MVF 2011 Board Election Endorsements

Pamela Ward Bort

Background Statement: Senior Paralegal, Corporate and Public Finance, with an international law firm.

Campaign Statements: After three years on the Foundation Board, I have a much clearer sense of what the Village problems are than I did in 2008. Many of those problems have been substantially addressed and some remain to be addressed. Our financial situation has improved and improves more each year, but nevertheless requires continued Board oversight, especially in the context of the overall poor economy. The Village faces both old and new issues arising from the County Master Plan and transportation plans, while working to formulate its own Vision of the future.

Biggest Problem the Village is facing today: I prefer to think in terms of “challenges” to the Village. And, in my opinion, the biggest challenge facing the Village lies in making itself more attractive and enjoyable to both its current residents and its prospective residents, e.g., updating its amenities, retaining its “neighborly, small town” atmosphere, and working with its residents to improve the appearance and value of their property, in the context of sustainability and fiscal stability.

Endorsement: Since her election to the MVF Board in 2008 Ms. Bort has been effective as a Board and Executive Committee member. During her 3 years on the board, she successfully advocated for:

1. Financial reform emphasizing reporting transparency, clarity and accuracy and full funding of reserves;
2. Reform of the Architectural Review Board; and
3. Change in the MVF Board’s governing culture to a proactive policy role, directing and holding the professional staff accountable for implementation and results.

Ms. Bort has made substantial contributions to the Village’s progress over the past 3 years with her positive influence and visionary leadership. She receives the Montgomery Village Observer’s enthusiastic endorsement and should be re-elected.

Dennis J. Clark

Background Statement: Retired Research Engineer and Strategic Planner for the United States Navy. For 40 years I was a research engineer at the David Taylor Model basin developing advanced ships. In my last 15 years I was the Director of Strategic Planning.

Campaign Statements: While the Village is still an attractive place to live, it has fallen behind in the services and amenities it offers relative to other planned communities. As a member of the Board of Directors, I would like to be part of the effort to update the services the Village offers while keeping assessments as low as possible.

Biggest Problem the Village is facing today: In comparison to Columbia, Reston and Thomas Farm Village facilities are not keeping up. Columbia’s is always adding new facilities, new ideas, increasing the scope of activities. We should be thinking about aging in place, what we are doing to make sure people can age in place and taking care of the social and physical and emotional needs. The issue becomes can we afford it? How are other communities doing it? We should examine how we are financing our facilities.

Endorsement: Dennis’ background, work experience, long term leadership involvement with Village and community based organizations; along with his clear understanding of the Village’s past, present and future direction indicates he is a highly qualified candidate and should be elected.

Edna Miller

Background Statement: I bring a lifetime of volunteer work from non-profit community-based board of directors with experience of negotiating practical solutions for difficult problems, developed funding solutions with a limited budget, worked with staff to make difficult decisions in maintenance and restoration, researched and developed creative and practical ideas to challenging problems.

Campaign Statements: If elected, I will encourage more transparency and accountability by the Board and the Staff. I will support the Board’s effort to increasing security with better pedestrian and bike safety plans, calming the growing volume of traffic on our roads, affirming accountability in the budget process, monitoring Montgomery County’s Town Sector Zoning meetings to enable our Board to achieve a positive outcome, preserving historic structures such as the gazebos united by design, revise the 2030 vision by a review every three years to address relevant changes in law, economic times and other community developments. I will advocate for preservation of our historic elements, beautiful lakes, open landscapes, varied recreational facilities, and improving the quality of life surrounded by this natural setting as well as replace the practice of trinket capital improvements with insightful economic development.

Biggest Problem the Village is facing today: I feel that we need to work together to try and resolve our differences. There are certain things that we cannot control and I really hope that we can work together to achieve them.

Endorsement: Edna, while a relative newcomer to the Village, is an effective veteran and leader in community, non-profit and Common Interest Realty community governance. If elected, she would be the only Board member from a Village Condominium community and no doubt would be an effective addition to the Board. She deserves serious consideration.

Don O’Neill

Background Statement: I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mathematics from Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa. Following a 27-year career with IBM’s Federal Systems Division, I spent three years with Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute and I continue to serve as a visiting scientist with Carnegie Mellon.

Campaign Statements: Montgomery Village faces challenges from the County. As an experienced community activist, I have fought effectively for Montgomery Village in editorials to the Village News and Gazette and in the boardrooms of the County Council and in the successful opposition to WMMS 2 on Centerway Park. I will urge the MVF Board to commit to citizen-centric goals and adopt the means needed to achieve outcomes beneficial to all MV residents. I would like to play a leading role in representing Montgomery Village to the County and state on issues critical to the Village and its residents. I promise to work towards more effective oversight of the MVF Board of Directors.

Biggest Problem the Village is facing today: The biggest problem is the future status the Village’s signature amenity, the Montgomery Village golf course. Fortunately we’re going to be hearing a lot about it in February.

Endorsement: Don has an effective record of advocating his views and would be a presentable spokesperson for the Village to outside organizations or as a consultant. However, these qualities are normally counterproductive to the deliberations of a volunteer board of directors. The MVF board does not need a member “to work towards more effective oversight of the MVF Board of Directors.” It needs more effective oversight of the staff operations, programs and finances. Mr. O’Neill’s presence on the Foundation’s Board of Directors would most likely create more conflict than cooperation and collaboration and therefore, he is not endorsed for election to the MVF Board of Directors.

