Pros and Cons for Jerry’s Proposals

Over the last several years, we have seen a portion of SAEPOA members, known as the “Working Group”, formed and led by Jerry Powers, that proposes substantial changes to how we operate in Sandia Airpark. Gradually, this group has gained election of the board of directors for SAEPOA, and it now has a clean sweep with complete control. Recent meetings have shown that Jerry is running the entire process, even though he is the Vice-President and not the President. (As seen in the board meeting of 29 Jan and membership meeting of 31 Jan.) At this point, the association President, Secretary and Treasurer vote unanimously with whatever Jerry dictates. Indeed, other than Richard’s ceremonial two-sentence opening, Jerry was the only speaker.

Jerry/the Board/Working Group now have started extreme and unilateral actions that should require a written vote with a 2/3 majority (interestingly one of the main items on which this group has campaigned). These actions include a unilateral decision by the Board to reverse 30 years of governance of the association, and the decision to refund money from all dues increases over that time. Considering the length of time, increases for various purposes, and inflation, this may mean that the association will bankrupt itself. Jerry has presented this as a necessary action, and says that he doesn’t need a membership vote because prior actions were (in Jerry’s words alone) “illegal”. For backup he includes various opinions of lawyers who report to him personally, even though they are paid for by the membership. All information, contact with attorneys, etc., is filtered through Jerry. No court judgment or other final action is cited.

Jerry’s Plans (as well as we know them)

Jerry doesn’t make everything clear, particularly what his financial or other interests or conflicts that might influence board actions. However, he says that he has a set of remedies. Jerry has layed out a motivation of both fear (of adverse action against the airpark), and reward (Sandia Airpark having its needs met for “free”). However, the presentation is one-sided in that no one is able to debate the issues with Jerry on an even ground. Jerry runs the meetings and they are essentially a one-way communication. Even during comment periods, Jerry is quick with the mute button to ensure that he holds a one-sided advantage. Thus, key issues are left out. We must discuss:

• The risks associated with taking Jerry’s approach, which could be very substantial and leave all property owners seriously damaged.
• A realistic assessment of the downsides of keeping the Airpark – away from the haste and fear stoked by Jerry/the board/working group.

In the coming weeks, I suggest that we make a sober assessment. I will do my part to understand better how to make this decision wisely and I encourage all lot owners to do the same.

Let’s start, however, with an outline of the risks behind Jerry’s plan that he has not acknowledged, but are nevertheless likely. His plan proposes the following:

1. Jerry says that acrimonious SAEPOA meetings will end: Jerry mentions a benefit of no longer having contention. I have lived in this airpark for 18 years and have gone through two periods of acromony. One was about 15 years ago, and the issue then was about horses and personal disagreements and legal actions among a handful of airpark residents. The acrimony lasted about two years and we got past it. The second phase began with Jerry’s arrival and the creation of the Working Group. While Jerry is pushing for the idea that abolishing SAEPOA would allow us to then live in a harmonious neighborhood with a spirit of volunteerism, I have my doubts. Normally, the person creating the acrimony does not end it when they get their way, rather they double down as they move toward their next objective. I don’t expect volunteerism to increase as well. One point of evidence is that Working Group members did not come and did not assist for the Santa Fly-In, our major annual event.
2. Jerry says the roads would be paved for “free” using city money: By ending the association and handing over the roads to the city, we could, in theory, have them paved at city expense. However, this is one of our greatest risks. From what we see, the “GO bond” of 2014, upon which Jerry was counting, has been cancelled for paving the north end of Rainbow Road, and there are no further plans to pave the other roads in the airpark. Given that Edgewood still has many residents living on dirt or gravel roads, I would expect the city to be reluctant to raise new money on our behalf. This plan of Jerry’s could lead to disastrous consequences. These include:
   • The roads never getting paved and we no would no longer have money or an association to pave them.
   • After ceding our rights to the city, the city changes its mind and forbids aircraft from using the roads — total loss of use for the airpark. This would very adversely affect property values whether you live here or not.
   • (In case you don’t believe that leaders don’t change their mind, consider that our association president assured us, only a year ago, that he would not cooperate with Jerry in the event that Jerry moved toward ending SAEPOA. He has obviously changed his position. The city or state present even greater risk as they are governments with some level of sovereignty. Should they change their mind and forbid aircraft, we would be fighting a government in court–a very difficult task.)
3. He says there will be no dues: While we would not pay SAEPOA dues, please keep in mind that the dues are very low. You may not want to pay the dues, but you may also be walking into a trap in that you will no longer have a fund to resolve problems (such as if the city does not pave the roads).
4. He says that abolishing SAEPOA will end any problems with the IRS and 501c3 status: Merely ending SAEPOA does not shield officers from liability in the unlikely event that the IRS pursues the Association for some form enforcement.

In a subsequent post, I will address the topic of the downsides to keeping SAEPOA. It is my contention that the risks are not nearly as dire as Jerry presents them, and that we should avoid panic. But, that is for another day.