Polk Personal Property Tax

June 2, 2016

leery: I will call this your Redemption question. You stated pleasure at being contacted personally with a concern by an owner and angst at forum contributors speculating about board motives on issues. In accordance with this posture, I submit the following question.

Preamble: Boards of the past, beginning in 2010, have sponsored KCNet's commercial business ventures in various important ways which directly negatively impact owners' property and contractual rights. One need only review the threads on this forum to appreciate the anger and suspicion this has raised among owners who have been victimized by board decisions to proliferate, trespass on common property and spend assessment monies for the benefit of stab and others. There has been much speculation on motives--most involving financial self-interest. So, I think this is good question to start with:

"If you were called before a Judge in a court of law, how would characterize, rationalize and justify the actions of the several board members since 2010--including your own board-- in

1. continuing to sponsor SLohA's substantial participation with a commercial business which has been permitted to alter common property without owner input or approval
2. pay expenses from common monies without benefit to members for a convicted felon's business ventures and
3. violated several provisions of the Covenants it is charged with upholding?

I hope you will give this question serious thought and answer without platitudes or guile. It embodies many critical issues embedded in ALL board actions. The manner in which you choose to answer it has enduring implications.

I fully intend to publish your response and further, if you wish to participate voluntary on this forum and interact with Owners in a truthful and generous manner, I will set up a separate self-controlled board for you. I am pleased that you take some time from your busy life to tune into the forum and learn about the issues on Owners' minds. What a vibrant place the Forum could be if there was conversation between BOD and Owners!

Sincerely, S u e Tg 4 Stone Fly

June 3, 2016

S u e,
I have attached my response to your inquiries. I hate that the litigious time and place in which we live requires that we second guess our every word. So, I must admit that I did run my response by a couple of trusted advisers to make sure that I said nothing that would damage the reputation or image of the park.
They recommended no revisions so this is the unvarnished me.

S u e,
Redemption?
While I wouldn’t want to say that this is true in all aspects my life, with regard to my involvement with the Board of Directors at S-bag, I truly don’t feel that I need redemption. I can confidently say that I am not ashamed of any of my intentions or actions while part of this Board. On the contrary I am very proud of our current board and what we have been able to achieve since February 2016.

Furthermore I believe that we are held in high regard by the overwhelming majority of the owners within the resort. That is why I do feel confident about speaking honestly and openly about the Board’s activities during this time period.

I did welcome the e-mail that I received from Jm Ath. I was courteous with him and I believe that I answered his question as fully as possible and after researching the statute which he referenced, I sided with Toneesha on the issue. Many of your contributors have often accused Board members of being manipulated by Management but that was not the case here and it has not been, in my experience with the board. I could have voiced a different opinion but I was in agreement with the stand that Toneesha had taken.

In response to my appearance before the judge, the only the judge that really matters in this case is that a majority of owners which I mentioned earlier.

However, I was glad to receive your e-mail and I will respond to your questions. I am afraid though that I will not be able to answer for the intentions or actions of previous Boards or Board members.

My actual knowledge of the Saddlebags dealings with KCnet began about this time last year when I was appointed to the Board. I had, of course, by reading the posts on your site and from comments that I have heard over the years, realized that there had been a lot of anger directed toward Robber stab and the internet Ntwerk which he had established in the resort.

As I’ve said, I really had no knowledge of how the agreement with KCnet had originally been reached; I simply appreciated the fact that he was providing good internet and telephone service at what I considered a very reasonable price.

I must say that I had become very disenchanted with the CHUG website and I felt very strongly that the resort needed an independent, more contemporary and responsive site, to bear its name and to serve the public.

It was about a year ago now that the issue of the towers in the resort became a source of controversy. When the county initiated the action to have the towers within the resort certified, I was fully in favor of that action and I spoke and voted accordingly. Based upon our need for an independent website and recognizing the ill-will that existed, among some, toward Mr.stab I felt that it would be prudent for the Board to work toward clarifying SLohA’s relationship with KCnet. It is to that end that’s the Board has been working toward an ownership/ lease agreement with KCnet, over the last several months. There have been several interruptions and delays along way, never any discord on either side, but we are very close to having that agreement in hand.

I know you will not be satisfied with my responses but this is as much as I can personally verify.

Your questions contain implications of wrong-doing on someone’s part but I cannot confirm or deny your allegations.

And with SLohA Revised Covenants and Restrictions, which I understand that you propose to cH allenge, so recently approved,
enforcement issues in several areas wait to be addressed.

Finally, in answer to your question about your forum, I have not and will not be contributing to the conversation because even though SLohA does not contribute to its operation and it is privately funded, the fact that it carries the name “S-bag”, gives it a legitimacy that I don’t feel it deserves.

The way that it has degenerated into a place where lies, half-truths and venomous statements abound has made it a place that I only choose to monitor in order to prepare myself and the others who are trying to serve this resort faithfully and honestly, against the attacks we have come to expect.

The degree of distrust and paranoia that has grown among your contributors is very disturbing. It is my style to speak with candor and without pretension and I am very comfortable answering questions about my actions but I fear that the minds and hearts of many of your readers and contributors have been so poisoned by the evil and conspiratorial picture of leadership and authority figures which has been painted, that honest words and open explanations can have little or no impact and will likely subject anyone who responds to further ridicule.

Still, if there are those who are interested in hearing truthful explanations of my opinions or actions, I am truly, pleased to reply. leery