It was a packed house at the June 10 Voting Member Meeting. GAC Chair Rick Goldstein informed the audience that guest speaker Sheriff Chad Chronister was not able to attend. WCA President Michiel Oostenbrink moved into new business. The first order of business was a vote on INSG amendments for Stockbridge and Berkeley Square. Greens VM Steve Splaine asked if residents of those neighborhoods approved of the changes and VMs from both neighborhoods confirmed that they had more than the 51% requisite votes. The INSGs passed. For more information on those changes, visit westchasewca.com/docs-forms/proposed-amendments.
Goldstein offered a brief update on the proposed Linebaugh Crosswalk saying that there had been an additional review of the County’s traffic study and there was a question as to whether the findings meet the necessary warrants for a crosswalk. He had also spoken to County Commissioners, and they are aware the WCA board is opposing the crosswalk. Oostenbrink added that county officials had been tracking feedback on the proposed crosswalk through June 3 and they were working on compiling that feedback.
Radcliffe VM and Document Review Chair Eric Holt said the committee held its ninth meeting and had worked through all bylaws and CCRs and would be moving on to guidelines next week. He added that he planned to create a bullet point summary of proposed changes to the CCRs and bylaws so VMs could provide feedback early in the process.
A vote to reappoint Margaret Stephens and Keith Heinemann as Variance Committee Alternates passed unanimously.
Oostenbrink turned to WCA Board updates. He noted that the Westchase Station Annexation process is ongoing, and he hoped to add it to the July agenda for a vote. He added that the board will appoint a nominating committee at the June 12 WCA Board meeting and asked interested parties to reach out to interim Association Manager Rhonda Blakeman.
The conversation moved to what Oostenbrink referred to as the elephant in the room – the Board’s request to replace Debbie Sainz as association manager and Greenacre’s subsequent decision to resign as our property management company. Kingsford VM Forrest Baumhover made a motion to let Greenacre employees decide if they wanted to remain in the room for that conversation. After a brief discussion, the motion passed and Greenacre employees, including staff from the corporate office, chose to stay.
Oostenbrink began the conversation by stating that there had been a number of emails circulating on the VM thread. “You elected me to serve on the board and the board asked me to lead this organization. When I see emails going around from folks that are attacking other folks, I find it really disheartening,” he said. “We are all volunteers here, and we are all working in what we believe is the best interest of the community.” He added that he did not want to see verbal attacks at this meeting. Oostenbrink said he had shared a couple of emails explaining what took place and would elaborate. The board held a closed session in May to address a personnel matter. A motion was made to replace Debbie Sainz as association manager. It passed, 4-3, with Goldstein, Terry Boyd and Nancy Sells dissenting. “Under our contract with GPI, we’re allowed to do that,” he added. Following the meeting, GPI responded with a notice to terminate their contract with Westchase, effective June 30. Oostenbrink went on to explain that the original intent of the closed session with GPI was to discuss the facility manager roles and responsibilities to fill that position. The board also needed to discuss Sainz’s performance in preparation for her upcoming performance review. In preparation for that discussion, Oostenbrink said he reached out to fellow board members and based on feedback from several members, he realized that Sainz was not the right fit for our community. “This was not a concerted effort that was months in the making,” Oostenbrink said. “This wasn’t planned months in advance. It happened organically due to incidents that happened recently.”
He added, “I understand there is some criticism in how this was approached. At the end of the day, there were some trust issues, and I didn’t want any of the information to be leaked outside of the board and GPI given that the conversation hadn’t yet happened.” Oostenbrink also clarified that the request to GPI was for a transition plan. “It wasn’t asking for an immediate removal, and it wasn’t asking for a change in our property management company. GPI opted to remove Debbie immediately and terminate our contract,” Oostenbrink said. Oostenbrink admitted GPI’s decision to terminate the contract came as a surprise to the board. Regarding the reasons for seeking a replacement for Sainz, Oostenbrink said he preferred to keep it high level out of respect. He said there were small issues like continuous complaints about the cleanliness of the pool bathrooms, and more concerning issues like staffing shortages that led to facility closures, lack of proper oversight with vendors, and ongoing issues with the WPV pool renovation that almost ended in litigation with a vendor. Oostenbrink added that while those issues were creating a lot of additional work for the board, they were all things he was willing to work with and address. He added that things took a turn shortly before the closed session when he received an incident report that let him know a situation with one of the pools had been completely misrepresented to him, causing him to lose trust and realize they needed to find a way to move forward. He acknowledged that there were several people who were unhappy with how this played out, including the three members of the board who voted against the motion to remove Sainz.
