for the entire community. What would we do if they all resigned and left the running of the association to someone that doesn't have the faintest idea of what goes on behind the scenes. The eight members of the board are not the only ones that have worked so hard to improve our community. There were many homeowners that worked on the long range planning committee too. Do the opponents of the community center have any idea how much work goes on in the office when a property is bought or sold? How many volunteers will decide (since the majority of our board would no longer be working for us) to quit volunteering and let the association pay for all the work done by the volunteers. Beautification is one committee that saves us thousands of dollars a year and we have a beautiful park because of their hard work. Our association fees would have to be raised sky high to pay for the work they do for free! There also are several of our homeowners that do maintenance for free--changing light bulbs, fixing leaks, repairing electrical problems, installing things that if we had to hire someone from the outside to do, would cost us many dollars. Speaking of money saved and spent--if all the monies that were paid to attorneys throughout this ordeal, everyone in the association could have paid their first years assessment. When attorneys are hired, the only ones that come out ahead are the attorneys! We have been told that the SAW committee wants to have things be "like they used to be". This park "USED TO BE" a friendly and wonderful place. NOW we have neighbors against neighbors. This is NOT good! We elected our Board and trusted they would do their best for the entire community. Now we need to actively support them. Faith Engel Lot #1018, Pat & Leon Fourcade #0011, Don Voita Lot #0192 E-MAIL #3 We have been homeowners in Apache Wells for over 30 years and have been permanent residents for 28 years. We bought in Apache wells because we had friends here, but mainly because the community fit our lifestyle at that time. At the time of our purchase, the community was still owned and operated by the developers and when it was turned over to the homeowners there were a lot of growing pains. There were some disagreements that were mostly resolved through time. Then, the board of directors had the opportunity to buy the commercial building and the land where the Ball Field is now located. The assessment ($1100) created a big controversy similiar to the one that now exists. If we had not bought the building and the Ball Field, there is no way to tell what might have been there. In our current situation, if we do not improve on what we have, our property values will not grow and might lessen. Do we want to become another ordinary mobile home park? There have been many residents that invested in new homes because of the progress that continued through the years. We should not stand still. People who will be retiring in the next few years will be expecting all the improvements that have been done, and more, or they will go elsewhere and Apache Wells will be no better than a below average mobile home park. And that would be going backwards. We have both served on the Homeowners and/or the Country club Boards and have volunteered on several committees through the years and are very proud of our community. Lets continue to move forward.
Colleen and Stillman Clampitt E-MAIL #4 Editor's Note: the following e-mail is in reference to an open letter that was posted on this page on July 26, 2007. I would like to know where Mr. Bob Domit Lot 1366 was, all the months the HOA board was interviewing and doing all the workups on the new Building. If he is such an expert why???????? did he not come forth and OFFER his expertise to the board ????? And where was he when HE KNEW the bids were WAY OUT OF LINE. Why wasn't he offering his advice when it would have helped?? Some people are really good at giving advice after the pie is baked!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess hind site is ALWAYS BETTER than foresite. Thanks Mr. Domit for your help. M. Eisenzimmer Lot #884 August 24, 2007 Congrats to The Save Apache Wells bunch, finally a judge tells the HOA board they can't do that!! Their attorney claims he will appeal in the Tribune today, but one cannot help but be happy that this mess was stopped. The assestment per unit was amazing, over six thousand dollars. Talk about the golden goose, now they just might have to negotiate something all can live with. Again, happy days and so glad you guys stuck to your beliefs and went for it! Ron & Cathy Ehninger, Non-resident August 14, 2007 My husband, and I would like to thank the AW residents that have supported our "SAW" committee, financially, and morally. The judicial system is moving along on our case, so please keep the donations coming in, we need to fight this all the way and take back our community. It takes a lot of fortitude to stand up against all of these costly plans for their new building, and we applaud the "SAW" group for all of their determination, and hard work. Thanks guys! Dennis & Joice Lange Lot # 1205 July 26, 2007 An Open Letter to the residents of Apache Wells: BUILDING WITH "CENTS" Hello: I can't help but speak out about building this so called new Rec Center for the benefit of "all". The $8,500,000 improvement is way out of line