Linc Perley

Background Statement: Graduate with a degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Buffalo. Retired: Senior Manager-Information Technology. MVF Board Member since 2008, 1992-1999, President Whetstone Homes Corporation 2004 to present, previously served on Whetstone board in 1980’s and Patton Ridge Board in 1970’s.

Campaign Statements: I will work to maintain tight cost controls, and seek alternate sources of income to offset increasing costs. We must minimize, if not eliminate, future assessment increases. We need to modernize to compete with newer communities. I will work to enhance the perception of the “Village.” We have a wonderful community and we need to get the word out. These are important issues in improving our property values. I oppose intrusions on our
community and our environment by state and local governments such as M-83, road widening and re-zoning that negatively impacts Montgomery Village and our residents.

Biggest Problem the Village is facing today: One of the biggest problems we have is cost. Rising cost is everywhere. Each year Whetstone Homes Corporation tries to make sure reserve funds are adequate for future use and it is a real challenge. Cost and reducing the cost in the Foundation are very important.

Endorsement: Seeking alternate funding has not been successful in the past and is not a viable funding option now. Minimizing and eliminating assessment increases instead of investing in renewal, restoration and repair of our aging infrastructure is a formula for disaster. The poor perception of the “Village” is based on the failures of past boards to maintain, enhance and preserve properly the Village’s common property, facilities and amenities. The Village’s present condition is not a public relations problem that can be addressed by “getting the word out.” Mr. Perley represents the failures of the past and not the solutions of the future and should not be returned to the MVF Board of Directors.

Pete Young

Background Statement: I am currently Chief Information Officer for Rosetta Stone and previously was CIO for MedImmune. I have many years experience with strategic planning, budgeting and forecasting, capital investments, facilities planning and management of large programs and projects.

Campaign Statements: The primary reason I am seeking election to the MVF Board is to be address the strategic challenges that we face as we define the vision and needs for the Village over the next 40 to 50 years. We are currently at a point where the original vision for the Village has been realized, our 50 - year Town Sector Zoning is expiring, and our role in the County Master Plan update will be defined. I want to ensure that the Village stays relevant to both current residents and potential residents, the greater county over time, and ensure that we are able to thrive as the area changes.

Biggest Problem the Village is facing today: The biggest problem we face is relevance. Montgomery Village developed in a very different era and our competitive position within every adjacent community around us is very different than it use to be and we have a lot more competition. We are falling behind because of the obsolescence of our amenity base, the aging of our infrastructure and the lack of redevelopment. It’s important to have a vision of what we want to be and then work towards that. Upgrading our amenities, encouraging development in the Village and readdressing our zoning configuration, all of this needs to be on the table. Our position has changed dramatically in relation to all the neighboring developments around us and that’s really the biggest issue we confront.

Endorsement: Pete Young’s candidacy has introduced to the Montgomery Village community a person of exceptional background, experience and leadership qualities. Willing, able and motivated to serve, he has succinctly diagnosed the community’s chronic illnesses, has outlined a blueprint for the future, and articulated the critical urgency for visionary change and the
opportunity for action in this moment in time. Pete Young receives the Montgomery Village Observer’s highest and unconditional endorsement. He should be elected to the MVF Board.

Elections - MVF Ballot Change for 2011 Board Election a Bad Idea

Consolidated ballot option for multi-family apartments In his January 20th memo to the MVF Board of Directors Dave Humpton proposed that each of the 5 owners of Apartment Communities submit 1715 individual ballots equal to ½ a vote each for the upcoming MVF 2011 board election instead of using one consolidated ballot for all units in each apartment community worth one vote per unit. Dave explained by “removing the consolidated ballot option and make individual option available the ‘secrecy” of the multi family vote would be preserved and the ‘blame’ could not be attributed to any individual”.

Humpton’s recommendation has little to do with “secrecy”, “privacy”, and “anonymity of-the-voter” but a deliberate attempt to discourage prevent and make it difficult for Apartment Community owners to exercise their voting rights in MVF board elections.

Secrecy To protect the privacy of individual voters in Common Ownership Communities Section 10B-17 (c) Absentee ballots, of the County Code requires voting unsigned ballots to be received in a signed sealed envelope, bearing the identification of the dwelling unit and any proportional voting on the outside of the envelope. When this is done, as it is in all Annual Board of Directors elections in the Village including the MVF annual board election, those designated to tabulate the election results are unaware of the who voted and for whom. Their responsibility is to validate the number of votes each candidate received, which candidates where elected and the term of each winning candidate.

The privacy of the 2010 MVF election results was not compromised by the use of consolidated ballots but as a result the March 10 2010 “Election Results and Statistical Summary Report” included in the March 2010 Executive Committee report stating “Cider Mill was the only Multi-Family that opted to vote, and they choose to vote with a block vote. The other Multi-Family dwellings declined ”.

Consolidated Ballots Section 10B-17(a) Election date and procedure, of the County Code states “The governing body of the association must notify all members of the association procedures and the date of the election not less than 10 nor more than 90 days before an election of the governing body. Article SIXTH of the Articles of Incorporation states members shall be entitled to (a) Two (2) votes for each Private Dwelling Unit, and One (1) for each Multifamily Rental Unit in which they hold the interests. The County Code requires that all property owners be notified and provide absentee ballots with election notifications that includes the number of votes on the outside of the ballot envelope and on the ballot. The MVF Articles of Incorporation Homes Corporation and Condominium private property owners’ ballots would have 2 votes and the Apartment owners votes equal to “One vote for each Multi family Rental unit in which they hold interests”.