Oostenbrink then opened the floor to let his fellow board members have a say. Goldstein began by stating that the situation was handled poorly and that Sainz never had an opportunity to address the issues. “I must have been at a different meeting because I don’t think you ever said anything positive,” he said. “You made comments about construction stuff which was being handled by Jack [Maurer]. You point the figure at GPI… for a company to walk away from close to a half-a-million-dollar contract speaks to the issues they have with the board.”
Goldstein then addressed Oostenbrink directly saying that he didn’t respond to people. “You do not respond to calls, emails, text messages…”
Terry Boyd said that Oostenbrink mentioned that he had conversations with the board prior to the closed session, yet three of the board members were blindsided. “We knew nothing about the concerns that Michiel had,” he said. Boyd added that in March, the board was asked to fill out performance reviews for Sainz – three did, the other four did not. “We didn’t have the review until two months later. We were in breach of contract, not GPI,” he said. Boyd then pointed out that prior to the recent termination of Facility Manager Dwight Kilgore, he had been given an improvement plan and six months to make those improvements, and the board made a plan because they anticipated what might happen. He added that in the case of Sainz, four board members came to the meeting with reports of her behavior and no one was given the opportunity to work with her to improve her performance. “A president’s priority is to maintain transparency with all the members of the board. Even if it was right to fire Debbie, there’s a decent way of doing it,” he concluded.
Nancy Sells said she would not repeat the points already made, adding that she began to have concerns about lack of communication and micromanaging back in January. She said she and Boyd had a meeting to discuss those concerns. Sells also addressed issues with the scheduling of Sainz’s performance review, reiterating that she, Goldstein and Boyd had completed their review and the others had not. She said it was April before they got a response on scheduling Sainz’s review and it was scheduled for June. “It’s this lack of communication. We wait days, weeks, months…sometimes people get no response from our president,” she said. Sells closed by saying she had served as WCA President during the contentious Costco days, and she worked with her board as a team.
Theresa Lanzar said she joined the board to make a difference, adding that she had been on the RFP committee but went into her role on the board with an open mind and no prejudices. Lanzar said that she had hoped to see improvements from GPI with the new contract. She pointed out that the board did not fire Sainz; they asked for a replacement as the contract allows. Lanzar added that she was surprised there were board members who could not see there had been no improvement. Lanzar pointed to a recent incident where they lost half the water in one of the pools due to an issue with the pool pumps and one of those pumps has since failed. “I couldn’t trust Debbie to tell us the truth,” she said. She referred to the emails that had circulated among the VMs. “I can only conclude that the purpose was to convince you that we acted with malice,” she said. “GPI decided to cut the cord and walk away. Instead of giving us 60 days, they gave us 30. This should never be personal. I know we have had some hiccups. GPI gave up a 30-year relationship for one person.”
Jessica Siddle defended her decision to vote for the removal of the association manager by stating that she felt that there were many decisions that were not being made in the best interests of Westchase. She pointed to the fact that she is one of the only board members with young children and in speaking with residents in that demographic, the feedback is mostly negative. “I made the best choice that was careful and thought out with the best intentions for Westchase,” she said.