with today's construction costs. I have over 30 years of commercial construction experience and cannot in any way, shape or form figure out this estimated cost. Across the street from our main entrance on the south side of McKellips Road are two new buildings that total 26,000 sq. ft. that were built for $1,326,000 each. That does not include the price of the land, but does include the parking lot, lanscaping, sewer, city water, underground electrical with transformers and all the A/C units on the roofs. Please compare the cost between this and what has been put to us for approximately the same square footage. In the far west end of one building there will be a 3400 sq. ft. full service Steak & Seafood Restaurant with a bar and a turnkey cost of $651,000. So as you can see, the total cost of the whole thing will be a little over $3,300,000. Also, my company just completed a new 51,000 sq. ft. fitness center in Scottsdale that has an Olympic size pool, a 20 ft. by 40 ft. regular pool and 4 floor level hot tubs ranging from 10 ft. to 14 ft. in diameter. This building also has an elevator for the upstairs, which has a food bar and a beverage bar. This does not include the land, but there are 220 parking spaces for customers. There are also 200 different exercise machines. All of this and much more for the turnkey cost of $10,000,000. This is what I don't understand about the project that has been proposed for the homeowners of Apache Wells. First there are no blueprints that are made available for us to see, let alone bid on. TOP SECRET! In closing, I believe that we are being sold a bill of goods by a very incompetent group of people that do not have a clue about building costs that are real and only by a few who say they do. It is also very important to remember that these are YOUR DOLLARS they are planning to spend.
Bob Domit Editor's Note: At the request of Bob Domit, several updates have been made to his open letter. May 31, 2007 I read the misguided observation advanced by Ray Torres in the letters to the editor May 19 in the EV Tribune. Homeowners are not deadbeats as Torres would lead readers to believe. Homeowners are by and large responsible citizens who generously contribute to legitimate improvements within their homeowner associations. Homeowners understand the value of maintaining their properties. To suggest association boards are the only ones with property value insight is ludicrous and represents the precise mentality that has created the quagmire of abuse so prevalent today. I would certainly be concerned if Torres� narrow view was exercised as a member of any association board. Homeowners are the ones that make the capital investments, not the boards of these associations. Homeowners pay their association dues dutifully and on time. Contrary to Torres� assertion, SB1330 would have ensured equality for all Arizonians by simply denying associations the right to foreclose on a person�s home, confiscating all equity and reducing families to abject poverty without due process protections available to any other homeowner in Arizona living outside a homeowners association. Unfortunately, a vast percentage of homeowner associations are not competent to sit as arbitrators of law and their attorneys cannot be trusted but to line their own pockets at homeowner expense. Few advocate the �demise� of homeowners associations, many advocate reining in their tyrannical abuses. The best way to do this is to return the homestead exemption to everyone, not just a select few. Gary Bartlett, Non-resident Tempe May 16, 2007 Thank you Jim Brockman for being the only Apache Wells homeowner to offer a resolution at the April 18th meeting of the newly spawned PAW (Protect Apache Wells) group. We agree with Mr. Brockman that the time to sit down at any shaped table with the $8.5 million Community Center Project proponents is long overdue. We would welcome the opportunity if only they would agree to meet with us. With our filing of a lawsuit as our only option to halt the project, it is unlikely that they would want to meet with us by reason of advice from their legal counsel. We have been very vocal in our opposition to their all or nothing attitude. They have sold this grandiose plan to the homeowners as something that will benefit the entire community. If you read between the lines of their rhetoric you realize that the special interests, in particular the members of the Apache Wells Country Club, will be the major beneficiaries of the project if it is built. We have been described as subversives and a small amount of homeowners. SAW and it's supporters represent more than 600 of the homeowners in Apache Wells who either do not want, will not use or cannot afford this project. Regarding the election which we claim was flawed; we have no quarrel with the counting of the ballots on February 21, but do object to the format for voting (which varies for each election) and the handling of the absentee ballots. In addition, the project supporters claimed victory with 644 votes and moved forward to collect the $6020 special assessment and implement the plan to start the project, despite the fact that they did not receive the majority vote of residential units as required in the bylaws of AWHOA, Inc. We agree with Mr. Brockman that "we do have some unanswered questions and homework to be done".
