Guadalajara Reporter

Dear Sir,

As a former officer of the Chula Vista Association, we would like to comment on the roots of the current turmoil.

The conflicts started seriously after the 2007 Annual Assembly when a  new board chose to proceed with large expenditures unauthorized by the general assembly. The Comisario report to the 2008 Assembly noted that “a rather considerable length of new fence was installed on Prolongation del Monte without first obtaining competitive bids and prior to approval of the Board or budget approval by the General Assembly.  Both the purpose of this fence, as well as the cost of 94,000 pesos, which even exceeded the original quote, were questionable.  A case could be made that a serious departure from our standard procedures, as well as possible violation of our Bylaws, is apparent as a result of this action.”

The Comisario’s report covered five other points, including criticism of the Board’s “arbitrary and questionable” fee collections: “In spite of several discussions regarding the equitable settlement and collection of past dues and fees from Association Members, no plan has been adopted.  This has resulted in arbitrary and questionable collection results.  The sale and now re-sale of two vacant lots on Paseo del Golf – and the collection of tax arrears for over 20 years, come to mind. Previous Boards permitted collection as low as 65% of the amount due, plus a collection fee of 15%, which in this case would have resulted in a total collection fee of 600,000 pesos.  However, this Board accepted a payment of only about 115,000 pesos.  The net result is that the Board gave a discount of almost 85%. ”Arbitrary or selective enforcement of our Rules and Regulations is not only unfair but also illegal.”

The Comisario’s job is to safeguard member rights from abuse by elected Boards or any other member. Our bylaws require reports from the Comisario at every Annual Assembly. This Comisario’s report was suppressed, being neither distributed beforehand nor presented at the 2008 Annual Assembly.

Continuing its disregard for our Bylaws, the  Sherritt Board  presented sweeping Bylaw revisions at the 2008 Assembly.  Each change required individual discussion to comply with  Robert’s Rules of Order.  Instead, the 46 revisions were presented as a whole, with no exceptions or debate permitted. The revisions were defeated. The President then permitted a second vote on the motion, this time with some deletions – a second violation of Robert’s Rules of Order.

The 2009 Assembly demonstrated the same disregard for the bylaws. Eric’s ailing neighbor gave him his proxy. Eric was denied the right to use it. He was instructed to request the President’s permission, who denied it. When Eric pointed out that this right was given in the Charter Deed Mr. Sherritt replied: “We don’t follow that. We make our own rules.”

The January 2009 Assembly elected Roy Schwartzenburg and Janet Peace – the first time  independent nominees had been elected in Chula Vista.  Roy and Janet were committed to homeowner control of Association affairs and Bylaw enforcement.

By March, 2009, both were facing disciplinary charges. Their written request for evidence prior to their hearing was  never answered. The hearing was conducted with neither Roy nor Janet present, by the very group of people accused of violating member rights.  The accused became judge, jury and executioner. In an “executive session” meeting (i.e. no minutes published), Roy and Janet were suspended by unanimous vote.  The charges were broadcast to every homeowner in Chula Vista, despite the fact that no evidence has ever been forthcoming to justify the verdict that the two are “unfit to govern.”

Roy was on the Board for many years and made an honest and significant contribution to the community.  A newcomer to Chula Vista, Janet rapidly became a significant contributor because she understood the laws and needs and was able to combine them effectively for the community’s benefit.

Looking back over the past years, we suggest that the suspensions and the ongoing, virulent campaign against Janet have more to do with her and Roy’s determination to clean up the Board’s functioning than with any actions against the community of any kind on their part.