The County Code and MVF Articles of Incorporation requires that all property owners be notified and provided with absentee ballots with election notification that includes the number of votes on the outside of the ballot envelope and on the ballot. Homes Corporation and Condominium owners’ ballots are tabulated as 2 votes each and Apartment owners’ ballot should be equal to “One vote for each Multi-Family rental unit”.

This precludes multi one-half (½) vote ballots for apartment owners, one-vote ballots for private property owners, Apartment owners “opting out” of voting, or specifically requested consolidated ballot as an alternate ballot. Absentee ballots indicating the total number allowed votes must be sent to all property owners with the annual election notification, whether for private property or apartment owners.

Action The MVF Board of Directors should reject the proposed MVF staff resolution Consolidate ballot option for multi-family apartment owners dated January 20, 2011. The staff should be instructed to redraft the MVF Board of Directors voting procedures to confirm to Section 10B-17 of the Montgomery County Code and Article SIXTH of the Montgomery Village Foundation Articles of Incorporation including a standard Absentee voting ballot and mailing envelope for Homes Corporation, Condominium and Apartment property owners voting which indicates the authorized number of votes for each ballot for use for the 2011 Board of Directors election.

Recent MVF Board Elections In past elections these Apartment communities seldom participated in the MVF Board elections. Only twice have apartment community owners voted in an MVF Board election, in 2008 when Cider Mill and one other Apartment owner cast a consolidated ballot and in 2010 when Cider Mill voted.

2008 Election Ten candidates filed for 3 positions and engaged in a spirited campaign that divided first time reform candidates against long time board incumbents and community leaders. This was the first election where candidates actively solicited Apartment owners’ votes and formed slates of candidates. Five (5) candidates, including the 3 incumbents had previous MVF board experience.

First time candidates Jim Deye, Pamela Bort and Mark Firley campaigned on a reform ticket that called for restoring MVF financial health, fully funding of reserves, a more transparent and routine review of the monthly financial statements; a reinvigorated and expanded communications with Village residents; streamlining MVF website and electronic communications, enhancing the Foundation’s imagine as well as addressing safety concerns.

Whetstone’s Homes Corporation President and former MVF board member joined with incumbents Toni Negro and Scott Frohman formed an alliance that supported continuing traditional approach to MVF governance and finances.

The Results Jim Deye (1,436-18.1%) and Pam Bort (1,478-14.8%) lead the field as Linc Perley (1208-11.9%) edged out Mark Firley (1120-11.0%). for the final position. The results signaled for the second year in a row homeowners’ dissatisfaction with the board leadership as incumbents Jerry Donegan (766-7.6%) and Scott Frohman (742-7.3%) ran 8th and 9th.
.
Cider Mill with its 864 votes to cast for three (3) candidates and one other unidentified Apartment community voted. However, However, Cider Mill’s ballot was one of four (4) eligible voters declared invalid for having a delinquency of over $25 whose ballot was not counted. Cider Mill’s delinquency was disputed late charges from 1990 that was never resolved. If Cider Mill’s votes were counted it would determined the outcome of the election except for Jim Deye who would have won with or without Cider Mill’s support. One other Apartment community that cast a ballot, (Breckenridge Apartments (178), Sunrise (147) or Walker House (211)), and voted for Jim Deye, Pam Bort and Linc Perley providing Perley his 72 vote margin over Firley.

2010 Election There were only 4 candidates for the 3 vacancies for the 2010 board election new comer Scott Dyer, a member of the East Village Homes Corporation employed by JP Morgan and 3 incumbents Mark Firley, Scott Johnson and Jim King.

The Foundation mailed 10,642 ballots to Home Corporations and Condominium private dwelling units plus a consolidated ballot from Cider Mill. There were 1,716 ballots or 16.1 percent returned representing 12,834 potential votes, 40 ballots were declared invalid. There were 11,778 actual votes tabulated with Mark Firley, Scott Dyer and Scott Johnson elected to 3-year terms. Interesting enough Cider Mills’ 2538 votes (864 x 3) representing 21.5% total tabulated votes (11,778) cast for the 3 incumbents, did not affect the outcome of the election.

Future relationship with Apartment owners The Apartment owners pay close to $400,000 a year in MVF assessments, are self contained and sufficient communities and impose a minimum financial or service burden on the Foundation. Village apartment resident are citizens of Montgomery Village support the Village economy. The Apartment owners have major investments in the Village and should be recognized as equal stakeholders, with on going relationships and collaboration with the MVF staff and board rather than be marginalized or feared because their votes could influence an election.

Elections - Cider Mill's Ballot Valid?

The decision to disqualify Cider Mill Apartments ballot with its 864 votes for three (3) seats on the MVF Board of Directors “because of $334 it owes the foundation in late fees” is not supported by the Foundation’s assessment collection records dating back to 1991.