Bob & Judi Teague Lot #196 April 27, 2007 What happened to majority vote? Having lived here for over 20 years...why is a developer now able to write checks and not be a board member? Just who is Jack Gordon? What happened to Ernie? He was elected to the board...Doesn't he know how to write a check? and then "they" want me to trust them? I do not want a bar...or a restaurant...I do not golf...I just want a place to enjoy....as far as the childrent wanting the places here...you got to be kidding...all they want is the money.....just sitting back and waiting for the old folks to kick the bucket.... Cherokee April 7, 2007 AS a resident of Apache Wells for many years...this is the worse it has ever been...A community fighting ......I am not a golfer...I do not use any of the facilities...I just want to live in peace...I was informed when I bought here that the Country Club tried to run everything..that they think they are better than everyone else..Somehow, a golf club in your hand makes you a better person... I saw this coming when they began to build the 'stick Houses"...the land here is cheap....I firmly believe that they would like all the manufactured homes gone....The builders want the big $$$ for their homes.. Isn't it true that one of builders tried to get the board to say...No more manufactured homes? That if a manufacture home was to be removed...it had to be replaced by a stick built one? Why wasn't an alternative presented to the community? it was an all or nothing...AWHOA is a noprofit....so why should we build a restaurant and run it at a loss? All these "coffees" for the women....what a joke.....A woman had one on my street...I don't even know what she looks like...has never spoken to me...then invites me to her house...You've got to be kidding...I have better things to do than sit in a room with a bunch of gabbing old women.... cherokee, newszap.com April 6, 2007 KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK OF KEEPING US INFORMED. WE ARE ALL DEPENDING ON YOU. I HAVE GREAT HOPE THIS PARK WILL AGAIN FIND IT'S WAY. I REALLY LOVE THIS PARK AND I WANT TO EXPERIENCE THE ATTITUDE THAT USED TO BE PREVELANT. THE AW BOARD HAS REALLY GONE ON A EGO TRIP. WHEN I TALK TO THOSE OUTSIDE THE PARK THEY FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE AWCC MEMBERS AND HAD TO FILE A SUIT TO DEFEND OURSELVES. THANKS, JAN AND KEN CHRISTO LOT #1092 Note: the following reply was posted on the East Mesa Independent's website newszap.com to Ron & Cathy Ehninger's April 2nd comments below. Ron & Cathy, Non-resident Thank you for your letters of support to we (NON) country club members. I attended our board meeting this past Thursday, and I was appauled by their arrogance, and with little regard, to spending (OUR) monies. Our board is made up of mostly country clubbers, the one man Ernie Sholtz, that is NOT a CC member, is left out of special meetings, intentionally, and treated rudely by the other board members, especially our bull dog Marv Stoll. When Ernie says anything that they don't agree with, the president, Stoll, says" this is enough, let's move on". They are all a bunch of wealthy retired bank officials, all own expensive stick built homes here, and look down at we manufacturer or mobile home owners. One board member was over heard making the statement, 'If we work this right, we will get the dues up to $200.00". Unquote ! They constantly lie and deceive us, and call us trouble makers if we disagree with their views. Thanks again for the support, J (Non resident supporter of SAW) April 4, 2007
An Open Letter to the Homeowners of Apache Wells On Wednesday February 21, 2007 the Apache Wells Homeowners voted to approve the Community Center Building Project that was sponsored primarily by members of the Apache Wells Country Club and their allies the AWHOA Board of Directors and the Community Long Range Planning Committee. Their motive was to acquire a new upscale $8,500,000 facility to replace their poorly maintained 40-year old mold-ridden termite-infested building. The funding, as we know will be borne by the entire Apache Wells Community through a $6020 per residential unit special assessment. As most of you know by now, the Save Apache Wells Committee has retained legal counsel and is planning to fight the implementation of the project and the collection of the special assessment. Read the Complete Homeowners' Open Letter April 2, 2007 We can only feel sad for our friends and neighbors in Apache Wells. We wish you all well in your fight to stop the nonsense and spending of huge sums of money to build a facility that is really not needed. And the cost to each homeowner is just amazing! We are frightened that the same thing could happen in Nightmare Villa where we live. The community has been split down the middle by a greedy power hungry bunch that hides behind a mandatory membership in a non profit social club. But we have a golf course too and you can bet they are trying to figure out how to do the same thing to us as they are doing to you in Apache Wells. What ever happened to freedom and the right to enjoy your property? Seems to be a basic American privilage and right to own and enjoy property. There are those who try their darndest to take that right away. Keep up the good fight friends. Ron Ehninger, Non-resident March 27, 2007 Did you catch the article