by Linda Anderson
In 2021, our Board Of Directors’ primary focus was to increase the property owners’ assessment fees. A Report Card is needed to see how well our Board has done to represent us (the property owners). The following 4 important issues are addressed on the Report Card:
1. BOARD ACCOUNTABILITY
As stated, the Assessment Increase was the Board’s main agenda for 2021. The Assessment Increase was determined by the Board’s appointed Task Force. Their findings were that our roads and culverts were damaged to such a degree that our Village’s future would be jeopardized unless addressed ASAP. Therefore, an urgent need to repair or replace them was recommended by the Task Force and accepted by the Board. There were no clear financial specifics given to us (the property owners) as to how this Assessment Increase was determined. Property owners, believing the Board’s recommendations that the Village was in crisis, voted for the 3-year 57% (accountant verified) increase. In addition, property owners requested a special assessment to ensure that our money would be spent on these priorities (roads and culverts). This was denied by the Board. Instead, to show trust, the Board passed a prioritization policy with a mega majority vote that was to ensure their promise on these priorities. The surprise came on 11/17/21 when the Board passed the 2022 Budget that included a whopping compensation increase of $3,866,431 Mil. for bonuses, merit increases, cost of living adjustments for all POA employees, plus the addition of 19 new POA positions. On 12/15/21, the Board without investigating Arkansas Law passed an Illegal $1500 Buy-In-Fee, which is a title transfer fee to be paid to the POA on any property purchased or transferred to a new property owner. Arkansas State Law (Section 18-12-107) states that transfer fee covenants are prohibited. The Board knew that anyone whose loved ones have passed away would be subject to this $1500 Buy-in-Fee in order to transfer the property into their name as the new legal property owners to keep or sell the property. Then when the decision is made to sell a property, if the new property owner is asked to split the cost of the new buyer’s Buy-in-fee, an additional cost of $750 would be added for a total of $2,250.00. For all intents and purposes, this is an Inheritance Tax disguised as a Buy-In-Fee. That’s scalping the property owners. At this same meeting, the Board approved a huge lease contract to replace the majority of the POA’s 78 vehicle fleet every 3 years. Where were the other bids? The total contract expense or cost savings were not disclosed, nor were the details of the contract thoroughly questioned. The Board looked the other way showing no accountability of how our (property owners) money was being spent. Score: F
2. REMOVING TRANSPARENCY
Special Closed Meetings and Voting by E-Mail. This removes transparency. Property owners deserve to know why Board members voted for or against any financial decision. Removing transparency removes (property owners) rights and need to know the background of any financial decision. The Board has created a double standard to allow special closed meetings regarding financial decisions in order to hide the real understanding and then vote by E-mail to make sure certain decisions are kept from (property owners). This is a sign of improper power and control. This needs to stop. Score: F
3. BOARD PROFESSIONALISM / BOARD DECORUM
Everyone expects and deserves respect regardless of their opinion. Recently the Vice-chair has been showing unusual disrespect toward property owners who simply wanted their questions answered. On 10/12/21, on social media, he threatened a property owner. At the 12/15/21 Board Meeting, he made disrespectful remarks to a property owner who respectfully asked for more information about the election. The Director’s off-the-wall comment was: “ Do you need to know their hair color or blood type “? This arrogant disrespect for (property owners) is never appreciated and lowers the Board’s professional standards. This Director is guilty of behavior unbecoming as a member of the Hot Springs Village Board Of Directors. Score: F
4. BOARD EXPENSES COMINGLED WITH POA FUNDS
Placement of POA funds under Board Expenses. November financials showed board expenses were $12,000. On 12/15/21 Board Meeting reveals another $21,000 of board expenses for a total of $33,000 of POA funds being placed under board expenses. The question was asked: Why were these expenses placed under board expenses? The treasurer stated that board expenses were the postage for the mailers that went out for the Assessment Increase vote and the fees that were incurred by EGP to perform their services. (progress billing for EGP). The Board did not comment. Our Board of Directors are volunteers serving without pay. Therefore, there should be no board expenses. The Board’s responsibility is to govern (oversee and guide) the performance of the GM, not to become involved in the financial funds of the POA. The legal definition of a conflict of interest: ANY REAL OR PERCEIVED FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT REPRESENTS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. This implication that our Board is involved with POA funds is a serious conflict of interest and grounds for Board dismissal. Score: F-
The 2021 HSV Board Of Directors Report Card reflects a failure in these presented issues. Let’s hope the new Board members in 2022 will take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously, be accountable when it comes to spending our money wisely, maintaining transparency, and keeping their promises to protect and preserve Hot Springs Village.
