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.