Was Pulte Engaged in Hanky Panky?

                        On releasing their "Answers . . ." to the Anthem Compendium

Was Pulte’s Public Relations Department engaged in funny business when they told Chuck Davis he could add the name of Patrick Aulds, Division President, to Pulte’s “Answers . . , ” a document that was widely distributed yesterday to Sun City Anthem homeowners in the Anthem Compendium? I believe so.

After all, Pulte's PR Department knows only too well the special role the Anthem Compendium plays in the Community, that of a quasi-official media outlet for the Association. So when the AC published Pulte’s “Answers . . . .” under the authorship or authority of Division President Patrick Aulds, anyone reading the AC would assume that whatever was being claimed, proclaimed, or committed to was the adopted and official policy of Pulte Homes by a named official of Pulte Homes. With Patrick Aulds signature affixed, who in the Community would not rely on what Pulte was allegedly telling our homeowners.

Sorry folks, we have learned that in reality no one at Pulte Homes wanted to take credit for that document, except possibly their Public Relations Department, the unit that produced the document. Were it not for the fact that Sasha Jackowich, Public Relations for Pulte Homes, had wanted to keep her telephone lines free for the press, her name could just as well been appended to that document, according to what Ms. Jackowich told The SCA View-Journal.

According to Ms. Jackowich, the “official” release of Pulte’s “Answers . . . .” did not and was not intended to carry any authorship. In fact, the document had no name appended to those "Answers . . . " and no one from Pulte’s management was willing to assume any responsibility for its creation. It was merely an unsigned public relations release by Pulte Homes. That's all. So, you may be wondering, how did it happen that the AC carried the alleged signature of Patrick Aulds?

Indeed, why did the AC add the name of Pulte’s division president to that unsigned document? The answer to that remains a little fuzzy and suggests to me a good measure of duplicity on Pulte's part. If Patrick Aulds had wanted to accept responsibility for that document, he could have done do by signing it. But he did not do so. Why didn't he? If he had authorized the inclusion of his name on that document, he would have accepted responsibility as an officer of the company for what was contained in their release. But did he authorize the use of his name?

If, on the other hand, Mr. Aulds did not make any such authorization, why would anyone want to give the impression that an official of Pulte Homes was accepting responsibility for what was being published to Sun City homeowners via the Anthem Compendium? After all, attaching a name of such prominence to a document allegedly representing the official position of Pulte Homes is a significant act, especially since the document itself in its original and final format to the AC, the David's Anthem Journal, and the SCA View-Journal carried no authorship.

I was not particularly impressed with Ms. Jackowich’s claim to me that Chuck Davis prefers to publish with a named author. So what? While Chuck may prefer to do so, would he have actually refused to publish in this very critical instance? That’s not likely. So when Ms. Jackowich provided Chuck with that document, she nicely wrote to him that "If you want to attach a name, please use Patrick Aulds, Division President." Wasn't that nice of her. When she made that same distribution to The SCA View-Journal, she said nothing about attribution. In fact, when I talked with Ms. Jackowich about this matter, she told me there was no authorship to their "Answers . . . " document.

Ms. Jackowich clearly had the option of telling Chuck to send it out as is, and he would no doubt have obliged her request. She could have just as easily given Chuck her name since she was the person who had sent via email that unsigned .pdf file for him to publish in his AC. But, no, instead, she told Chuck that he could add the name of Patrick Aulds. Given what she clearly understood about the AC, she had every reason to believe what Chuck would do. And, unfortunately, he did exactly as I believe she intended and expected him to do.

Does that mean that Patrick Aulds had actually authorized Ms. Jackowich to have his name published as the author of that document? Not necessarily. Does that mean that Patrick Aulds accepts legal responsibility for what’s included in that document based on the AC's publication with his presumed signature attached? Not necessarily. In fact, Mr. Aulds could if he chose disavow any responsibility for specific commitments made to homeowners since no officer of Pulte actually signed or accepted authorship of that document. It would seem that Mr. Aulds could rightly claim that the inclusion of his name was an unauthorized “PR” decision, not his decision.   

If Ms. Jackowich was not authorized to append the name of Patrick Aulds to that document, were her actions in telling Mr. Davis to use the relative important name of Division President Patrick Aulds an attempt to unduly or improperly influence Sun City homeowners to accept Pulte’s Offer and execute that General Release of Claim form? I believe Ms. Jackowich's intentions were quite clear and were not so naive as she would have us believe.

Does that mean that Pulte’s “Answers . . . .” document is not worth the paper it is printed on? Not necessarily. But without the legal niceties of someone in charge coming forward to accept responsibility for the statements contained therein, one may be left to wonder how much of that document represented Pulte’s commitment or just the great and very skillful efforts of their PR team.

Surely, if Pulte wants Sun City Anthem homeowners to accept and rely on their pledges and commitments, there is someone heading up Pulte’s operations here who would be willing to take responsibility for the statements included in their “Answers . . . “ document.

Ron Johnson, 13 January 2007