Ballots are disqualified and not opened or counted if there is a delinquency balance owed to the Foundation of $25 or more. Assessment payments for the Montgomery Village Foundation (MVF) and Designated Users Facilities (DU) funds from 8,480 homeowners of the eleven (11) Homes Corporations are collected quarterly and according to MVF Collection Policy assessments are delinquent if not received by the last day of the first month of each quarter and is subject to a $25 administrative fee plus interest at an annual rate of 6%.

The nine (9) Condominiums with 2013 units and four (4) Apartment Rental communities totaling 1400 units are invoiced each month for the Montgomery Village Foundation (MVF) fund assessment charges for its units.

The MVF Collection Policy only applies to assessments paid to the Foundation from homeowner members of the Village’s Homes Corporations. It is unclear what are the Foundation existing policies or practices concerning overdue unpaid assessment charges to Condominiums and Apartments. Does the Foundation charge Condominiums and Apartments late fee for passed due amounts based on a fixed amount per unit, a percentage of the delinquent amount and or an annual interest cost?

The $25 threat hold for ballot disqualification is equal to 8.3% of the annual assessment of Homes Corporation owners while ranging 00.05% for the Heron’s Cove 408 units to 00.19% for Thomas Choice 103 units for Condominium communities and 00.0015% for Cider Mill 864 units to Sunrise Village 00.13% with its 147 units.

The “Fourth Quarter 2007 Delinquency Report” given to MVF’s Board of Directors before it January 24^th board meeting included an “Analysis of Delinquent Accounts December 31,207 and a “Comparison of Delinquency Rates 1991-2007” summarized by Homes Corporations and Condominiums/Apartments.

These reports indicate Cider Mill has had a zero unpaid balance on its account since December 2002 and there is no indication Cider Mill has not paid its monthly assessment on time since 1991.

Is there any reason why Cider Mill’s Ballot should not be opened and its 864 votes included? Is there any reason why the owners of Cider Mill Apartments should not be given a public apology? Can anyone at MVF count or account?

Elections - Deye, Bort and Perley Winners!

The Results

Reform candidates Jim Deye and Pam Bort lead a field of ten (10) as Whetstone Homes Corporation President Linc Perley edged out Mark Firley for the final position for a three (3) year term on the Montgomery Village Foundation’s Board of Directors.

The results signaled for the second year in a row homeowners’ dissatisfaction with the board leadership as incumbents Jerry Donegan and Scott Frohman ran 8^th and 9^th only besting first time candidate Steward Merritt who was not a factor in the campaign.

Candidates		Votes	% of Vote
Deye, Jim	1	1,836	18.1%
Bort, Pamela	2	1,478	14.6%
Perley, Linc	3	1,208	11.9%
Firley, Mark	4	1,120	11.0%
Musante, Marie T	5	938	9.3%
Negro, Toni	6	864	8.5%
Greenspan, Steven	7	840	8.3%
Donegan, Jerry*	8	766	7.6%
Frohman, Scott*	9	742	7.3%
Merritts, Stewart	10	346	3.4%
Total		10,138	100.0%
Bort – Deye – Firley		4,434	43.7%
Perley-Negro-Frohman		2,814	27.8%
Donegan – Frohman*		1,508	14.9%
Traditionees		5,358	52.9%
Reformits		4,780	47.1%
Unaffiliated		2,890	28.5%
Previous board experience		4518	44.6%
*incumbents

The final outcome and margin of victory may well have been determined by which of the 1700 block vote ballots from the four (4) Apartment communities were voted or counted. - Breckenridge Apartments (178), Cider Mill (864), Sunrise (147) and Walker House (211)

In past elections these communities seldom participated in the MVF Board elections. The year Cider Mill with its 864 votes to cast for three (3) candidates and one other unidentified Apartment community voted. However, the ballot of any eligible voter delinquent $25 or more is disqualified. According the MVF records Cider Mill’s was one of four (4) eligible voters in arrear of more than $25 whose ballots were not opened or counted.

If Cider Mill’s votes were counted it would determined the outcome of the election except for Jim Deye who would have won with or without Cider Mill’s support and last place candidate Stewart Merritts. It is the Observer’s speculation that the other Apartment community that voted, probably Walker House which voted for Deye, Bort and Perley electing Linc Perley instead of Mark Firley.

The Winners

James Deye is a 32 year Village resident, PhD hospital administrator, and a member of the MVF Audit Committee. He campaigned for full examination of MVF’s fiscal infrastructure, a reinvigorated and expanded communications with Village residents, a more transparent and routine review of the monthly finances, creating a MVF budget and finance committee to monitor and advise the board on financial matters, streamlining and MVF website and electronic communications.

Pamela Bort for the past 28 years has been a senior paralegal with experience in corporate law, banking and public finance and is a member of the South Village Board of Directors. Her campaign focused on restoring MVF financial health, improving communications and relations between the MVF Board and residents, enhancing the Foundation’s imagine, addressing safety concerns, balanced budgeting and adequate fully funded reserves.

Lincoln Perley is a retired Information Technology executive and returns to the Foundation’s Board after eight when he served as MVF President and Vice President. He campaigned on expending the current President’s Council influence, organizing the Village against M-83’s negative impact, safeguarding MVF finances and lobby elected officials in the Village’s behalf.

The New Alignments

With the election of two (2) reform candidates and the defeat of four (4) candidates who have served on the MVF board in the recent past, the control of the board has shifted to a 6 to 3 voting majority that favors fundamental reform and change.

