Board of Directors

Prior Board service

2017 - 2019 (moved off-campus)

2020 - 2022 (still lives off-campus) 

Joseph opposes sharing information between meetings because he thinks it's conducting business. From what I can tell, this is not what most HOA pundits think. The impact of not sharing information except at regular monthly meetings is longer sessions and impatience caused by exhaustion, as the urge to leave overtakes thoughtful deliberation.

Management assembles agenda materials in a board “packet", but some recent directors have complained about too much information. They want shorter meetings. That can lead to uninformed decisions or actions aimed at expedience rather than value. For almost 4 decades, the board held work sessions to address long agendas and complicated issues. This also facilitated better transparency in the decision-making process. Joseph voted against them at the November 30, 2020 meeting, when I motioned to reinstate work sessions after the board's workload increased substantially. 

He also signed a recent flyer which accused other directors of "unprofessional behavior", so I think it's fair to mention an email he sent to a fellow director on February 9, 2022, where he wrote: "I don't know why l even bother supporting your motions if you're not going to help explain why you voted for it when I get attacked for helping support things you agree with." That suggests a practice euphemistically called vote swapping, rather than acting on the merit of agenda items. According to most experts, political voting is a bad practice which often raises the cost of doing business. But it makes sense if the primary goal is reducing one's efforts since it leads to shorter meetings and less homework, if only at the price of a greater risk for poor outcomes and higher cost. 

I'm the same guy I was 2 years ago, so it's curious that Joseph wrote in a July 2021 email, "Just my thoughts - thank you for your feedback and due diligence. I do think it is a safe bet to request information without cc'ing a quorum, and then share that resultant info with the entire board like you did today." He further adds in a January 2022 email, "If you don't run, I would still offer a statement of support for you if Michael does include attack's against you in this year's campaign." 

But after I ran, he offered no support at all and instead signed a flyer which implies I'm part of "... the main reason why important decisions languish and why many volunteers and vendors won’t work with Gateview." It's flattering to think due diligence and asking hard questions made me the most powerful character at Gateview. But also comical and somewhat absurd. 

That same campaign flyer said of the previous manager: "Ultimately, the unprofessional behavior of this minority of directors has culminated in the recent resignation of our General Manager. This is a huge loss for Gateview." What's curious is back in January 2022, Joseph asked the board if he could, on his own, get a quote from Omni Management Service, to update their 2018 bid for managing our property. 

The residential management community is small, and several previous Gateview managers told me onsite property managers all know each and often share information about properties and opportunities. Joseph confirmed his actions in April 2022 when he wrote, "I reached out to OMNI by email and then by phone back in Feb. They declined to give us a proposal due to market conditions in the area." Milan left Gateview in late February. A coincidence? At other HOAs, the president is the contact point between vendors and an association. 

There's a reason for following best practices, and why good intentions without regard for unintended consequences or having a well-considered plan in mind first can sometimes lead to more than just lost time and effort. 

Prior Board service

2014 (appointed) - 2015

Ginny chaired the Interior Design Committee, as a director, in 2014 and 2015. That committee promoted carpet tiles for the Hallway Project. Based on her committee's recommendation, the board voted to sign a letter of Intent with FLOR, for carpet tiles (I was out of the country during that vote).

There was much debate surrounding tiles vs. broadloom carpet, and it's my understanding Ginny didn't endorse owner surveys to get their input before deciding on tiles. Following a failed hallway mockup on the 14th floor of the 'B' building, which came with more controversy surrounding lack of transparency and project oversight, plus higher costs than expected, the board abandoned carpet tiles in June 2020.

I motioned for that change, hoping to break the years long carpet tile logjam. Both Tom and Joseph opposed it. After that motion passed, they installed carpet less than a year and a half later. Following 5 years of uncompromising insistence on carpet tiles, it seems compromise and consensus building had its rewards, which included a lower cost for owners.

Prior Board service

none

Linda has attended many recent meetings. I don't think she understands Robert's Rules or the proper role of a chair when it comes to running respectful and efficient meetings. I doubt she has gone through all the minutes either, and may not be aware of missing project quotes or the lack of follow through on many management directives.

When I asked what the Finance Committee recommended for the 2022 budget before voting, it's my recollection Joseph said there wasn't one because his fellow committee members had failed to meet. Since that may be the most important duty for a Finance Committee at most HOAs, to provide input on the annual budget, I think it's unfortunate the hard work she put into that committee wasn't available for board members to consider before they voted.

Since she also signed the flyer referring to "... hypercritical micromanagement and wildly disrespectful discourse..." aimed at some directors. If she is elected, I hope Linda will study the proper role of officers and management at other HOAs, where political infighting and personal attacks aren't a problem. And perhaps what industry experts say about competitive bidding and vendor oversight, since those activities involve little risk or sacrifice for an association while offering substantial rewards.

Prior Board service

2016 - 2017 (recalled)

Michael could share his knowledge constructively and help this community, but he seems to reject the notion of consensus building or compromise. He often criticizes people he disagrees with, resorting to name calling, personal attacks or, according to some residents, physical threats. He shows little patience while debating issues and apparently sees his role as more of an attack dog than a community leader. This has had a polarizing effect and, according to some owners, discouraged them from participating in both meetings and elections.

Michael consistently attacked and threatened several people who were serving when owners recalled him. The January 18, 2017 membership minutes reflect his outgoing statement, where he "...vowed to come after them in a serious manner and they would be gone so he no longer needed to deal with these problems." That almost comes across as a death threat. He conveniently omits the fact I argued the recall had irregularities and agreed with the Inspector that ballots shouldn't be opened until those irregularities were resolved. I was the only director who voted against going forward with the ballot count that led to his recall (Michael also demanded that the ballots be opened).

On March 24, 2020, Michael posted a message in a public chat forum which claimed he had filed a complaint against me with the State of California Board for Professional Engineers (BPELSG) for "... falsely representing himself to the Gateview community as an Engineer." Specifically, he said I had used the word "engineer" in an earlier email signature, which he failed to note I had  retired a year earlier for board business in hopes he would drop the matter. Use of the term “engineer” is perfectly lawful.

I have never claimed to be a licensed engineer of any sort. Michael was aware of that. Michael told everyone that using the word "engineer" in a title was illegal. Attendees pointed out to Michael at several meetings that maintenance and software engineers routinely use that word in their title, but he was undeterred.

I called BPELSG on March 15, 2021 to verify his public statements and spoke with Rhianna. She said "I don't see a complaint was ever filed." and after checking under Michael's last name, repeated, "Nothing. I don't see anything." She went on to say "the word engineer is not protected, but when you use such [titles] as professional engineer, structural engineer, chemical engineer, things like that, titles like that, those are protected and unlicensed engineers cannot use those titles. So maybe someone at the board explained that to him. But I don't see a complaint was filed." She added, "You would have received something from the aboard."

The allegation I was under investigation was a fiction, as well as the accusation I broke any law. This was just another smear campaign, not unlike the flyer signed by several other candidates this year. Michael's highly public personal attacks at meetings were unchallenged by most other directors, and I think they had a chilling effect on owner participation, both at meetings and on committees. Before you vote, you might consider which candidates have the community's best interest at heart, and which candidates place a higher value on politics, vendettas, or bitterness connected to past events.