by Karen Daigle Lundberg, August 7, 2019
Message from Gene Garner
The hearing set for Thursday, August 8, has been continued, no new date has been made yet.
The reason for the continuation is because the BOD didn’t record the protective covenants with the County Clerks in Saline or Garland counties. So basically all the fines and permits that the ACC collected were “illegal exactions”. Anyone that paid these fees were charged illegally.I’m not a lawyer and I’m stating only my opinion.
Gene Garner
A big BOO-BOO?
It looks like our old-guard BOD and our $210,000-plus-a-thirty- percent-bonus-per-year CEO have a big BOO-BOO on their hands AGAIN. Actually “BOO-BOO” might not be the correct word to use. Let’s say that our old-guard BOD and way-too-highly-paid CEO, Lesley Nalley, made a huge blunder that just cost them another lawsuit and has left them all with egg on their face.
As stated above, Gene Garner’s Hearing, which was scheduled to be heard Thursday, August 8, 2019, has been continued. The reason you ask: Well, it really is quite simple, evidently our BOD and highly-paid CEO weren’t aware or forgot to file the Protective Covenants. I think they may now be scurrying around like little mice, trying to pick up all of the bread crumbs (or their mistakes) before anyone sees them or catches them.
Click here to read the Gene Garner lawsuit synopsis.
Click here to read the Gene Garner amended complaint.
The old three-page Protective Covenants document was rescinded when the new 119-page Protective Covenants were “adopted”. (Since this time, the 119-page Protective Covenants have been amended and reduced to 116 pages.) The reason the hearing was continued is that the POA never filed the new Protective Covenants with the County Clerks. Evidently, it seems that perhaps someone got lost on the way to the courthouse and forgot to file them in both Garland and Saline Counties. Folks, you just have to laugh at this stuff. No one could make this stuff up.
So for all of you out there who were fined for breaking any protective covenant or paid for a permit, you are possibly entitled to a REFUND! Go get it and watch inside the office. I promise you will see mice everywhere scurrying to figure out how they can clean up this mess, and all of the other messes they are still trying to hide from us.
Word of advice to the old guard and CEO:
If you would just be honest, there would be no mice scurrying around, and you could actually show your faces in the Village without everyone in the room talking badly behind your back.
Of course, it seems, our CEO would never, ever come out clean with everything. So everybody, watch the mice. They might lead us in other directions.
One less lawsuit on the books. The only major lawsuit right now is the ISN (Security Gates) Lawsuit, and we can all sit back and watch them lose more than they sued for. I think those mice ought to be huddled closely, discussing settlement in that one.
Karen Daigle Lundberg, August 7, 2019
Note: The author of this article is not licensed to practice law.
Linda Van Scotter
08/07/2019 — 12:54 pm
POA needs new lawyers too
Mary Szczepaniak
08/08/2019 — 12:45 am
Right! I was thinking not only did admin & BOD screw up, but so did the lawyers. Surely, with all this legal sction taking place, the lawyers should have realized this.
Minn Daly
08/07/2019 — 2:07 pm
Thank you Karen for the post! Go Gene! All owners in HSV are indebted to you! Minn Daly
Anonymous
08/08/2019 — 12:46 am
Amen
anonymous
08/07/2019 — 6:47 pm
We cannot tolerate such high paid “CEO” people making these kind errors. Get rid of her ASAP. This crap has my stress level at a dangerous level for my age and state of health.
Tom Blakeman
08/07/2019 — 7:13 pm
I still don’t understand. If the old Protective Covenants were filed and therefore binding, but the new ones not, then it seems to me that, regardless of “adoption” by our BOD, the new ones have been invalid all along (forget the fees and fines part) and the old ones still count.
So, if you have a lawsuit challenging the validity of a CMP and these so-called Covenants they why does it need to pause because someone forgot to file? This makes no sense.
No doubt our POA screwed up but we all knew that already because no one believed they had the right to do any of this to begin with, hence the lawsuit.
John Szczepaniak
08/07/2019 — 7:41 pm
I do not understand why the court day was “continued” Could not the judge make a ruling?
Kirk Denger
08/07/2019 — 8:50 pm
The whole CMP is illegal because it was a proposal put up to be voted on by the HSVPOABOD by illegally formed committees. Criminal fraud by the CEO and cause for termination without severance.
Mac
08/08/2019 — 5:47 am
These BOD/POA/legal counsel people are so out of their league as to be humorous if it wasn’t causing so much damage to HSV.
“DEO” makes $142 an hour for each “work” day and still they mess up.
Unbelievable.
Anonymous
08/08/2019 — 8:27 am
So my question is about Ralph Turpin and how, even though he had the least amount of votes when he ran for the board, was brought back temporarily when Bill Roe moved and left before his term. Then on March 21 he was part of the vote that changed the Leslie’s contract and conditions. When approached and asked why, he stated that Leslie is great and supported her 100%….now really….he supported her before he was hand picked for that position. And how and why would the board and Leslie allow this vote, on such an important issue, with a temporary board member and not wait until the new board was put in. I was at the meeting when they voted for the pool minutes before the new board was sworn in….
This is so unfair for us. How long is it going to take before we can get some answers….
And why does Stephanie Hefner make so much $$$…for years she is shuffled from one job to another and now had a job created for her….no degree of any kind and yet she is paid so much….and she is making decisions that could affect her husband…thought this was also against the rules…she had Patricia fire her husband who BBQ’ed at Balboa on Friday nights because it was a “conflict of interest”…really?
