Cynthia Conners' response to Corkey and Noni Eley

This is councilmember Cynthia Conners’ response to Corkey and Noni Eley’s recent letter. At least we know what she really thinks.

----- Original Message -----
From: Cynthia Conners
To: (undisclosed)
Cc (undisclosed)
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 10:00 AM
Subject: re: Fw: Irresponsible Actions

To the Elys --
Are you proposing this just because "it's the rule" and you believe therefore it must be followed?
Are you upset because there's no unified Leisure World Budget?
Well, legally, there isn't any Leisure World at all, anymore, so that may be one reason there's no such budget.
Or are you upset because not every member received a budget that covers the entire community?

How many people in United want to read Third's budget? Have you taken a survey? Is it more than six?
And vice versa?
And how many people want to read Mutual 50's Budget? Do you know more than 2 people in Mutual 50 who want to read the budgets for United and Third?

How much do you think the residents should spend to print and mail every budget to every member, for the benefit of 15 who want to have a paper copy of each one? Those budgets will be posted on the web site, and any person who wants to see them can do so. If they want to print them out they can do so.

Are you upset because they are accessible on the web site and not by mail to every member?
The Village already has legal and legislative opinion that they are in compliance with the Davis Sterling act by posting notices on the internet and at clubhouses, broadcasting them on Channel 6, etc., because the cost of printing and mailing to 12,000 households is too great. Perhaps we should have all the budgets read aloud on Channel 6. That'd draw a large audience....

I would think you'd be in favor of a move that minimizes cost, not a move that adds cost.

Cynthia

Two Letters from Corkey & Noni Eley

Since this letter was sent the "condensed" version has arrived in some homes in Third Mutual. Mine arrived on the 18th of November. The first letter:

Milt Johns, Gerneral Manager
Janet Price,

As of November12, 2009 there has not been an Operating Budget
mailed to the homeowners of Leisure World/Laguna Woods Village.
WHY? The Amendment to the Trust dated April 6, 1964 states the
Operating Budget should be mailed 60 Days prior to the beginning of
the fiscal year.

The Amendment to the Original Trust dated April 6,1964 under
number six (6) of the Terms of this agreement states:"Golden Rain
shall operate and manage the improvements and provide
administrative, recreational and medical services for the benefit of the
members of the Cooperatives and their successors in interest at cost
and on a nonprofit basis. The cost thereof shall be included in a monthly
carrying charges charged on a pro rata basis to the members by their
respective Cooperatives. Not less than sixty (60) days prior to the
beginning of each fiscal year GOLDEN RAIN shall prepare an
operating budget setting forth its estimate of the cost of operating
and managing the improvements and providing the other aforesaid
services desired for the ensuing year and shall cause copies of same
to be delivered to the members of the Cooperatives or to the
Cooperatives for delivery to their members. The estimated cost
shall include administrative expenses, operating expenses, utilities,
hazard insurance, taxes and assessments, interest and amortization,
and a reasonable contigency reserve. Golden Rain in its capacity
as Trustee of the Golden Rain Foundation Trust shall maintain
and repair the Improvements for the benefit of the Cooperatives
and their successors in interest at cost and on a nonprofit basis and
shall prepare and deliver cost estimates for such maintenance
and repair in the same manner and such costs shall be charged in the
same manner as provided above for operating and managing costs
Such cost shall include resonable reserve for replacement and
renovation.

Unless the homeowners purchase the RED BOOK, they have
no idea what the Operating Budget for Leisure World/Laguna Woods
Village is ($95,000,000 plus). It is time for PCM and GRF to mail a
Complete Operating Budget to each homeowner in this nonprofit
senior citizen homeowners association,
Sincerely yours,
Corkey and Noni Eley

The second letter:

Re: Article 5 of 2007-2011 Management Contracts between PCM
and the four corporations (PCM, Third, United & Fifty of LWV)

Questions have arisen regarding Article 5 of the Management
Contracts between Professional Community Management and each of
the four Corporations (GRF. United, Third and Fifty) who manage,
operate and maintain Leisure World/Laguna Woods Village. Article
5 is printed below.

