I don’t always respond to the ad hominem attacks that are directed at me, or those toward others who are engaged in trying to save the airpark association. However, from time to time, we get an email or other statement that merits a reply. This is one of those times. Michael Ponto, the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit against SAEPOA seeking dissolution, just sent everyone an email that is a reply to our open invitation to the Board to start dialog, an email which also questioned the Board’s attacks on those who have opposed dissolution. Here is my reply to key items.
Mike says, “You are no different from any other lot owner” — Indeed! No more, and also no less! We all have a voice, and we ought to use it!
Mike says, “You present your opinions as if they are the only way forward–dismissing anything that doesn’t align with your agenda” — This is very strange, as I didn’t even know that I had an “agenda” beyond preserving the Association, at least until we have studied the problems as a membership (not just the board), and we have exhausted all reasonable alternatives, and most importantly, plotted the course ahead. Such study must be done prior to any move to dissolve.
Mike says, “If SAEPOA is going to recover, it will take professionals” — What do you mean? The Board? How are they more “professional” than “any other lot owner” besides currently holding an elected office in the organization. Also, aren’t these the same people who just tried to kill SAEPOA? Hardly a good choice to “recover”. Are you referring to the Board’s attorney? (Atty. McDonald?) If so, that’s an even stranger choice. If that’s the case, you are suggesting that we need professional advice from the counsel who is opposing you on your lawsuit! Very strange.
Mike says, “You claimed that I sat in on a closed session of the board. Prove it or apologize…” — You’ll recall that I have addressed this before. I pointed out that you have the appearance of having done so. I’m glad that you state that you were not there, but the appearance is clear. To really clear this up should involve the Board or (much better) the attorney clearing it up. Why? The concept is called “trust, but verify”. We know that you (Michael) and other plaintiffs on the lawsuit regularly interact and socialize with the Board, and we believe that we have a right to know that there is a proper separation between the interests of those who seek to dissolve the association (whatever their reasons) and the Association, which should be defended by its board. My caveats in my statements were clear. The appearance of your actions (as well as those of the Board and the attorney) was clear. I won’t apologize for what I did not do. You can take or leave that point.
Mike says, “… your examples of bullying and misinformation. I have over 200 emails full of both” — That’s news to me. I’m sure I did not send 200 emails on this subject. That would be more than 2 per day. That also assumes that the emails contain “bullying and misinformation”, which they don’t.
Mike says, “you post lies, insults and baseless accusations” — Please be specific.
Mike says, “your group bombards the board with document requests … harassment” — To my knowledge, documents requested were simply those already promised or obligated by the board (minutes, member lists, proxies, etc.).
Mike says, “You insist on seeing counted proxies” — Indeed! Again, it’s called trust, but verify! The pro-dissolution side (the Board) got to examine all of our proxies in advance. We should get to see theirs as well. They promised them “within days”. Why has the Board not provided them?
You say, “we both know the judge ignored it [the TRO filing]” — That statement is simply not true. The TRO case never even heard the case, it was dropped because it was overcome by events.
You say, “you want committees” — What else? Wait for the Board to work again in secret? If their ideas are good, why not present them in the open?
You say, “you expect people to sit down with you?” — Yes! That’s how we solve things.
You claim regarding the committees I chaired in 2015 that I “pushed others out until I was the only dissenting voice” — This is a very, very strange memory on your part, as I pushed NO ONE out of any committee. No one was ever asked nor pressured to leave — not one time! As for dissent, I find your memory strange, because those bylaws proposals were involved much discussion from all sides, and you participated so as to consistently have two balanced viewpoints for each position. This was done to maximize the members’ ability to choose between alternatives. In other words, dissent was baked in to the results, and you had plenty of opportunity to put your opinions in. The most vocal and active participant in the process, by far, was our current board president, Richard Baker. If the process was so heavy-handed by me, then why did you, Richard, and the other participants allow the results to be put forward for votes?
You say, “the current board is more than capable of producing fair and impartial documents” — then…why are you suing them?
By the way, 38 out of 99 is not a “small minority”, nor is 52 a very large majority. Besides, the standard is 2/3 — 66 votes!
Leave a Reply