Current members Bob Hydorn, Jim King, Katherine Gray and Scott Johnson will join new members Pam Bort and Jim Deye as the new voting majority. Keith Silliman and Dick Wright will team up with Linc Perley to oppose any change.

A word of caution to the new voting majority

The March 2007 MVF board election the 3 Reformits candidates received 81% of the votes cast and supported Bob Hydorn for President winning with a temporary and fragile 5 to 4 voting majority.

Despite the good intentions and valiant efforts by Bob Hydorn and last year new members over the last year the little was accomplished because Reformits action plan and program was not well planned or articulated. The Traditionees still controlled the finances, the staff and the agenda while opposing and derailing those few initiatives that came before the board for vote.

As Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed have learned a voting majority is not sufficient unless you can control the decision making, governing and communication processes; have the loyalty, support and compliance of the staffing organization and are synchronized and in concert with the committee organizations.

The new committed voting majority has only a total of five (5) years experience on the MVF Board of Directors while the minority has close to forty (40) years.

And let us not forget 2008 is the year the sleeping giant Apartment owners especially Cider Mill with their 1700 votes can determine the outcome of any election if the MVF leadership doesn’t behave and not take them for granted.

But what do I know. I’m only the 800 pound gorilla in the Village.

Budget - It's the 2008 Budget Stupid!

The 2008 annual fiscal year $9,000,000 free spending budget is a flawed document and should have been rejected and re-examine before accepting it as the Foundation’s operational and financial plan for this year.

MVF’s tradition of arbitrarily setting unsubstantiated multi year future spending entitlements and then bully and beg Homes Corporation and Condominium representatives to bestow their blind faith-based blessing and approval defies any reasonable or commonly accepted budgeting principles or practices.

When establishing the annual assessments for Common Interest Real Estate Associations (CIRA) such as the Montgomery Village Foundation, Boards of Directors:

1. First, determine the expenses necessary to meet the obligations and requirements to preserve, enhance and maintain the association’s assets, facilities and property; deliver required services and set aside reserve funds for current and future use to maintain all assets in a like-new condition.
2. Next, make realistic estimates of non-assessment income for the budget year.
3. Then, subtract the non-assessment income estimates from the expense requirements to arrive at the amounts necessary to be funded by assessments.
4. Finally, they mail the proposed budget to the membership and at a public meeting discuss the merits of the proposed budget and funding proposals.

The MVF power structure has rejected such a silly concept and believes that:

1. First, arbitrarily set unsubstantiated future spending entitlements known as “assessment ceilings limits” for a 5 year period;
2. Next, without discussing or presenting the details of non-assessment income, expenses or reserve funding line item categories, engage in a six month public relations campaign in The Village News to convince Homes Corporations and Condominium elected representatives to bestow the future “ceiling limits,” a blind faith-based blessing and approval.

The campaign rationale resembles a desperate consumer pleading with his or her various credit card holders for a substantial credit limit increase or Congress’s annual vote to raise our nation’s debt limit ceiling.

3. At public budget information meetings and meetings of MVF representatives to discuss the proposed assessment ceiling limits, treat those who express an opposing opinion rudely and ignore all questions, suggestions and comments.

Questions and concerns raised by those in attendance at the September 25, 2007 budget information meeting and the October 18, 2007 meeting of MVF representatives were dismissed as not germane to the vote to raise the assessment ceiling. The case to reject and re-examine the 2008 budget as presented was made by North Village Homes Corporation in its North Village View column in the November 2, 2007 edition of The Village News.

The 2008 budget information provided was very limited, whereby no expenditures data was provided for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 in order to generate a more accurate comparison with the requested fiscal year 2008 budget increase. In addition, there was no breakdown of capital projects provided, including no strategic plan for future year guidance on capital projects.

Unfortunately, the North Village’s View on page 15 of The Village News, the dismissal of its comments and the concerns addressed at public budget meetings and in the letters printed in The Gazette and The Village News were answered with two front page articles by staff writer, Jaime Ridgley, in the same November 2, 2007 edition.

Headlined “MVF Board Passes 2008 Budget,” Ridgley writes “Board President Robert Hydorn commented that he was not completely comfortable with the budget, but he would vote for it. Board members Kathy (Katherine) Gray and Scott Johnson voted against the adoption of the budget, but it passed with five Board members in favor. Board members Jim King and Neville Levi were absent from the meeting.”

The outcome could have been different if King and Levi, whose previous vote had supported financial reform, weren’t missing and comforted Hydorn enough to vote against the budget.

The lead front page “In the News” feature broadcasted “Reps Vote on $3.14 Assessment Ceiling Increase to Cover 2008” and announced “Newly appointed EVP Dave Humpton is pleased that the representatives voted to cover the 2008 budget with the assessment ceiling increase.

“He and the MVF Board will focus on the 2009 budget in December and January to map out the potential budget increases and define the assessment ceiling needs for the next 5 years. Then, from January to March, residents will receive more information about the need to raise the assessment ceiling further, with a vote on another increase tentatively scheduled for the end of March.

“The Foundation must have the ceiling increase decided before 2009 guidelines are set in May. Two information sessions will take place for residents before the next assessment ceiling vote.”

