General Follow-up

Posted by Steve Guderian, SOA Board Member

I want to get to some general follow-up from some other SU posts, but first I want to make a quick statement;

It seems to me that there is some concern at SU and/or within the SU readership that if there are too many Sierra Canyon residents on the SOA BOD then the SOA BOD could become favorable to Sierra Canyon rather than to the entire SOA community. My believe on this is that the governing documents prevent this. The SOA bylaws and the CC&Rs are documents owned by the SOA community. This means that it takes a 50% + 1 vote from all of the residents in SOA to make changes. Sierra Canyon only represents about 1/3rd of the SOA community so they cannot generate enough votes to approve any type of change like this. It is time to move on from an individual community attitude to a one community attitude. My general impression at this point are that the current BODs in The Village, SC and SOA also believe in one community as there is far more strength and chance for forward progress for everybody if we move forward to this type of goal.

And, let me say right up front that I hope to be able to continue having discussion and information exchange on SU. Notice I said discussion and information exchange…. I want to hear back from the SU readers on things…. we do not grow without involvement.

Committees, these are being looked into as we speak. Hopefully in the near future more info on committees with become available. I have reviewed a couple of charters and I am sharing my findings. I plan on reviewing a few more documents.

Relationship between Master and Subs…. this is already being worked on and goes much deeper than just AGC and ARC.

Safety and Security, SU listed this as a priority for the new board….. please define what is meant by Safety and Security. Just an FYI, the two words, “Safety” and “Security” give insurance companies very, very huge pauses and jitters when they see these words in community documents. Think back to Sanford, Florida in 2012. So, anything in these topics needs to be very clear and concise.

“New and Improved Website” one thing I see here is that there is a limited listing of SOA residents. This infers a limited database of email addresses. One of the useful tools in SC is the “Email Blast.” Important and/or informative information is sent via email to the vast majority of SC residents via email. In one of the previous posts a comment was made about SC residents coming to the SOA website. Great idea, and things are being worked on to improve the numbers of SC owners that go to the SOA website. But based on what I am seeing so far, I am wondering what the traffic from SOA owners is like on the SOA website. I guess a question that comes to mind is that if SOA does not have email addresses, how is SOA suppose to effectively communicate with owners/residents?

Based on what I have been able to learn and to do in the last few days, and few weeks, there is a very high potential for SOA to make outstanding progress toward one community and a better overall community. But, in order to reach this goal it takes the whole community.

I know a lot of people are asking well tell us right now what is going on…. that is completely irresponsible and disrespectful on my part. Irresponsible in that you do not talk about thoughts or ideas that have come up in conversation until some action is being taken on them. Disrespectful because you do not talk about conversation with others unless you let them know what you are doing and they agree with what you want to say.

So, I am asking that SU and its readers be patient lets see how things start to play out with the new board in place you have got to give this board a chance to work and move forward.

Steve Guderian

2 thoughts on “General Follow-up

  1. The following is offered in response to MR. Guderian’s post of November 21st entitled “General Follow-up”

    First of all, SU appreciates that a SOA Board member is willing to engage in discussions published on this website. In the almost six years of this website’s existence he is the first to do so publically. However, we also recognize that his participation in such discussions has some constraints as he stated in the next to last paragraph of his post.

    With regard to the content of his post, the following comments apply:

    • The SOA by-laws make no distinction as to who may serve on the SOA BOD. That is, all five BOD members could be from Sierra Canyon depending on the vote count. Yes, there has been some concerned expressed about a SOA Board being controlled by Sierra Canyon owners. Mr. Guderian’s desire for a “one community” attitude is admirable, but there is no denying the discontent that exists between some Sierra Canyon owners (percentage unknown) and the SOA Master Association. This to the extent that many Sierra Canyon owners have expressed a desire to “succeed” from the Master Association. We wish the new BOD well in bringing everyone together.

    • Safety and security issues raised at BOD Meetings have mostly dealt with traffic issues and expanded security patrols. Recommendations from an “Ad Hoc” Traffic Safety Committee and BOD Members are still outstanding.

    • With respect to the SOA website, the number of Somersett owners who have signed up for login capability or to receive the “Somersett Happenings” emails should be readily available to whomever is following the website statistics. This includes the number of site visits in a variety of categories.

  2. Community togetherness. Sounds like a good idea. Most would spring from the recreational facilities. However, do owners in general want it or just a few?

    Sierra Canyon residents can’t use TCTC and Somersett/The Vue/The Village residents can’t use the Aspen Lodge. However, I think that is and should be for major things like the locker rooms, weight rooms, swimming pools, billiards room, and the like, but not for things like sitting in on a lecture or participating in other passive events, e.g. card games, book club, board games, etc. They should be open to all at each “club house.”

    I also think that exercise classes, e.g. yoga, line dancing, and the like held outside of the weight room, should be open to all at each “club house.”.

    Everything with the understanding that if something is full at the Lodge or TCTC and an “insider” wants in then an “outsider” has to leave. Should be common sense, just like we did on playgrounds many years ago.

    Do we need lawyers to draw up paperwork and residents to sign liability waivers, etc? Make the requirements too onerous and complicated then might as well stay as is, i.e. no trespassing at the Lodge by non-Sierra Canyon residents and no trespassing at TCTC by Sierra Canyon residents. Maybe the association boards can put some effort into this.

    I predict nothing will change regarding traffic and safety from now till the end of 2018, and even beyond. Drivers need to follow the signs and most things having to do with safety are personally directed and not association dictated. Speeding has never stopped since the automobile was invented.

    Good luck to website workers and advocates. Remember GIGO, Garbage In and Garbage Out. The electronic part might be state of the art (humph), but the information it contains takes a lot of ongoing work. For sure it needs to contain a double wide two-way street, i.e. association down to owners and owners up to the association and owner to owner communications. I still say we need a daily electronic newspaper in place of numerous emails and that it must include both social and BUSINESS NEWS.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s