in todays Tribune? The one about the group at Apache Wells that have filed a lawsuit to stop the building of the 8 million plus dollar palace. We applaud their efforts and wish them well with a good outcome. If more people band together and say enough is enough on the HOA stuff, maybe some of the power hungry greedy boards will think twice or three times before they rape their community. It can happen here in Nightmare Villa and we know that. So good going to Save Apache Wells group. Welcome to the dissidents side of the street. Ron & Cathy Eninger, Non-resident March 16, 2007 Ms. Dunn if you think that the board and the leader of the pack is running a true democracy, then tell me why they have to appeal a ruling that was handed down by a judge on the issue of the $950.00 transfer fee, but they are against a group of their fellow homeowners appealing a vote that does seem flawed. I believe that by spending a few dollars to correct an injustice or to find out if there was an injustice, is better than spending $6020.00 to feed the ego of a few Country Club members, and to take a White Elephant off the hands of the Country Club members that is costing them about $100,000 a year to maintain. Another thing, why were the Country Club members told that if the new faculty did not pass it would cost them each about $10,000 each to tear down and rebuild a new pro shop and a tavern. I would like to know why Mr. Stoll is trying so hard to rush HIS agenda through, by having had the vote on Feb. 21st and then having the first payment 39 days later. Doesn't he realize that some of the elderly in our park cannot sit down and write a check for $6020 like he can. They have to make some other arrangements for the money, which takes time and it's harder for some to make that kind of decision. Or is he afraid that some people will figure out what he's up to. Joe Malone Lot #605 March 13, 2007 Editor's Note: At the March Homeowner's meeting the author of this e-mail rebuked me for not publishing her e-mail on our website. What is it about the democratic process the 594 �No� voters can�t understand? This election was conducted according to the rules of democracy with over 85% of homeowners participating, a response that I�m sure is unprecedented. The �Yes� vote represented the majority, the �No� vote, the minority. Plain and simple, the �No� vote lost so what is there to oppose? Democracy? Let�s get on with living our retirement lives, moving ahead as a community and reaping the benefits of a modern facility while we�re still healthy enough to do so. Focusing our energy on mending the rifts among us homeowners as a result of the misinformation and innuendos circulated by a small group of dissenters would result in much greater rewards than continuing the crusade of maligning and discrediting the efforts of our dedicated CLRPC and HOA boards. Some thought might also be given to the waste of precious time and resources being spent on this campaign against democracy. A $6000 assessment might well be the more economical choice for all of us if the SAW group takes this battle to the courts. I would much rather have a new facility for my $6000 than line the pockets of a lawyer to defend a process I always thought we�d already fought and paid for! Arlene Dunn, Apache Wells Homeowner Lot #1094 Editor's Reply..... Jerry and Arlene, Thank you for your e-mail. With your permission I would like to include it unedited on our Opinions & Feedback page. If we were convinced that the election of 2/21 was fairly conducted and based on the laws of the State of Arizona, we would not contest it. Unfortunately it was flawed and in a democracy citizens have the right to seek justice in a court of law. Please let me know if you wish to have your e-mail published. Thank you, Bob Teague #196 Note: I never received a reply back. March 12, 2007 Hat's Off to SAW, We were residents of AW until December of 2003. We were involved with HOPE (Home Owners Protection Effort) during the last go-around with the new building proposal and the Homeowners Board. One reason we left AW was, as we told several people, "the Homeowners will be footing the bill for the Country Club within 3 to 5 years". It appeared that would come to pass; but with all your hard work we do believe you'll get 'em! We surely hope that will be the case. We thought they were playing dirty back then; but that was only child's-play compared to what they're doing now. We've been reading your website religiously since a good friend gave us the URL. Thanks for keeping us up-to-date. Brian and Joyce Notch, Former residents February 27, 2007 People we know in Apache Wells who supported the $8.5 million Community Center Building Project can�t understand why we oppose this project, which they say, �will benefit the entire community�. We strongly disagree with that statement. The fact is that the major benefactors will be the members of the Apache Wells Country Club who will be rid of a 40-year-old building that has been allowed by them to fall into a state of disrepair and as they have said, �outlived it�s usefulness�. Here�s THE DEAL from the homeowners:
___They will benefit from the AWHOA tax benefits since our association will own the new building. It will be classified as a �common area�. That alone is estimated to save them around $32,000 per year in property taxes.