Was this an accurate account by Ridgley of what happened at the October 18, 2007 Board meeting? Did Dave Humpton and the Board endorse at that meeting a plan to embark on another ill-advised assessment ceiling campaign, ignore the expressed concerns of so many about the inadequacy of the 2008 budget before “mapping out potential budget increases and assessment ceiling needs for the next 5 years?”

Or was this just MVF Consultant Lois Campbell in her capacity as MFV Communications Czar still very much in control?

Awards - Montgomery Village Observer 2007 Citizen of the Year

Officer Diane Tillery

Community Services Officer
Montgomery County Police

All in a Day’s Work In a letter published in the January 18^th Village News, Diane Tillery, Community Service officer assigned to the Village, commented on a recent article on “Smash and Grab” burglaries, updated the community on the incidents, explained how the Police Reporting Unit response system works, detailed what the 6^th Police District is doing to combat the county-wide increase in vehicle thefts as well as educated and encouraged citizens on what they should do to avoid being a victim of theft. The letter is just one example of Officer Tillery’s pro-active energy force and dedicated determination to keeping Montgomery Village citizens safe, informed and secure.

No one is more knowledgably and aware of what is happening in the Village than Diane Tillery. She is connected, informed and sensitive, not just of matters of security and safety, but also the critical concerns, issues and activities of the homes corporations, condominiums, residential rental, commercial, and educational communities of Montgomery Village.

She has daily contact with community, resident and commercial property representatives, and private security guard personnel as she answers e-mail and phone inquiries, identifies owners of vehicles, discusses incidents and exchanges information.

Memorable Service to the Village Officer Diane Tillery’s most memorable service was her outstanding police work to uncover the full extent of the series of embezzlements and thefts of funds from the Montgomery Village Foundation.

During the first week of May 2007, after the sentencing of Laura Buttry with a $1,000 fine and probation for embezzlement of $14,000 Village leaders and spokesperson were assuring the Village that “all transactions and monies have been accounted for.” As MVF Board President Keith Silliman was quoted in the February 14^th Gazette “I think it’s been methodically pursued and based on what I’m seeing, it will be resolved and there will be no loss to the Foundation. I think under the circumstances, this is as reasonable an answer as we can expect.”

However, under the circumstances, Officer Tillery and Prosecutor Tracy Bortnick of the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s office were not convinced. For the next three months, Diane worked with her usual determination and tenacity to uncover 44 additional, separate transactions of theft and embezzlement with an estimated loss to the Foundation of $266,000.

As reported in the October 24^th Gazette story on the sentencing, “I can’t tell how many people have called my office to say ‘Go after this lady; this is my money she stole,’ testified Officer Diane Tillery, community services officer for the county’s 6^th District police station who led the police part of the investigation.

“Tillery said Buttry’s tactics included false invoices, duplicate checks, unauthorized wire transfers and falsified documents that drew $38,000 from a co-worker’s retirement account. She also discovered that Buttry’s embezzlements paid for a family trip to Disneyland, several airline tickets and two week-long vacations to the Outer Banks of North Carolina, where the family rented luxury homes for $4,000 a week”.

Profile of a Professional Police Officer In an article in The Gazette on her 25^th anniversary on the Montgomery County police force, Officer Tillery shared with staff reporter Sebastian Montes that she was a graduate of Winston Churchill High School in Bethesda, Maryland and had earned degrees in criminal justice and sociology from Pfeiffer University in North Carolina.

Diane spent two years working with delinquent children before she was recruited to join the county police force.

After more than 10 years patrolling in Wheaton, Rockville and Bethesda, she worked child abuse cases in the department’s family services division. She became the Sixth District’s community services officer four years ago.

Officer Tillery was the subject of a featured profile in the Montgomery County Department of Police 2006 Annual Report., commending her for excellent police work by continually “initiating community outreach efforts and building partnerships in order to alleviate community problems and issues.

“As a direct result of her work, 6th District patrol officers have seen a dramatic reduction in the calls for service in many areas. She truly goes above and beyond the call of duty in the spirit of community policing. Officer Tillery has done an incredible job reaching out to all aspects of the community.”

Officer Tillery received the coveted Governor’s Crime Prevention Award for Law Enforcement Officers from Governor Martin O’Malley at the 2007 Annual Governor’s Crime Prevention ceremony.

First Runner Up
Robert Hydorn

President Montgomery Village Foundation Board of Directors

Motivated to run for the MVF Board to do something about the Foundation’s sub- standard maintenance and care of the Village’s ball fields, parks and recreation facilities, Bob Hydorn was elected to the MVF Board in March of 2006.

During his first year on the Board, he found himself many times the lone concerned voice questioning MVF’s failing financial, operating and personnel policies and practices. From his first day as a member of the Board, Hydorn was considered an “enemy of the Foundation” by veterans on the Board and senior staff.

His surprising and dramatic election as Board President by a 5 to 4 vote sent mixed messages of hope and concern to a community very much divided.

Bob’s immediate and critical priorities as announced in his President’s Message feature in The Village News were to: open two-way communication between the Board and the community; bring order, transparency, control and effective management to the Foundation’s financial affairs; hire the best Executive Vice President and Director of Finance & Administration available; and improve the quality and management of the Foundation’s services.

In his first President’s Message feature in The Village News, Hydorn listed his e-mail address, Bobhydorn@comcast.net and invited the Village community to send their comments, concerns and complaints to his attention.