Tucker Omohundro
01/09/2022 — 7:22 pm
Linda you are right about one thing in your post. I did tell a man that if he called me a cheat or dishonest again that he better hope a lawsuit was the action I would take. If that’s a threat then I did it. I make myself available to anyone that wants to discuss the community. I often ask this on public social media. Some do and some don’t. Yes I can be very sarcastic when dealing with stupid things. I don’t have the patience to deal with people with agendas that have no positive result for the community. I am who I am and I did not get on the board to be politically correct or be personally attacked. You can disagree with me all you want but you can’t attack me or my family which has happened a lot. Fortunately for them they did it behind a keyboard. That is a fact, not a threat.
I find it funny that because our accounting department puts some of the vote expenses under the board you make it sound like we did something wrong. Do you truly believe this was something inappropriate or are you just playing a word game? Please explain. Also when you and a few others throw things out to villagers of this nature I will be asking you to explain. No more statements that are intended to sound bad without reasoning behind it. I guess I could be kicked off here so you and others could continue with your agenda without question. We shall see I guess.
Linda Anderson
01/09/2022 — 9:02 pm
Mr. Omohundro, Let’s be clear. You did threaten a property owner. You did disrespect another property owner at a recent Board Meeting. This you cannot deny. You were elected to represent (property owners) fairly and respectfully. Please do not step into the realm of becoming a bully. As for Board Expenses Comingled With POA funds, you mentioned: “our accounting department “. The accounting department belongs to the POA, not to the Board. The Board does not tell the POA how to run their business. The Board votes to approve or disapprove POA funds in all financial matters. You can do better for the sake of the Board and HSV.
Tucker Omohundro
01/09/2022 — 9:50 pm
I said what I did and how I am. What’s your point about that? You can judge me all you want and you have to know by now that I could care less about your opinion of me. I care about the majority of the village members. Not the small minority you represent. I am still confused why you care how the postage for an election is accounted for. Please explain what you are saying. What does it matter where it is in the books. Here or there it is postage for an election. Is that to complicated for you to understand. Help me here. You do realize I am not running for the board? You are stuck with me for over another year. Unfortunately I guess I am stuck with you too. What’s your goal here? You are poking the wrong person. That should already be obvious.
Linda Anderson
01/09/2022 — 10:08 pm
Mr. Omohundro, would you care to respond to 1. Board Accountability and 2. Removing Transparency?
Tucker Omohundro
01/10/2022 — 9:59 am
I will be glad to. The buy in fee was reviewed by the POA attorneys. It’s not a transfer fee. If it was all would have to pay it. This fee is for someone that is new to the community. If someone inherits a property and sells it they will be no fee charged. If you inherit it and get property owner cards to use the amenities you will be charged. We did not get bids on vehicles from other suppliers because no one could provide the vehicles we needed. Prices for fleet vehicles are negotiated by the states. We get those prices. The bids are already in place. You can get this information with a simple email to the board if that was truly your goal. I think most know that is not your goal.
For your transparency issue. Can you verify any such meeting or vote that was done in special or private meetings? Sure we vote by email on occasion. We voted just the other day to correct a fee that was incorrectly written in the fee policy. It was an inspection fee for all inspections on new homes. It was written as 400.00 and it should have been 480.00. I apologize if you think we should have waisted the villagers time to do this in an open meeting. Again I ask what was done behind closed doors? We do have to have meetings behind closed doors when it’s in relation to personnel matters. You know, like interviewing and hiring a new GM. Please back up your statements with real facts and not innuendos. Thanks
Linda Anderson
01/10/2022 — 10:02 pm
Mr. Omohundro, thank you for stating the facts as you remembered them. What Arkansas law allows the Buy-In-Fees as reviewed by the POA Attorneys? 1. Ref: $1500 Buy-In Fee. You stated that if someone inherits a property and sells it, there will be “no” $1500 Buy-In-Fee” charged. Incorrect. 12/01/21 Board discussion, the Board Chair validates the fact that anyone whose loved ones have passed away will be subject to the $1500 Buy-In-Fee. The treasurer confirmed this. That means that the new owner will have to transfer the title to their name and if they decide to sell this property, the total due to the POA would be $ 2,250.00. In essence, an illegal Inheritance Tax is to be paid to the POA. Why would you support this?