Unfortunately, the homeowners of Apache Wells were presented with an �all or nothing� proposal and many, like us, Voted NO on February 5-21, 2007. We do not despise the AWCC members as many of them feel, but only believe that they need to fix up or replace their own building. If they decide to go �private� and don�t want our money, so be it! We hope that the SAW Committee�s challenge to the
Bob & Judi Teague Lot #196 February 22, 2007 (Comments from today's Tribune Article by Sarah Lynch on our Home page) Cherokee, newszap.com Most of the YES voters only live here 6 months or less a yr..they are Winter Visiters...Where are they in JULY? The restaurant in like a ghost town on Sat. nights now at 9 o'clock......in July the parking lot is empty at 6 o'clock...and they say we need a BIGGER restauarnt? They talk about Parties...I have lived here for 20 yrs..WHERE ARE THE PARTIES NOW? the hall is rented out for weddings most of the time...nothing for the folks who live here..they told us they would send someone to my house to check on my finacial situation to see how I could pay...well guess what...my finaicial situation is my business...none of there's....they want a BIGGER exercise room, the one we have is empty most of the time..esp in the summer...Apache Wells is a RESORT....for part time folks..it is like a ghost town in the summer..and they want me to spend my money for their toys..I can't even walk on the path around the golf course because I'm not a member...but they want me to pay for them to have a place to sit and get drunk...every project that has been built here has been shoddy and costs ran higher than they planned..Middle managers pretending to be the BIG BOSS...so they can impress their families and friends...well...I AIN'T PAYING ONE CENT...I've worked hard for my money....and I want to enjoy it...I do not use any of the facilities here..just want a clean, quiet place to call home...I've earned it.... D.S.M., Resident I don't live in Apache Wells however, I do drop into A.W. from time to time simply to view the clubhouse. Love it or hate it, the building's architecture is representative of an era in America now resigned to the history books. Whereas, "George" from the article calls the building "outdated" I pose that it has significant cultural value comparable to other forms of art of the day. Is Elvis's or the Beatles music meritless and unworthy of preservation? How about the movies "Dr. Strangelove" or "Lawrence of Arabia"? Literature? Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" or Heller's "Catch 22" came from that same era. Some of these works might not be a personal favorite, yet they are as representative to the people and culture as the architectural style of the clubhouse. That being said, the deign of the Apache Wells club house might not be ones personal favorite example of the times, yet it's still a a notable work of art. As such, I sincerely hope that the "Save Apache Wells Committee" expended every option in having the building declared a historical site as a society that consumes it's own cultural past isn't undergoing progress, it's destroying it's history. Plump One, newszap.com Apache Wells is a wonderful place to live for the past 22 years. During the winter months the park is filled with returning retired residents driving their golfcarts erratically down the street, walking for exercise after eating delicious pie at The Iowa Cafe on McKellips, and getting together to casually gossip about neighbors and trading stories about the grandchildren. On the other hand, the exercise room is never used, the restaurant...well..the empty parking lot speaks for itself, and during the summer it's like a ghost town here. Why do we need a $8.5 million dollar building? We need it to feed the egos of the golfers and the new residents who are from a different generation where greed and waste are common. A genration where they beleive that bigger is better and who has the most toys is somehow better. Frankly, there is nothing wrong with the buildings...it's what is inside them that need improvement. The library needs more quality books, the exercise room needs quality equipment, and the restaurant needs some recipe intervention. Things that will cost us all less money in the long run. As far for me...I'm not giving the fund a dime because if you think about it most of us will enter the pearly white gates within a few years thats when I'll enjoy my NEW community center. See you all there! B.K., newzap.com I�m disappointed to see Cherokee�s commentary as it is the hope of most of the �Yes� voters that by putting the community hall in the hands of the homeowners� association the community would come together; and the �us and them� mentality would eventually dissipate to an all �WE� attitude. Unfortunately, this will be difficult as Mr. Walt Stromme and his so-called Save Apache Wells (SAW) group will continue to fan the flames of this type of thinking. The above commentary is typical of all the mis-information SAW disseminated to try and derail this effort.