Article 5, Fee. Agent shall be paid, as its sole compensation for
all services performed hereunder, a fee payable in advance on the first
day of each month in an amount, exclusive of all surcharges, determind
on the basis of the total number of dwelling units in Mutual
under management by Agent as of the last day of the preceeding month
as follows:
(a) Said fee shall consist of a monthly charge in the amount of
$1.80 per dwelling unit.
(b) Said fee shall be adjusted annually for each succeeding year
by the same percentage as the All Urban Consumer Price Index
(CPI) of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Los
Angeles - Riverside, Orange County Metropolitan Area/. Such annual
re-computation shall be based on the July to June CPI increase or
decrease but not to exceed eight percent (8%). Should the variation
in the CPI exceed eight percent (8%) the fee set herein shall be
reopened automatically and subject to renegotiations. Such fee
adjustments shall be budgeted and become effective as of January 1
of the succeeding year.

After reading Article 5(b), the question that needs to be answered
is: Was there a minus two point six percent (2.6%) decrease in the fee
paid to the Agent on the 2010 Operating Budget? The Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Riverside, OrangeCounty, Ca. based on
the July to June CPI was minus two point six percent (2.6%)

There should definitely be a decrease in the fee paid to the Agent
on the 2010 Operating Budget based on the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) as per the Management Contracts between PCM and the four
Corporations Article 5(b).
Sincerely yours,
Corkey and Noni Eley

Land for Swap - Directors Abdicate Responsibility

Goings On LWV Issue 26 November 2009

I heard the word “LANDSWAP” at the November GRF meeting falling from Milt Johns’ lips. How often have we been warned about the San Sebastian taking over the parking lot next to the library? Now it has been said out loud and in public ON TV. A land swap….a tiny little piece of land slated to be a pocket park presently owned by the City of Laguna Woods which is behind the Aryes Hotel and the self storage units FOR THE PARKING LOT. Use your voices people!!! This has been the plan ALL ALONG.
PCM has a financial interest in the San Sebastian. They helped build it via partnership with the developer(s) and Milt Johns announced in a meeting that he was “in daily contact with Standard Pacific” during the construction of that property; this, even though LWV was completely out of the picture at that point.
IT IS A TOTAL AND COMPLETE YET REPEATED BREACH OF ETHICS to have ANYTHING to do with suggesting a land swap that is to PCM’s advantage.

A land swap must be equitable. That is, a real or perceived value of that given up must be at LEAST equal to what is received as well as being as valuable as the land is valuable to those receiving it.

The lot could be sold, say, for $100. Value exchanged for both parites. However, the lot ENHANCES the value to the San Sebastian far more than $100 would enhance GRF (the members.) There would therefore be a breach of duty to make that sale. It is inconceivable that the land exchange could be of equal value.
It is not about land area at all…size for size. It’s about the final REAL value overall.

For example: we negotiate the trade of horses of equal size, age and racing record. Each is a triple-crown winner. One is a gelding and one is a colt. Who gets the better deal?

Bob Hatch knows this as a real estate appraiser. The rest of them know it because they have been told over and over and over and over. PCM knows it but WANTS THE LAND!
Lloyd Foster can sit on the dias and mumble his ignorance telling people how “that’s a GRF issue” but what he repeatedly fails to say is that IT IS THE MUTUALS WHICH VOTE FOR AND ARE IN CONTROL OF GRF. The board members of the mutuals are the corporate members of GRF. IT IS the business of the mutuals. It IS the business of UNITED.

Speak up now or we’ll be back in the same situation we were with the land swap that sold us down the river the last time, people. How much of our land are we going to let PCM buy sell and swap with abandon? Are you going to put up with losing more of our land at the whim of PCM? Get your voices in gear and SPEAK UP. Write your legislators, law enforcement agencies and let your board members know you don’t like this behavior and it is to STOP. If YOU don’t raise your own voice and allow this to happen you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Decision Making by Boards - Taking the easy way out

Goings On LWV Issue 25 November 09

It is virtually amazing that more psychological or behavioral studies have not been made using our elderly population. Not only is the number of elderly/retired people increasing in the United States but changing social norms are moving elderly from family units into enclaves called retirement communities. Today, large numbers of senior citizens are gathered into these enclaves begging for study. And yet there are few studies on seniors which do not relate to Alzheimers or other forms of mental deterioration. One might suggest that these studies are driven by fears of what might be the future for many groups of social behaviorists. If it happens to you, it is a shame; if it might happen to ME it would be a terrible tragedy of awesome proportions. In the mean time seniors are usually kept out of sight and out of mind. If you don’t believe me, consider how often the kids drop over just to give you a hug or hang out. (Not that you would like the latter since we are all active seniors here and have our own lives that we are busily trying to live.)

