Joan Patrick;
It is interesting (to say the least), that I also sent a letter to Kay Dwyer.
The letter was registered mail (reciept requested), and was addressed to Kay Dwyer personally. What's so interesting about that you ask? Well It was answered by a letter from Mike Dixon saying HE recieved it!
Apparently Mike Dixon is reading and recieving mail addressed to Kay Dwyer. Whats with that???
Is Kay unable to open & read her own mail, or is Mike protecting her from having to answer a question that may reveal the truth about the Villa Agreement she signed along with Favil West???
Valerie said:
The plot thickens (or is that sickens?). Apparently what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. After reading Ron's blog it makes one wonder why some people have been protected. It brings up other issues of what is the Board so afraid of the homeowners finding out? When pointing a finger at one person the other 4 fingers are pointing back. It appears that ganging up on Bob Frank is supposed to take the emphasis off the real issues of how the homeowners have been sold down the river.
Joan Patrick said:
Thank you Ron for explaining the facts in a clear and correct manner. I have sent Kay Dwyer a certified letter requesting a copy of the legal opinion, billing, payment, and who made that payment. The letter was received on October 4, 2007. I think this matter hits at the very heart of the current problems in Sun City Anthem. We have been told over and over about "alledged" legal opinions. Decisions were made based on these representations. "Fiduciary responsibility" was preached to us as the key role of the BOD. Signing a document as important as this one without legal approval is definitely a perfect example of not fulfilling this responsibility!!! If Kay Dwyer did have a legal opinion BEFORE signing, it can be easlily proven. I encourage her not to ignore my request. If she has the stated opinion that would be excellent, if not she needs to state that too. Looking forward to clearing this matter up.
Joan Patrick
Rana Goodman said:
Ron, this inconsistency is rearing its ugly head over and over again in the very reporting of any misstep Bob Frank might take should he miss a meeting; it become a national incident to his foes yet nothing is ever mentioned when other board members do the same. Dave Berman makes an entire editorial over Bob Frank “allegedly” raising his voice in a personal disagreement between the two, yet our president feels it is perfectly acceptable to should at a resident from the stage an refuse to simply say “I’m sorry” to that same lady because she didn’t demand an apology in writing. His fellow board members treat him publically with distain and think that is acceptable and they have the gall to ask why many in the community are joining forces against them?
Totally sick at the money I wasted on all those coffees I hosted for ANYONE but BOB FRANK!
Ron Johnson said:
The issue of Kay Dwyer's alleged breach of duty in not seeking legal counsel prior to executing the Pulte drafted Neighborhood Agreement was raised at the Board meeting not to attack Kay Dwyer, but to attack the credibility or the appearnace of inconsistency of the Board in applying a different standard of conduct in the case of Dwyer's conduct (where the Board took no action) compared to the alleged misconduct of Bob Frank (where the Board took action to remove him from his position as vice-president. In the end, it would seem that the issue is not so much the conduct that is in question but on whose side of the fence was the action taken.
Leave a comment
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Ron Johnson published on October 8, 2007 6:19 PM.
Joan Patrick;
It is interesting (to say the least), that I also sent a letter to Kay Dwyer.
The letter was registered mail (reciept requested), and was addressed to Kay Dwyer personally. What's so interesting about that you ask? Well It was answered by a letter from Mike Dixon saying HE recieved it!
Apparently Mike Dixon is reading and recieving mail addressed to Kay Dwyer. Whats with that???
Is Kay unable to open & read her own mail, or is Mike protecting her from having to answer a question that may reveal the truth about the Villa Agreement she signed along with Favil West???
The plot thickens (or is that sickens?). Apparently what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. After reading Ron's blog it makes one wonder why some people have been protected. It brings up other issues of what is the Board so afraid of the homeowners finding out? When pointing a finger at one person the other 4 fingers are pointing back. It appears that ganging up on Bob Frank is supposed to take the emphasis off the real issues of how the homeowners have been sold down the river.
Thank you Ron for explaining the facts in a clear and correct manner. I have sent Kay Dwyer a certified letter requesting a copy of the legal opinion, billing, payment, and who made that payment. The letter was received on October 4, 2007. I think this matter hits at the very heart of the current problems in Sun City Anthem. We have been told over and over about "alledged" legal opinions. Decisions were made based on these representations. "Fiduciary responsibility" was preached to us as the key role of the BOD. Signing a document as important as this one without legal approval is definitely a perfect example of not fulfilling this responsibility!!! If Kay Dwyer did have a legal opinion BEFORE signing, it can be easlily proven. I encourage her not to ignore my request. If she has the stated opinion that would be excellent, if not she needs to state that too. Looking forward to clearing this matter up.
Joan Patrick
Ron, this inconsistency is rearing its ugly head over and over again in the very reporting of any misstep Bob Frank might take should he miss a meeting; it become a national incident to his foes yet nothing is ever mentioned when other board members do the same. Dave Berman makes an entire editorial over Bob Frank “allegedly” raising his voice in a personal disagreement between the two, yet our president feels it is perfectly acceptable to should at a resident from the stage an refuse to simply say “I’m sorry” to that same lady because she didn’t demand an apology in writing. His fellow board members treat him publically with distain and think that is acceptable and they have the gall to ask why many in the community are joining forces against them?
Totally sick at the money I wasted on all those coffees I hosted for ANYONE but BOB FRANK!
The issue of Kay Dwyer's alleged breach of duty in not seeking legal counsel prior to executing the Pulte drafted Neighborhood Agreement was raised at the Board meeting not to attack Kay Dwyer, but to attack the credibility or the appearnace of inconsistency of the Board in applying a different standard of conduct in the case of Dwyer's conduct (where the Board took no action) compared to the alleged misconduct of Bob Frank (where the Board took action to remove him from his position as vice-president. In the end, it would seem that the issue is not so much the conduct that is in question but on whose side of the fence was the action taken.