From: Suzy Palmer Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 1:21 PM To: Dustin Frederick Subject: Re: Memory lapse Dustin, You did the right thing. Steve and I spoke at length last night and I realize there is no fight to be won. I am no longer goig to respond to them as I have set myself up as their target. I will not respond to her and if she is so sure she is correct she can come to the BOD meeting, pay her dues and be able to speak to the board as a whole. The board decided together to increase the dues. I am choosing to stand aside and not engage with them. It's too distracting and time consuming. I do think we need to have a strategic planning session as a board so we can effectively support each other to effectively move forward. Thanks for your note, Suz Suzy Palmer 195 Perry Dr. Coupeville, WA 98239 suzypalmer1@me.com Cell: (847) 902-4922 Home: (360) 639-6050 Email: suzypalmer1@me.com The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains confidential medical information, please contact Suzy Palmer at 847-902-4922 or notify suzypalmer1@me.com for proper handling of this information. On Jan 04, 2015, at 09:15 AM, Dustin Frederick wrote: Suzy----I sat in front of my computer for over 15 minutes trying to decide whether to respond to this garbage by Karen and finally decided not to respond. She is such a pain. Happy holidays!!! Dustin and Susan From: Karen Shaak [mailto:karenshaak@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 2:15 PM To: Elsa Palmer; Jean Salls; Dan'l Jones; Bob Peetz; Maria Chamberlain; Chris Hendrickson; Kurt and Jackie Blankenship; Dustin Frederick; Fred Salmon Cc: Ed Delahanty Subject: Re: Memory lapse There are no accusations, just truth. I find it odd that you are even asking me to inform the board of your lies. Why hide this comment from the board you currently sit with by eliminating them from the thread? You must have something to hide from them. If you conspire and lie behind the back of the prior or current board it will come to light. Clearly, the court will need to settle the issue of the board over-throwing a democratic vote of the membership . #instantkarma'sgonnagetyou On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Elsa Palmer wrote: Karen, Bring your accusations to the board. Suzy Sent from my iPhone Suzy Palmer 847-902-4922 On Jan 3, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Karen Shaak wrote: I have both notes and a recording of the meeting. Suzy, you can dispute it but the meeting didn't happen as you remember, you took no exception. Sometimes it's just better not to say anything rather than lie. I still have all of the emails you sent outside of the board exposing discussion from executive session and lied to us that you had not. There are penalties for officers of corporations making false statements. Modifying the budget to place dollars in new expenditure categories is generally done within 10% based on GAAP. If a budgeted account is overspent, it is common procedure to show a variance. Using a budget as a piggy bank will just ensure lack of trust by the membership. This is where you are today. The budget has always been used to communicate a board imposed dues increase. This was done in 2014 and the community voted on an explicit ballot not to increase the dues. The community voted to hold the dues at $138.50 as recommended by the board 183 YES, 57 NO. And, you over-ruled it, dismissed the notion that a vote occurred and seem to have no belief in the democratic process. Saying that you want more money and telling the membership that change is difficult is not a valid reason to throw out a lawful vote. A vote is a vote. You are focused on the budget and not the vote. It is the vote that matters. The budget is the vehicle that the club has always used to communicate and provide a mechanism for the membership to vote. It is unlawful and irresponsible to retro-actively increase dues. This board continues to be challenged by running the affairs of the corporation. Lawsuits have become de rigueur based on poor decision making by the board to disregard the membership. It appears your motives are rooted in the desire to act like an HOA and a failing to act and vote based on common sense. I continually see members of this board kowtow to vote in unison for that sake rather than do the right thing. Mediocrity and bad decisions that nobody likes (I've heard at least one of you gripe about having to suck up and not vote your conscious) are a result - you're all united in your bad decision. I would submit you all suffer from the Abilene Paradox (a form of group think) and seem committed to your bad decisions to remain together rather than do what's right for the community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox). The membership is not dumb