And yet, here we are. We are a population at or nearing retirement age, living as active a life as our health and wealth will allow. And we have a distinct social structure. We are members of a homeowners association, governed (?) by elected boards, and managed by hired help. We are, in fact, the country in microcosm. We have self-important “leaders” who revile those who elect them. We have hired help that literally believes that what we have is theirs by right. We have elections, corruption, nasty leaders—we might as well be a separate state. And what characterizes our leaders?

Others have reported how new directors quickly get sucked into the machine and, to keep their own sense of importance, rationalize becoming just one of the good old boys. This is very much like the Stanford Prison Experiment where volunteers were put into a closed population and identified as guards or inmates. These average people started to exhibit the worst behavioral characteristics of sadistic guards and sullen or brutal inmates. The experiment got so bad, that the psychologists performing the study had to call it to a close to ensure the safety of all of the volunteers. We, of course, have directors who call us inmates, treat themselves to parties with our money, and call security when we try to protest. STANFORD, here we are, what are you waiting for?

Over the past few decades we have seen candidate after candidate call for reforms up until the moment they are installed to one of our boards. At that point they become meek as lambs, go with the flow, and soon become indistinguishable from the rest. What happened to those new ideas they had? What happened to their avowed declaration that they would shake the boat and make changes? STANFORD, we need another study. Or do we?

You all remember the Bay of Pigs debacle. Cuban nationals organized and were supposed to trained and supported by the CIA and potentially backed up by units of the US Military. The landing point on the island nation of Cuba was the Bay of Pigs. An elaborate plan to overthrow Castro and his fledgling government failed so miserably it became virtually synonymous with any kind of complete disaster and, as a US Navy Admiral I knew used to call a complete Cluster F***. I think the exact number of people killed was 118 with roughly 1200 captured in the three day debacle. Basically the US tried to deny we were involved and deserted the Cuban nationals. John Kennedy was in office 3 months. He had been present at every major meeting since the onset of planning for the Bay of Pigs. This contributed to the mentality that they did not want to displease or contradict the president. They wanted to one of the boys, Kennedy’s boys. GROUPTHINK.

The backblow from this horror story of an invasion was so bad that Kennedy could almost see his career going down the tubes right in front of his eyes. The Bay of Pigs invasion had been planned by GROUPTHINK.

Kennedy, while not my favorite president, was at least smart enough to recognize real trouble with a system of planning when he saw it. He took measures to fix the problem. He established a devil’s advocate to represent the opposition in every major operational decision made from that point on. Kennedy used mostly his brother Robert for the job but occasionally he used Ted Sorensen. The result was that the much more serious Cuban Missile Crisis exemplifies the success of strategies designed to combat GROUPTHINK.

There have been many studies about Groupthink since William White coined the term in 1952. The term applies to the philosophy that group values (real or perceived) are not only expedient but right and good. In LWV directors are given standards of behavior which tells them to get along, become one of the (good old) boys, don’t express contrary opinions or values, and get along in peace and harmony. This does, of course, result in a false sense of serenity, a smooth surface that belies the tensions of the community. That is, the boards soon no longer represent the diverse opinions and needs of the community. They are good old boys. They get along.
What would happen if law enforcement walked in here tomorrow? What if people were indicted and dragged off in chains? What would our beloved directors say? Just as Robert McNamara and Kennedy’s entire cabinet said, well they had their reservations. They didn’t agree with everything but felt it was futile to speak out (becoming bad old guys or perhaps old bad guys) when everyone else was so full of confidence. Believe me, Uncle Miltie and the Great Grub are not in Kennedy’s league. What stops people from speaking out? Why don’t they stand up and say that an outrage is being perpetrated by the actions of their board? What good is a statement that they stood up in closed session and objected? How can FOUR BOARDS allow a director to be persistently maligned and disenfranchised without a public statement from ANY director? How can ANY BOARD gang up on any resident they chose to target. How can ANY BOARD condone and participate when complaints are filed against these residents alluding to unsubstantiated misdeeds even when witnesses discount these allegations? How can ONE BOARD sit there and allow a sitting director to be voted off the board even when a judge of the superior court agreed that they did not have the legal right to do so? And why has no member of that board taken their feet to say, Hey, we really didn’t have the right to do this. Victims of GROUPTHINK, all. STANFORD, come and get us, we are ripe for your studies.