Notes on Waterford Board Candidate
Gabrielle Guest (and/or Chad Guest?)

Trying to communicate with either of Gabrielle and/or Chad Guest has failed.
The closest approach to contact has been email. After a minimal exchange to attempt to arrange a meeting they refused to talk with me -- This was only the second such refusal in my 20 years in Waterford. The first by Rob George, also late in 2010.  

Because of this communication failure it is necessary to reach for even slight clues from minimal

Chad and Gabrielle Guest refused to communicate.

Communication is the most important skill for HOA directors, and listening is the most important part of communication. An appropriate quote from President Kennedy's words about the Cold War in his inaugural speech is "Let us never negotiatae out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Without communication there is no basis for mutual understanding, and without mutual understanding there is no basis for mutual agreement.

Chad and Gabrielle Guest made four highly significant errors in the recent one-page note distributed to all Waterford residents:
  • The Guests asserted that high quality dimensional composition roofing harms property values.
    It does not, and in fact type of roofing in general has no effect on property values unless the roofing is not Class A fire retardant.

    Condition can have a small effect on the value of individual homes. Most of Waterford's shake roofs have condition problems and are not Class A fire retardant. The de facto result is that old shake roofing is the only type that might harm property values.
     
  • The Guests  suggested that Waterford would be the first neighborhood in our area (north of Green Valley Road) to have composition roofing.
    Several neighborhoods in our area have a total of at least 200 homes, and more likely around 300, with composition roofing.
    (All of these neighborhoods have recorded higher property values than Waterford by the customary measure of dollars per square foot.; all except one also have a record of higher property values than Waterford in dollars per home sale.)
     

    In the following points I am partly limited and partly enabled in my legal ability to comment due to the fact that I am not a Waterford Director at this time. What I can say is based entirely on discussion in the open session board meeting referenced in the Guests'  one-page note to all owners,  knowledge of California law and the Waterford governing documents, and limited information gained privately outside the scope of HOA business.
     
  • The Guests claimed "We, along with many other home owners, have tried to work with this board in understanding their reasoning for this blatant breach of our CC&Rs."
     
    --  As noted by President Diana Vaughn in at least two board meetings, there was no breach of CC&Rs. A valid variance was approved in accordance with CC&R Section 5.11. She noted that a key reason for granting the variance is subject to confidentiality for reasons of owner privacy. The Guests do not seem to understand that information given to an HOA board in confidence by a Member is essentially the property of that Member; the choice whether to disclose or to maintain confidentiality belongs to the Member, not the HOA. A reasonable inference from the Guests' statement is that they have inadequate respect for owner privacy.

    --  I am not aware of this group having contacted the Waterford board about this matter until, according to a private source, Ray Myers had already engaged an attorney and raised the possibility of litigation. Anyone who has been in a position of being threatened with litigation will understand that this generally results in attorneys demanding that their clients say little or nothing about the subject of the potential litigation.
     
    Of the overall group making claims concerning roofing, to my recollection only Ray Myers and Rob George had engaged with the Association in more than 3 years of open session board meetings and in the protracted series of open meetings of the Roofing Committee.
     
  • The Guests claimed "Last night we attended our HOA board meeting, where the board was repeatedly asked to explain why they ruled to overturn this denial. The board offered no explanation for their action in this case."
     
    -- This confuses the processes of initial Owner application for ARC approval and the separate process of Owner application for a CC&R variance. Because I am not currently on the board I am not permitted to comment on details of this specific business, but it is appropriate to note in general that I have no knowledge of any violation of either California law or the Waterford governing documents by the board.

    -- As noted previously, President Diana Vaughn concisely stated the reason while still maintaining confidentiality to protect owners privacy. It would need to be the Guests to explain why I understood that statement clearly and they did not.

A comment by Chad Guest at a CSD board meeting, as recorded in the minutes, is unclear:
"Chad Guest/Waterford – Suggested CSD website provide guidelines for communicating to the Board that is Brown Act appropriate." The lack of clarity could result from either the content of Chad Guest's statement or from recording it in the minutes. The Ralph M. Brown Act is the California Government Code's much larger equivatent of the Civil Code's Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act, which applies to HOAs. Both acts regulate board conduct of meetings. The portion concerning commenting to the board probably is limited to the requirement for open session meeting agendas to include an Open Forum agenda item to accept public comment.
Source: Minutes of April 9, 2009 EDH CSD board meeting

This might possibly follow from an agenda item in the preceding CSD regular board meeting, March 12, 2009, in which CSD's attorney reviewed 2009 legislative changes to the Brown Act.
At a CSD regular board meeting, for an agenda item considering application by AT&T to install a cell phone tower in Lake Forest Park,  "Gabrielle Guest stated she is surprised the park is being considered as a location and she is against the location."
Source:  Minutes of the July 8, 2010 regular board meeting.

This is a reasonable comment. It was apparent that most Waterford residents would welcome better cell phone signal coverage from AT&T but did not want the visual impact of even an monopine antenna in the park. I supported that position in a CSD committee meeting. I also noted in response to an expressed concern that my review of peer-reviewed research earlier in this decade had shown no evidence of health impacts from cell phone radiation.


Contact me by email
Read Authorship Statement
Return to Waterford Recall Election       Return to SierraFoot Home Page