At his second meeting as President, Bob called for Board approval of the appointment of an ad hoc Personnel Selection Committee after 288 days of inaction following the resignations of John Zakian and Geraldine Barber.

Despite the challenges to the Selection Committee’s composition, legitimacy and competency that followed, the members of the Selection Committee worked tirelessly over the next six months to make the capable leadership team of Dave Humpton and Bill Blum a reality and a blessing for the Village.

As MVF Board President, Bob Hydorn has done a remarkable job of leading the Foundation during an exceedingly difficult time. He has conducted himself with dignity. Thanks to his dedication to the Village, his outgoing personality and accessibility to Village residents, he has begun the renewal of Montgomery Village. Finally, Bob’s many community and professional contacts have expanded the influence of the Village in Montgomery County and elevated Village views and concerns before state and county decision-makers in a way we have not seen before.

Second Runner Up
Sebastian Montes

Staff Reporter, The Gazette

Information about what’s happening in Montgomery Village comes almost exclusively from two sources, The Village News, the official newsletter of the Montgomery Village Foundation, and articles written by staff reporter Sebastian Montes for the Gaithersburg-Montgomery Village edition of The Gazette.

The Village News is not trusted by many as a source of accurate, fair, useful and critical information. There is a feeling that The Village News’ editorial, reporting and communication policies are geared to self promotion over effective communication. Its news and features, more than likely, attempt to create an illusion of favorable property conditions, superior service performance by the Foundation’s staff and contractors or to justify past and current board decisions and actions.

Since the summer of 2006, Montes’ in-depth reporting has brought focus to the Village’s crippled governing process, community divides, financial follies, and crumbling infrastructure.

In the seventeen months since John Zakian’s resignation, staff reporter Sebastian Montes has written six feature articles that covered the state of the Village’s troubled financial affairs, nine articles on the series of embezzlements and missing funds, five on the search and selection of an Executive Vice President and Director of Finance and Administration and five on the controversy over approving the appointment of the Ad Hoc Personnel Search Committee and appointing newly-elected Katherine Gray as Treasurer.

Taken collectively, these articles spurred reform in the Montgomery Village Foundation by focusing attention on the financial and governance issues plaguing the Village. Without this consistent coverage over many months, it is doubtful that Village residents would have ever understood or fully appreciated the crisis on their doorstep. Village residents responded by electing three newcomers to the MVF Board and thus began the first steps to restoring the Village to financial health and managerial excellence with the hiring of a superbly qualified senior staff, Dave Humpton as Executive Vice President, and Bill Blum as Director of Finance and Administration.

Elections - Campaign 2008 - 7 Questions to Ask the Candidates!

Campaign 2008- 7 Unanswered Questions for the MVF Board Candidates

For two (2) hours on Wednesday evening, January 23, 2008, nine (9) of the eleven (11) announced candidates for the 3 open positions to the Montgomery Village Foundation Board of Directors made their statements of candidacy and answered questions from the 20 or so Village residents and homeowners who braved the cold weather to attend the Candidates’ Forum at the Whetstone Community Center.

The candidates’ written statements as published in the January 18, 2008 edition of The Village News and the responses given by those candidates in attendance at the Forum were extremely informative. However, up to this point there are still a number of core issues facing the Foundation Board that haven’t been adequately and completely addressed by each candidate.

The Observer invites each candidate to log onto http://www.s24c.com/mvo13.htm and give their answers to the following 7 unanswered questions.

1-Financial Reporting. The MVF monthly financial statements lack detail and only display total income and expenses. Missing are detailed comparative reports of expenses and income categories, individual line items or fund types.

There is no factual basis for the MVF narrative analysis and conclusions that are printed in The Village News and accompany the financial statements provided MVF board members in advance of monthly MVF board meetings.

This results in a distorted and misleading presentation of revenue, expenses, assets, liabilities and equity accounts.

Limited selected financial information is only communicated to create an illusion of favorable financial conditions and excellent staff performance as well as to justify past and current board decisions and actions

Question 1: Do you believe there is transparency in the MVF financial reporting? Do the monthly financial reports reflect the true financial condition of the Foundation? What is your assessment of the financial health of the Foundation? If you are elected to the Board, what would you change and what would you maintain about the Foundation’s finances and financial reporting?

2-The Audit. From 1999 to 2005, there were over 30 acts of theft and embezzlement of funds entrusted to the Foundation. There were nine (9) annual fiscal year audits (1999 to 2007) and several special examinations of the records incidental to the embezzlement conducted by the auditing firm of Regardie, Brooks & Lewis costing $385,000 including $65,300 paid in 2007. RB&L was only able to uncover one (1) of these acts.

The Village News has continually quoted the annual fiscal year audit report as evidence of the Foundation’s alleged favorable financial condition and as validation of its corrupted accounting and financial reporting practices.

Question 2: Do you believe the money paid RB&L was well spent? Are they best qualified firm to perform the 2007 fiscal year audit? If the MVF Board was to vote on a motion to hire a qualified auditing firm other than Regardie, Brooks and Lewis to conduct the 2007 fiscal year audit, would you support such a motion? If not, why not?

3-Lake Whetstone. For decades there has been general deterioration of the Village’s parks, streams, and lakes. Lake Whetstone Park and surrounding parkland, turf, ground cover, landscaping and shore line maintained by the Foundation has fallen into disrepair causing a migration of eroded materials into the lake and connected streams, lakes and ponds.