Anonymous
08/11/2019 — 9:50 pm
Take a look at all their Facebook pages – Nalley – Tom & Stephanie Heffer – Matt Lewarn – Ella Scotty (Nalleys assistant) – all big buds – all making big bucks & taking care of each other- partying together- they are living the dream On us! Will take a lot to disband this force – especially with the board stacked in their corner –
George Sorrell
08/08/2019 — 11:44 am
I doubt the legal team is too concerned with winning or losing since they are paid either way. Their performance might improve (i.e. give better advice and avoid unwinnable lawsuits) if they had a performance bond where a lost case means “out you go”. Our CEO/BOD must have a cozy relationship with the legal team.
Gene Garner
08/08/2019 — 2:08 pm
Tom, the problem is the CCI 3 page covenants was rescinded and then the 119 page version was “adopted” April 18 2018, so now there is no recorded covenants available. If you look on the POA website all we have is the new version. It looks like they put “the horse before the cart”.
The POA had the same problem with the “two-tier” complaint in 2015. We noted in our complaint that the “overlay zones” had been “adopted 5/25/14” but were not recorded. The BOD got around to recording them 5/1/2015 and they suffered no harm. This time it may be different, the BOD starts off with “whole cloth” (no covenants) and have to figure out how to record the covenants w/o a vote of the property owners.—Gene
Anonymous
08/09/2019 — 8:08 am
Is there a way to remove the Old Guard board members who enable Nalley’s schemes?
Minn. Faly
08/09/2019 — 9:08 am
Gene, thank you for all you do to expose the secrets that will destroy this community. Leslie Nalley joined 6 months ago CNU on line as a paying member with HSV logo. This should alarm all of us. Respectfully, Minn Daly
Minn Daly
08/09/2019 — 10:08 am
Congress for new urbanism! Leslie Nalley is a paying member on line with Village Logo! Her CMP plan. Amazingly all is done with BOD approval. Majority of POA not approve, like the Covenats NO HSV vote of owners. who on the BOD or Ex chair Weiss care? It is this elietiste agenda, they are the rulers owners are the servents! Not me! Respectfully, Minn
Anonymous
08/09/2019 — 4:24 pm
There’s not much more to say except, Lesley must GO and the legacy BOD members, and newly elected turncoat Tormey Campagna are a disgrace to the Village.
Anonymous
08/09/2019 — 5:54 pm
Thank you Karen, again for such an honest and informative article. I for one had no idea the much despised replacement covenants were yet again replaced from 119 pages to 116. What did they do, change the font size? Can’t imagine they’d make them any less restrictive.
I join others in wishing Gene Gardner great success with his lawsuit whenever it gets around to actually being heard.
I also love the pics of the “mice”. Good touch, Cheryl!!
Thanks again and keep these articles coming. We need to be kept up to date on the incompetence of our overpaid CEO and her brown-nosing, impotent BOD.
mike jackman
08/14/2019 — 2:28 am
Shame on many of you. All I see above are complaints- generally by people who will not even sign their name. People congratulate Gene Garner- the guy who sued the POA, lost in state court, then lost again on appeal. How much did that cost the POA? I do not congratulate Garner- I think he has been a negative force in the Village.
People criticize POA employees who socialize outside of work, during non-work hours. Really? Should POA employees not have the same rights and privileges to be with their friends. Sounds to me like there are more than a few bitter, unhappy people who frankly like to hear themselves complain.
In my opinion the barrage of negative comments is really based on one thing- money. Despite some missteps, we receive tremendous value relative to what we pay in assessments. In my view we are “under assessed”.
It is really easy to make snide comments, continually complain, and be nasty. It is much more difficult to actually be the person or group that has to make decisions and run an organization, ie POA Board and leadership. I give the Board and Leadership credit for working hard on behalf of the HSV property owners.
Vicki Husted
08/14/2019 — 5:02 am
Of the 18 responses, including yours, 6 were posted anonymously. This site doesn’t censor people’s opinions. To quote Hedrick Smith, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist: “This is precisely the purpose of censorship – not only to block unwanted views, but to keep people who are unhappy from knowing how many millions of others share their unhappiness; to keep the dormant opposition from awakening to its own developing strength.”
On the Nextdoor site, full names are required, posts are routinely deleted, and people have been banned for posting their opinions. Some people may fear repercussions for stating their opinions or asking questions others may find uncomfortable or inconvenient to have discussed.
Your post, too, is full of complaints, but I’m sure it will remain posted here, despite the fact that you merely stated your opinion, and didn’t address any of the pertinent statements or questions in either the article or other poster’s comments about this lawsuit.
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. –Voltaire
George Donnelly
10/10/2019 — 3:02 pm
After hearing that the “new” covenants had not been recorded, I started to investigate AR law as written. This is what I found in the Arkansas Code – Volume 18 – section 18-12-103 Restrictive Covenants:
“No restrictive or protective covenants affecting the use of real property nor any instrument purporting to restrict the use of real property shall be valid or effective against a subsequent purchaser or owner of real property unless the restrictive or protective covenants or instrument purporting to restrict the use of the real property is executed by the owners of the real property and recorded in the office of the recorder of the county in which the property is located.”
??Who owns my property, the POA or my wife and I??
Is it possible the “new” covenants were not recorded because they can’t be without an execution by the property owners?