2. Ref: Leasing Contract to replace most of POA Fleet every 3 years. You stated that prices are negotiated by the states. Incorrect. On 12/01 21 Board discussion meeting, the vendor states that the Board has entered into a partnership with the POA to acquire the vehicles at “government discount rates”.
3. Ref: Transparency. You mentioned The Board voting privately to correct a fee that was incorrectly written. According to the By-laws, private Board deliberations are permitted under certain circumstances. This inspection fee did not fall under personnel as one of those permitted and yet you admitted to having voted on this. Where is voting by e-mail stated in the by-laws? The Board should have voted in front of (property owners). Another instance occurred in March 2021 when the Greg Jones Restaurant Contract (as an independent contractor) was approved. All Board Candidates were invited to this so-called executive meeting. I was one of the Candidates. No Board members were allowed to see the contract. I asked why and you- Mr. Omohundro said: “You were not invited here to ask that question and requested I leave”. As far as property owners were concerned, this meeting never took place. Misleading ( property owners ) is never appreciated.
Tucker Omohundro
01/11/2022 — 1:00 pm
I did not say there was a law stating a buy in fee was legal. I said our attorneys found no law prohibiting it. If you truly believe we should not vote on anything unless it is in public then that’s your business. We announce all voted on items in the next board meeting. I am not sure what would be different by waiting weeks for the live meeting. We did not have private deliberations on the subject. Coreena told us of the error so we corrected it. I really do not believe the majority of the villagers want to waist their time on things of this nature. Unfortunately some have nothing better to do in retirement. Now for your last point. I may be wrong but I don’t remember a contract being a part of the meeting. One had not even been drawn up at the time of the meeting to review. Not sure where you came up with that. I do remember telling you or someone you were not ask to be involved in making the decision but I did not tell you to leave. What are you trying to accomplish with all this negativity and I am not running for the board. Do you really not have anything better to do? I will take you and show you how to play golf or pickle ball. Would that help? Bowling is fun also. Let me know if I can help. I will not keep on debating with you. It’s a nice day. I think I will go play golf. Have a nice day.
Kirk Denger
01/12/2022 — 11:22 pm
Tucker, I was at the same meeting Linda speaks of about the 3 restaurant contract that was voted on secretly from Property Owners view. If there wasn’t a contract at that time, then how could it be voted on? Since you have been on the board, there have been more unannounced to the Property Owners Board meetings than announced Board meetings and they are for the sole purpose of circumventing prudent transparency which not only erodes trust, but it is also illegal for non-profits according to the IRS code.
Screenshots of your public threats towards Property Owners are posted on Facebook and that conduct is unbecoming of a HSV POA Director.
A simple formal request for the EGP spreadsheet on the assessment increase vote has been made and the POA is under a court order to make POA documentation available to Property owners. Translated summary is not the documentation requested. The for or against vote of each voter is all that needs to be redacted.
Linda Anderson
01/11/2022 — 9:01 pm
Mr. Omohundro, I do not wish to debate you. I asked questions and expected them to be answered in a respectful manner. The Board had expressed a genuine desire that property owners step forward with questions and concerns to create confidence, trust, and goodwill. Obviously, You Do Not Agree. Your condescending remarks are not appreciated. You are a disgrace to those you represent.
Tucker Omohundro
01/13/2022 — 9:05 am
No I am not a disgrace to the people I represent. I am obviously considered a disgrace to you that I don’t represent though. Invitation for golf is still open. You might enjoy retirement if you found something positive to do in the community. BTW your post was not asking questions. It was disparaging the board that the members elected. That’s your enjoyment in the village. I hate that for you.
Linda Anderson
01/13/2022 — 1:10 pm
Mr. Omahundro, Have you noticed that some posted articles are opinions that do question what is going on. What is supported is truth according to the facts. Board member statements reflect on the Board’s reputation to be accountable when representing ( property owners) according to the discussions and decisions. Why not stick to these facts? Your agenda is all about throwing out misinformation, berating, and threatening (property owners), and expecting everyone to approve of your behavior. This is Dictatorial leadership.
With that being said, Make your case against my opinion “2021 HSV BOARD REPORT CARD” and stick to the facts presented on the 4 issues without personal assumptions, allegations, or condescending personal remarks. Now is the time to stand to represent the Board on these issues. Bring this as an article representing (The Board). It might be helpful to bring out your law firm’s legal opinion of Arkansas Law, (Section 18-12-107) when referencing the $1500 Buy-In-Fee.