Let�s take a look at Cherokee�s statement and address each issue of his comments: Barney Rubble, newszap.com $8.5 million dollars for building for a new community center? What do you think your life expectancy is 110? A majority of AW residents will be long gone until this mess is cleared up. I think the priority should be the walkers/runners from other surrounding neighborhoods allowing their dogs to take dumps on your front lawn. Oh yes, I guess the streets aren't private because people many years ago were frightened by scare tactics by others and voted to keep them public. Different Generation Responding to PlumpOne, newszap.com I resent the comments from PlumpOne. Clearly you are the old generation who should not be the ones on the road driving a golf car erratically....the people of your mentality need to get educated and get a license to drive a golf car on the road. The younger generation you speak of would be your children or grandchildren or even great grandchildren. If they are so bad then I guess you did a bad job of raising your own children. I don't spend my money foolishly like many elderly people who go to casinos and throw money away regularly. I instead spend my money and time with my children and grandchildren of whom will someday, hopefully, want to live in Apache Wells. I am not rich and I am not retired. I support my church and I support my community. I cannot afford $6000, but I plan on using the facilities when I do retire. My husband and I work very hard for what we have. I am sure if you moved here when the buildings were new you enjoyed them. The reason not many go to the exercise room here is because it is so outdated. We instead pay $53 per month for my husband and I to stay healthy and exercise at a local modern gym. We do this to keep our health in good condition. I would love to pay the money to my own community if they had a modern gym. Clearly you are closed minded as many people within this community who speak without even knowing all the facts. One reason the restuarant is not used by many people is (from our experience), the people that run the restaurant are often rude and disrespectful to patrons. Therefore, we don't choose to spend our hard earned money there. When a new manager takes over we plan on returning there as I have heard many people share the same opinions. I am sad to have chosen to live in a community where people fight like children. Grow up...this is an adult community not a day care. Each person when they moved here agreed to pay special assessments that are voted on. That is how communities grow and prosper. Our properties values will be worth so much more because of an in-town modern facility that is affordable. I ask the immature adults in the Apache Wells community to grow up and get responsible. Take Pride in your community. Scooter Girl, newszap.com Different Generation responding to PlumpOne. Your post is filled with contradictions. You write you're not retired and don't live in AW then the next sentence you write like you live in AW. Which is it? Resent Plump Ones's comments? Missy your post was filled with nasty comments about Plump One . As far as raising property values..LOL This is not leisure World or Palm Springs. I would recommend reading a local business journal for real estate news not one of those womens magazines or romance novels. AW is a nice quiet community and I feel that its ALL going to change. Different Generation responding to PlumpOne, newszap.com Apparently Scooter Girl can't read. I do live in Apache Wells, but just because a person lives here does not mean they are retired or rich. I am very well aware of the property values in the valley as I work closely with realtors. You on the other hand must not realize that new amenities will only make this community more valuable. Many who say they will not pay will end up having leans on their property if they don't choose one of the three options offered. No one likes to spend $6000 but there is a huge need for improvements to this community and it was voted on so live with it. I certainly hope it does change. I have many older neighbors but they choose to be active in life. You may be older but if you choose to sit and do nothing then life will pass you bye. Start living even if you're older you can enjoy life! Angel, newszap.com