or blind. You should research and be aware that the state of Washington allows for 5% of members to call for dissolution by filing if a corporation can no longer run it's affairs. Your continued battle with the membership contrary to the majority wishes and simple logic seems to easily make this case. Karen On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Suzy Palmer wrote: Dear Jean, I am sorry to strongly disagree with you. I clearly remember Ed and I taking exception to the dues remaining at the same level when we voted in 2013. We expressed concern that we would be limiting our options for operating the pool if the judge so ruled. It was also clear that the remainder and majority of the BOD in 2013 were in favor of eliminating the pool. However, to our surprise and shock, the members election provided newly elected members to the Board that carried a very strong and clear message to keep the pool maintained and operational. These newly elected BOD were in favor of increasing the dues in 2014. Dustin Frederick did not demand such, but presented the motion to move the increase forward. Because dues statements had already been sent out we decided to add the increase to the 2015 billing in an effort to save additional mailing costs and book-keeping nightmares. It's in the minutes. I believe it is our fudiatary responsibility to respond to the members concern for the care and improvement of our pool to remain within the requirements of our bylaws and AOI. The members clearly mandated a program to maintain the pool by, again, electing board members to the current BOD and not re- electing those against the pool. This is a good example of how the democratic process works. It is disconcerting, I understand, for those on the other side of the fence, but this is exactly what happened. Change is always difficult, especially for those who have lost their foot hold and perceived power. It takes strength of character and integrity continue to volunteer even if there is a disagreement. I believe that at this point some folks have drawn a line in the sand and choose to continue to find pleasure in providing speed bumps to slow or prevent future movement forward. The budget for 2014 was not disregarded, but rather modified with the understanding that the budget is a guideline within which we operate. This is clearly responsible management and consistent with the memberships desire to begin to accumulate funds to help open the pool. I hope you will reconsider and become an active member in good standing, but understand this is your personal choice. Best Regards, Suzy Suzy Palmer 195 Perry Dr. Coupeville, WA 98239 suzypalmer1@me.com Cell: (847) 902-4922 Home: (360) 639-6050 Email: suzypalmer1@me.com The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains confidential medical information, please contact Suzy Palmer at 847-902-4922 or notify suzypalmer1@me.com for proper handling of this information. On Jan 02, 2015, at 06:28 PM, Ed Delahanty wrote: Jean, I remember the discussion but recall that both Suzy & I thought we should raise the dues in case the Judge's final ruling in the law suit was that we would have to operate and repair the pool. My memory is that Suzy and I wanted to raise the dues the allowable 9.99% and the remaining majority of the Board voted to no increase. The billing that went out in 2014 was done in advance of the dues increase that the Board of 2014 voted in doe 2014 so I'm rather surprised that you chose to not remain in good standing for 2014. Choosing to remain out of good standing is your choice, you will continue to be billed and the attendant service charges will apply. Regards, Ed. Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 19:31:43 +0000 From: jean_salls2000@yahoo.com To: whshed@live.com; suzypalmer1@me.com; stevem@broadstripe.net; dustin@local519.org; kblankenship@bluewilliams.com; pheffy@aol.com; hendrickcj@gmail.com; karenshaak@gmail.com; hermitanamaria@gmail.com; dan_serv@hotmail.com; rapeetz@gmail.com; jean_salls2000@yahoo.com Subject: Memory lapse Ed & Suzy: You must remember the long and intense meeting we held in 2013 with the purpose of cutting the budget to bring spending into line with anticipated income. You both agreed that an increase in dues for 2014 would not be fair to the membership. I was shocked to hear you both vote to retroactively increase the dues when Dustin demanded that the 2014 Board bill the membership for this increase in defiance of that membership vote. I consider it irresponsible management to discard a carefully planned budget, throw caution to the wind, and operate without consideration of the legal vote by the membership to pay dues of $138.50 in 2014. My reaction is to not pay dues until there is evidence of sound fiscal management of members money. Jean Salls