The
Ruderer
Letter
After
listening
to the
explanations
we were
given at
the last
pre
board
meeting,
I
believe
that it
is time
to
reveal
some
facts
that do
not
necessarily
substantiate
what we
are
being
told.
Every
time a
question
is
raised
about
the
project
that was
initially
represented
as a
“golf
course
repair”
and is
now
laughingly
referred
to
around
the
ranch as
the
“Sterner
Canal”
we hear
the same
story.
We were
told by
the
“People’s
Board”
that
twelve
houses
were
affected
and that
the
project
was put
in the
budget
and
approved
by the
Board
before
Ms.
Sterner
even
thought
about
running
for the
Board.
The most
recent
reason
given is
“sand in
the
lake.”
The
facts
are (1)
two, no
more
than
three,
houses
were
actually
affected.
(2) The
budget
was
approved
on
November
16,
2006,
well
after
Ms.
Sterner
was
advertising
and
actively
campaigning
for the
Board.
(3) The
project
was
approved
January
26,
2007,
after
Ms.
Sterner
was a
member
of the
Board
and, for
the
record,
she
voted
“yes”.
(4)
Sandbars
are
forming
at
numerous
locations
in the
lake due
to
drainage,
look at
he one
adjacent
to the
#7
fairway.
(5)
There
never
was a
“golf
course
repair”
called
for. The
facts
can be
verified
by
reviewing
actual
minutes
of the
Board
meetings.
Another
“story”
is that,
“The By
laws
have
finally
been
resolved.
It’s
about
time!
The A
and B
Boards
recognize
and
agree
that the
By laws
of the
Association
and the
Court
Settlement
govern
the
affairs
of the
Board
and the
Association.
Because
of this,
the
changes
to the
By laws,
which
have
been a
priority
for the
past
months,
are not
necessary.
This is
a major
accomplishment.”
The fact
is,
nothing
has
changed.
We still
have two
legal
documents,
the
Association
Bylaws
and the
court
settlement.
The
difference
is that
the
terms of
the
settlement
are now
included
in the
By laws.
The fact
that the
Board
has
chosen
to
incorporate
the
terms
into the
By laws
only
means we
have the
terms in
two
places,
the By
laws and
in the
court
settlement.
Everything
is just
as it
was 15
years
ago.
This
fact can
be
verified
by
reviewing
the two
documents.
It
should
be noted
that the
B Board
members
elected
subsequent
to the
court
settlement
have
governed
by these
same
terms.
(Note:
Could
this be
considered
a “face
saving”
gesture
on a
failed
campaign
promise?)
From the
beginning
the
“People’s
Board”
has made
the
restaurant
a target
because
it
“loses”
money to
the tune
of
$30,000
a month.
The
restaurant
has not
lost
$30,000
a month.
We are
never
told
that
part of
this
“loss “
is the
retirement
of the
building
debt,
the
19’th
Hole,
two golf
course
beverage
carts,
the
liquor
license,
etc. The
Board
has
scorned
the word
“amenity”,
even
though
to many
it was a
wonderful
amenity.
We never
hear
that the
golf
course
“loses”
about
the same
$30,000
a month.
And,
believe
me, this
year is
probably
the
smallest
“loss”
we have
ever
had.
Funny,
but we
seem to
have no
problem
with the
golf
course
being an
“amenity”.
Could it
be
because
three of
the
Board
members
play
golf?
This can
be
verified
by
reviewing
the
Financial
Statements.
Jim
Ruderer