The duty to maintain and fund the lake and surrounding property elements including shore line maintenance and restoration is divided between the Foundation and Whetstone Homes Corporation. The maintenance of the lake (shoreline to shoreline) will be maintained and funded by the Montgomery County’s storm water management program.

According to published reports in The Gazette, “The Foundation received a $25,000 state grant to refurbish the boathouse and south dock at Lake Whetstone. They money was for early steps only and to study the scope of what is possible and how much it would cost”.

The Reserve Analysis report of July 7, 2007 by Advanced Reserve Solutions identified 4 critical Lake Whetstone capital items:

#	Description	Remaining Life	Current Cost
1	Check dams	0	$24,280
2	Dock Restoration	0	$268,050
3	Lake Dredging	3	$134,730
4	Lake Bank Stabilization	0	$29,000
Total			$457,010

Question 3: What is your assessment of the condition of the park, lake and stream property elements encompassed by Lake Whetstone? What remedies if any do you support? Do you support or oppose the restoration of the dock? Should the Foundation request an additional state grant to pay for the restoration? If not, should the $25,000 be returned to the state?

4-The 2008 Budget. North Village Homes Corporation stated in its North Village View column in the November 2, 2007 edition of The Village News. “The 2008 budget information provided was very limited, whereby no expenditures data was provided for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 in order to generate a more accurate comparison with the requested fiscal year 2008 budget increase. In addition, there was no breakdown of capital projects provided, including no strategic plan for future year guidance on capital projects. “

The lead front page story in the November 2, 2007 edition of The Village News headlined “Reps Vote on $3.14 Assessment Ceiling Increase to Cover 2008” announced “Newly appointed EVP Dave Humpton is pleased that the representatives voted to cover the 2008 budget with the assessment ceiling increase.

“He and the MVF Board will focus on the 2009 budget in December and January to map out the potential budget increases and define the assessment ceiling needs for the next 5 years. Then, from January to March, residents will receive more information about the need to raise the assessment ceiling further, with a vote on another increase tentatively scheduled for the end of March.

“The Foundation must have the ceiling increase decided before 2009 guidelines are set in May. Two information sessions will take place for residents before the next assessment ceiling vote.”

Question 4: Do you believe the 2008 budget was adequately and properly prepared or should it be re-examined and restructured to include a strategic plan for future guidance on capital projects? Or do you believe we should focus on the 2009 budget to map out the potential budget increases and define the assessment ceiling for the next 5 years?

5-Community Management Fund and Maintenance Activity Fund Deficits. Fixed Price Contract Income for both management and maintenance has been in decline for the last decade. The Foundation has not been able to compete on price and service which has created accumulated deficits in the Community Management and Maintenance Activity Funds.

There has been a history of losses and deficits over the years in the Community Management (CMF) and the Maintenance Activity (MAF) funds. These deficits were funded using money designated for capital reserves while neglecting maintenance and landscaping services to the public areas.

Question 5: What is your plan for ensuring the Community Management and Maintenance Activity funds do not generate deficits in 2008? What is your proposal to make up for the accumulated deficits in these funds? What fundamental changes should be made to the Community Management and Public Works and Landscaping departments so they can cost-effectively compete on price and service in the market place? Considering its high cost and the growing deficits in the Maintenance Activity fund, do you favor eliminating the landscaping and grounds service fixed price contracts as a service?

6-Capital Reserve Funding. The Foundation’s initial reserve funding policy mandates that the annual contribution to the reserve fund be from two sources: One, “Reserve Contributions from Assessments” (equal to the annual depreciation cost) and two, “Reserve Interest” (Interest on reserve investments) However, through a series of policy decisions and accounting - financial reporting practices, recommended by the Audit Committee, understood by members of the Board and validated by the auditors, only a small fraction of assessment and interest income budget for capital reserves has been credited as income to the Reserve Fund.

Assessments and interest income designated for capital reserve have funded deficits in other fund types.

Question 6: Do you approve of the present Foundation policies and accounting-bookkeeping –audit practices that divert assessment income designated for reserve funds to hidden Fixed Assets accounts? In your opinion what are the critical capital infrastructure needs of the Foundation and what would be your plan to address these needs?

7-The Village News. The Village News is not trusted by many as a source of accurate, fair, useful and critical information about the Village including the Foundation, the various community groups, Homes Corporations, Condominiums, rental and business communities.

There is a feeling that The Village News’s editorial, reporting and communication policies are geared to self promotion over effective communication. Its news and features, more than likely, attempt to create an illusion of favorable property conditions, superior service performance by the Foundation’s staff and contractors or to justify past and current board decisions and actions.

Standard features and summary information of Homes Corporations such as annual meeting and approved annual budgets only report on or include Homes Corporations which are managed by the Foundation.

Major Village-wide news events and happenings, especially bad news, are reported first and much more accurately by The Gazette.

The Village News’s advertising revenue is declining and does not cover printing, staff and overhead costs.

Question 7: What is your opinion of The Village News? What editorial, reporting and communication policies and practices, if any, would you change if you are elected to the Board? Would you be in favor of converting to an improved Village News version published monthly plus occasional special editions such as an election or summer activity edition?

The Observer invites each candidate to log onto http://www.s24c.com/mvo13.htm and give your answers to the following 7 unanswered questions.