“I don’t think we made the decision lightly,” said Jack Maurer. “We understood the connection between the community and the manager,” Maurer added that Westchase created an RFP with clear expectations and deliverables, yet there were still major deficits in the association manager’s day-to-day activities. He cited issues in working with vendors, staffing issues, misinformation and/or lack of information, and a lack of awareness of what was going on in our own community. He used the WPV pool repairs as an example stating that Sainz did not step out of the office to ensure vendors were working as scheduled. Maurer said he was also surprised at the attacks on the current board after all the progress that had been made on reserve items. “I think everyone in here sees a positive change with this board. We have done nothing but try to move this community forward,” he said. Maurer concluded by saying that the three board members who voted against Sainz’s removal were more interested in attacking the other four than working on a plan forward.
The floor was then opened to the VMs. Shires VM Barry Anderson kicked things off by stating that he didn’t see how this board could ever work together. “You guys caused yourself to collapse,” he said. Either learn to behave as a board or I will stand behind any change that anyone wants to make.” A number of other VMs expressed similar concerns that the fractured board was beyond repair.
Many VMs were confused about how Sainz’s removal transpired, resulting in GPI terminating a 30-year relationship – a move that took the board by surprise. “Quite frankly, I don’t think you have a plan. And if you have a plan, I don’t think it’s a good one,” said WPV Classic Townhomes VM Jim Brinker. “I’m concerned about the decision and not looking at the outcome.” Brinker, who sat on the previous board, which signed the most recent GPI contract, said he’d like to hear from Greenacre.
Several VMs voiced concerns with a lack of top-down leadership. “What I’m seeing is a lack of leadership and communication. There is a veil of secrecy,” Said Glencliff VM Shirley Boyd.
“If the leadership isn’t right, nothing is right,” said Glenfield Alternate VM Michele DelSordo. She added, “You’ve got a really big problem here. The community needs your leadership. We have to ask ourselves if these are the seven people to lead us into the next steps?”
Others reminded their fellow VMs that they had voted this board in to make decisions and, while many were still unclear exactly how this came about, they supported the board in their decision. “We elect board members with the expectation that they will act in the best interest of the association. This is a business, and you have a fiduciary responsibility to the residents,” said Eric Holt. “However it happened, I can completely understand why the majority of the board voted to have a new senior CAM. We’re not the same community we were. Our needs have changed. They require a different set of competencies moving forward.”
Vineyards VM Pam Senk and Bennington VM Russ Crooks raised concerns about the ability to negotiate a new contract in such a short window of time and the potential impact on homeowners’ assessments.
Communication was a common theme in the VM comments, with many concerned that not all board members were being included in all conversations. Others pointed to concerns with communication between the board and GPI, an issue cited by GPI in their termination letter, which had been circulated in a VM email thread.
The Enclave VM Christine Hennes and Kingsford VM Forrest Baumhover both questioned potential legal concerns with the closed session, with Baumhover asking if it was properly noticed.
Following VM discussions, Baumhover made a motion to recall Michiel Oostenbrink from his role as WCA President. Brinker seconded the motion. Association Attorney Kathleen Reres made a point of order, stating that intent to recall a board member has to be noticed to the president and added to the agenda for the next meeting.
Greenacre COO Jamie Bryan then took the floor. She reminded the VMs that Westchase has not had a facility manager since April 4 and that Sainz and her team jumped in to take over those responsibilities. Bryan said she reached out to the board because her team was burned out and she asked for a closed meeting with two objectives: to iron out a job description for the facility manager and Sainz’ review. Bryan continued that without any notice, four of the board members stated very negative things about Sainz, noting that she was great on the administrative end, but lacking on the operational end. Bryan reiterated that the motion was to remove Sainz as manager of the community and the vote was 4 to 3. Bryan added that she informed the board that she was shocked they made this decision without any notice and any sort of improvement plan. She noted they were still getting used to a new contract – a contract she said they probably never should have signed – and were meeting the deliverables. She expressed disappointment that concerns weren’t raised when board members filled out their performance reviews in March. “We did make the decision to terminate the contract. It was not because you asked for a new community manager. It was how you handled it,” Bryan said. “Debbie had been here for 18 years. It was a motion, a second, and a vote – that’s it. It’s important for you to know that. That’s not the way that we treat our team members.”
