Dear La Cresta members:

Its not “my premise,” I’m referring too, but rather the fact that the ability to own assets is clearly written in the Davis Stirling Act. The exact language from the Act has been read aloud at a past BOD open session meeting by Mr. McLeavy.

There are two asset issues in this discussion. ALL assets should be recorded on the Balance Sheet. They should be depreciated and amortized according to what the law allows. Our Bylaws do not reflect the ownership of any assets, yet we have had a huge asset from the very inception of this POA, the ROADS. We own them, the signs, the crosswalk, etc… along with approximately 5 miles of fencing for our trails. All of these assets should be reflected on our Balance Sheet. The Reserve is specifically for the repair, replacement, or refurbishing of assets and is a completely different issue than what’s reported on our Balance Sheet.

Perhaps if the BOD would allow for an open discussion with the POA’s accountant there could be some clarity in these issues. If true transparency is to be achieved, then the BOD should have an outside audit conducted of our books and the report made directly to the members without the BOD’s interference.

I find it very suspicious, that the BOD always states that it would be too expensive to have an outside audit conducted while at the same time wanting to approve approximately $21k for replacing flowers that isn’t in the POA’s budget. Again, this makes no sense to someone with accounting experience. The BOD brings these suspicions on themselves with their lack of transparency to the members they are supposed to be representing. No recording of meetings, no outside audit, no ability to speak with the POA’s accountant.

This all leads to concerns of what the BOD isn’t telling its members. This discussion also brings up the issue of the vacate of roads. If these roads were built on private land that was subdivided into various plots for sale, then obviously they were privately owned in origination. If that is the case, then why would the POA have to ask the county to “vacate” them at all? This leads to the obvious issue of rewriting the POA’s Bylaws. Not only are they out of date, but they are sorely lacking in the structural detail required of current POAs, i.e. ownership of assets and how they will be maintained.

A deep dive into these documents reveal that the POA has been in noncompliance with its own bylaws for YEARS. It takes a very transparent, honest, and truthful group of people to be able to rewrite our Bylaws with all of the members’ best interest in mind and not multiple personal agendas. There are many members who have expertise in these matters and don’t have a personal/professional conflict with the matters the BOD addresses.

It is unfortunate that these members have been “runoff” by members who are only interested in maintaining their control over the BOD, ie, the money and how it is spent. The personal attacks and character assassination conducted by certain members is just atrocious and has led this POA down this path of self-destruction. These very discussions that have allowed past members who no longer own property to have their opinion posted is exactly what the current litigation is about, ie favoritism and selective enforcement. Certain members and past members are allowed to do what they wish while other members are held to the strictest enforcements of the rules governing this POA.

I’m sure the attorney from the insurance company representing the POA in this litigation would be horrified if he knew that these conversations were taking place. The current issue of the placement of a manufactured home (with an asphalt roof) on a member’s property as an ADU and its noncompliance with the POA’s CC&Rs clearly demonstrates the complaint. Keep going members, you are providing the winning evidence to the plaintiff.

In closing, I highly recommend that the current BOD should review their fiduciary responsibilities to the POA and closely read the definitions of “maintenance,” “asset,” “Balance Sheet,” and “Reserve Account.”

Respectfully

Ron Calisher