Different Generation responding to PlumpOne February 21, 2007 DEVIL IN THE DETAILS appeared in the East Valley Tribune Letters to the Editor Section. It highlights the frustration many of our residents feel concerning this Building Project that is being voted on today. February 11, 2007
The Elite, The Country Club Pertaining to the new building, or as a neighbor put it, "The Taj Mahal". It appears to us that the Country Club has a white elephant on it's hands and wants us to get them out of their dilema. They want us to own the new Pro Shop and approximately 2.5 acres of parking lot. They also want us to pay the realestate taxes and to rent them the Pro Shop for very little money; for a very long time! Such a deal! About the only thing we would use would be the restaurant. We just can't see paying $6,000 for their pleasure. If the restaurant were to lose money, they want us to subsidize it. $8,500,000 or more, Wow! Is this a scam or what? VOTE NO! Tom & Carol Williams Lot #1239 February 10, 2007 Since when and how has the Apache Wells Community Long Range Planning Committee (CLRPC) been given the authority to DICTATE to the people of Apache Wells or the AWHOA our legal voting procedures? Examples: ___Absentee Ballots were mailed out on Feb. 2, 2007 to all homeowners - here and away. Many of these went all over our country and into Canada (taking up to 7-16 days to arrive with a 7-16 days to return). The closing time for these absentee ballots is February 16th at 2:00 pm Sharp! REGARDLESS if it is stamp dated prior to the 16th. If not received by that date and time they will be thrown out? This process only allows � maybe - a 0-2 day (if lucky) window for American voters and a 0 day window for our Canadian residents etc. ___Plus: They are allowing only 4 hours to vote in person Feb. 21st. I have been told that the Election Committee can process 100 voters per hour � equaling 400 � 450 (if pushing it) The walk in vote will be shut down and doors locked at 2:00 pm, possibly leaving hundreds unable to vote??? Should we just sit back and allow this happen? We seem to losing all our legal rights to the AWCC (Apache Well Country Club) & the CLRPC. ___One other action they (AWCC & CLRPC) have taken to using the name of the Save Apache Wells Committee (which is registered with the State of Arizona. Corporation Commission) to promote a �YES� vote. This is totally confusing the homeowners who have known this committee to be against this extravagant proposal. How would the AWCC, CLRPC or AWHOA Board re-act to people using their names to promote a �NO� vote? I, for one, really don�t want to stoop to their level; however, it seems �All is fair in love & war!�.
Judith A. Teague, Co-Chair Lot #196 January 14, 2007 Over the past few years more and more Americans who are residents of homeowner and condo associations have become upset with their associations. Homeowners are fined for apparently arbitrary and capricious reasons; the boards of directors don't return phone calls from irate homeowners. The American flag cannot be flown unless approved by the HOA. New homebuyers are not being told that the state will not intercede in complaints nor accept complaints resulting in a lack of constitutional due process and equal protection under the law.
Why is this happening? Citizens for Constitutional Local Government believe that HOAs are independent, undemocratic, private governments operating outside the American system of government. If we are to make progress, we must distinguish the concept of a planned community, which is a real estate "package" of homes, landscaping, amenities, and rules, from that of the HOA, which is the governing body of the planned community. Only when the HOA is a truly democratic government and no longer an independent, private government will there be equality for all citizens.
Citizens for Constitutional Local Government Editors Note: In Arizona HB 2824 now provides a way for homeowners to fight back. A link to the new law is on our Home page. We encourage you to check it out.