When Bryan concluded, Oostenbrink wanted to clarify the timeline, stating that the contract requires a quarterly review and he had asked to have that review after the first quarter was complete. He said he followed up in late April and the next available dates were the end of May.
Audience members were then given a chance to speak and the feedback echoed sentiments raised by the VMs. Dyan Pithers questioned the top-down leadership, saying it was tantamount to negligence. Charles Stephens applauded GPI for standing up for its employees. Ashley Woodcock reminded the board that a change in property management companies affects a lot of things behind the scenes, like estoppel letters for real estate closings. Matthew Rice, President of the Stonebridge HOA, warned the board of the “grass is always greener” mentality and said the overhaul would be a bigger process than they realized.
On the flip side, Cal Hargreaves commended the board for all they had accomplished in recent months. Pam Wilcox said that in her work with the Swim & Tennis Committee, she had logged 9 months’ worth of dirty bathroom complaints and agreed that the focus should be on the betterment of the community. Mark Gordon added that change isn’t always bad.
Ken Cellupica said part of the onus might fall to the RFP – not the process itself, which was solid, but with the results. He said he felt there might be some hurt feelings on the part of GPI that the contract went out to bid after so many years. He also reminded the audience that VMs and board members are volunteers – they are not paid for what they do, while GPI is.
Amid audience comments, Goldstein, Boyd and Sells all said they would like to be added to Baumhover’s motion to be recalled. Reres said they couldn’t add themselves to a motion, but they could resign in writing.
The majority in the room agreed that the board needed to find a way to work together and move forward with a new property management company.
Reres had jotted down questions asked throughout the evening and answered from a legal perspective. She reminded the audience that she had been the association’s legal counsel for 17 years.
Reres clarified that the closed meeting was properly noticed and the personnel matters being discussed justified a closed session.
Regarding the question as to whether the board had done anything illegal, Reres said the president is authorized to reach out to other directors to see how they would vote on an action. She added that she works with a lot of boards and it is not uncommon to have some members who are kept out of the loop.
In answer to questions as to whether GPI gave adequate notice (30 days vs. 60), Reres said the contract states that either party can give notice with cause with 30 days’ notice and an opportunity to cure. Reres added that she assumed GPI felt there was no chance for a cure and said it would not be worthwhile to press this issue.
She then reminded the Board and VMs of their recourse if they were unhappy with the board:
- The next election is in September and is an opportunity to vote for change if they feel that is needed
- Board members can vote to remove officers
- Board members can resign in writing
- VMs can vote to recall any or all board members. There is no option for an interim board.
She also reminded the audience that if a board member is recalled, the VMs appoint a replacement. If a board member resigns, the remaining board members appoint a replacement.
Reres said if any board members feel they aren’t being heard, they can call a special session, they can ask to have items added to the agenda and they can make motions from the floor.
Reres also clarified that when GPI submitted their termination letter, she was the one who reached out to Oostenbrink and encouraged him to immediately start reaching out to property management candidates. She concluded by saying, that despite the current situation, Westchase is still setting the bar for professionalism and communication.
Oostenbrink then offered an update on the prospective property management company, Inframark. He reminded the VMs that Inframark had scored the highest on the technical requirements during the recent RFP process and he felt it was incumbent upon him to start with them. He said Inframark was eager to work with Westchase and they had the capability to move swiftly. They have a dedicated transition team and GPI has also said they will work with Inframark to facilitate a smooth transition. He ended by stating that a draft contract would be ready for review at the June 12 board meeting.
A resident interjected that the board kept talking about change and she wanted to know what exactly they felt needed to change. Oostenbrink replied that they want to change operationally to better serve the community.
During the June 12 WCA board meeting, all board members worked through the draft contract with Reres’ guidance. The board voted unanimously to approve a 1-year contract with Inframark. WOW staff is currently working on full coverage of that board meeting.