December 4, 2006 My question is where are the names and photos of the other candidates that are running for the board of The Apache Wells Homeowners Association? Let's say they didn't get the photos in on time. But petitions were circulated for signatures over three weeks ago. I know because I signed them and the names of the people that signed the petitions were put up on the bulletin board as trouble makers. There are three candidates that are members of SAW that were not mentioned not even by name but they are home owners of Apache Wells same as the other candidates. Needless to say this is totally bias, this is a conflict of interest. On page three of the Roundup top left corner read that and you will see who makes decisions as to what will be published. I am a member of SAW and if I wasn't I would be after I see how people are treated that are qualified for the board and are mistreated because they are members of our community that disagree with the way things are being managed. Lola Daniels a home owner of Apache Wells Lot #1178
December 8, 2006 In response to Lola Daniels letter of 12/4/06: The photos & bio of the 4 candidates that provided petitions were not in the December Roundup because there was no photos or bios submitted. The petitions may have been signed weeks ago but submitted with no photo or bio. The petitions were posted on the bulletin board for all to see that there were more candidates with proper petitions to consider when voting, not to cause trouble as Lola suggests. The Roundup deadline is the 10th of each month. The petitions were turned in Walt Stromm on 11/10 no photo or bio, Judith Teague on 11/11 no photo or bio, Jan Christo on 11/13 no photo or bio, Earnie Shoults on 11/14 no photo or bio. This was unfortunate because it started a flurry of accusations that the Roundup had omitted these candidates purposely. The next best thing is to put their photo & bio in a special e-version newsletter as it was done last year with 2 candidates that also missed the deadline. Hopefully this explains the lack of candidates in the December Roundup. Tom Finger Lot # 1145 Editors Note: Tom Finger is a member of the AWHOA Board of Directors. The 4 candidates that he mentions were not told to submit photos and bios when they obtained or submitted their petitions nor were they contacted later to provided a photo and bio for publication. December 9, 2006 In regards to the editors note on Finger's response: The by-laws which have been under much scrutiny lately clearly states on page 14 (AW phone book) the following: Nominations from the membership may be presented over the signatures of thirty-five (35) voting members per nominee. The petitions shall be in the hands of the Secretary of the Board at least thirty (30) days prior to the annual election and the names of these nominees shall be posted on the official bulletin board at least twenty (20) days prior to the annual election and in such publications or other postings which make information available to the members. "Information available to the members" meaning a bio of this candidate. Who they are, what they have done for Apache Wells, and how they plan to improve Apache Wells. Anyone interested in running for the board had to have seen this or they wouldn't have known about how to file a petition. The by-laws does not give the board or the Roundup authority to make up the bios for these candidates. This must be done by the candidates and submitted for publication if they want their bio published. As far as I know only 3 bios & pictures have been submitted. For members of the S.A.W. group they have studied the by-laws and have the benefit of 2 former board members that are well aware of the election process as one of them is on the election committee. All candidates that missed the deadline for the Roundup have been called with a request for their bio & picture to be published in the e-mail Newsletter. Tom Finger Lot #1145 Editors Clarification: Walt Stromme and Judi Teague are members of the Save Apache Wells (SAW) Committee. Ernie Shoults and Jan Christo are NOT members of SAW and are running as Independents.
The flyer that included all 4 candidates and was distributed to homeowners on December 9th and 10th was done to give homeowners the information they need
to choose who they wished to support in January 2nd election.
|
OPINIONS & FEEDBACK
Luke AFB is west of Phoenix and is rapidly being surrounded by civilization that complains about the noise from the base and its planes, forgetting that it was there long before they were. A certain lieutenant colonel at Luke AFB deserves a big pat on the back. Apparently, an individual who lives somewhere near Luke AFB wrote the local newspaper complaining about a group of F-16s that had disturbed his/her day at the mall.
Pat Haruff has been an untiring advocate for homeowners' rights in Arizona for many years and her CHORE group has provided valuable information and support to residents of HOAs who have taken issue with the actions of their community leadership. She, along with fellow advocate George Staropoli, have lobbied the Arizona legislature to establish laws to protect the rights of those living in planned communities. Pat has spent countless hours of her time visiting and speaking to community groups who feel that they are not being treated fairly. She has spoken to our group on a number of occasions during our difficult times. Pat has been there for us and we want to be there for her.
