MY OPEN LETTER TO THE RESIDENTS OF NOTTINGHAM COUNTRY:

_{LETTER TO NOTTINGHAM COUNTRY RESIDENTS}

I have been accused by Rose Mary Smith (in a vicious flier she has placed in many of your mail boxes without postage) of requesting improperly a current list of residents’ names and addresses. At the time of that request I tried to convince Mrs. Smith that there was nothing unseemly about my desire to have a current list of homeowner’s names and addresses. Mrs. Smith continued to DEMAND that I explain why I needed such a list and implied that I was going to use the list for some improper purpose. Any member of the Association can have access to the list of owners (minus those in default) without giving a reason for their request. Mrs. Smith refers to an email I sent where I used hyperbole to try to convince her that if I wanted lists of addresses, they were available in many places. I stated in error while trying to reason with Mrs. Smith that one of these readily available lists, the Harris County precinct lists, which cost $1 for each precinct, had names, addresses, ages, and Social Security numbers etc. I HAVE NO SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, NOR DO I HAVE ANY INTEREST IN OBTAINING THEM. I HAVE LOBBIED FOR YEARS TO KEEP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM USING SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS FOR IDENTIFICATION! Actually it was the Harris County precinct lists to which I clearly alluded in my email which have voter registration numbers on them, not Social Security numbers which I stated in error. Mrs. Smith seized upon my error to make accusations that are false. What is left out of Mrs. Smith’s letter is that while the president of the Association had approved my request for the list, authorized PMG to send Mrs. Smith and me BOTH a list, and instructed Mrs. Smith to give me the list when it was delivered with her list in the same envelope, Mrs. Smith refused. Taking mail that is addressed to someone else is a Federal offense. In an email from me to Mark Malhiot, president of the Association, on 2/21/2003, I state, “For your information only, I need the list so I can figure out who owns houses when I find DR violations. I needed it last week with the XXXX (resident’s name). I also need it for the ACC.” In an email on 2/21/2003 in reply, Mark Malhiot states “Rose Mary thinks that you are asking for the list so that you can send out your own letters with your by-law proposals. I said you’re welcome to do that at your expense, but that would be more money than I’d like to come out of my pocket!” Mrs. Smith does not reveal that she had been asking for the same list, and her reasons for wanting it when she didn’t need it until next fall are not clear, but she demanded to have one as soon as she knew one existed. (Just for the record, as the Secretary of the NCCIA for the last two years, I was never given an updated copy of the list of residents, allowed to record the board minutes, allowed to receive the proxies, allowed to count the ballots or do anything else the By laws say the Secretary can do.) As a matter of fact every board member already has a list of all homeowners and addresses as it is provided in a book of contracts and other documents which one gets when one is elected to the board. What I was requesting with regard to the NCCIA list of names and addresses was only to have the most current list. A copy of the list was necessary for me to have as the chairman of the DR and ACC committees as I needed to know if letters were being sent to the correct people at the correct address. My responsibilities in that regard have legal consequences, and I wished to perform them properly. Ironically in an email to the president on February 9, I asked the president to support Mrs. Smith’s desire to have a copy of the resident’s names and addresses. “I do hope you support her wish to have a certified list of the owners.” I additionally stated in that same email that I believed that the Association should obtain hard copies of our resident’s names and addresses as well as hard copies of our financial records if we were contemplating ending our contractual relationship with Principal Management Group. Such precautions are just prudent business practice.

Internal board memos are generally just that, internal and for the board members to discuss things freely. I am certain that Mrs. Smith as well as the other board members do not wish to have internal board memos publicized, and I previously never shared my board memos with anyone other than board members, but I have been forced to do so now to clear my good name and in response to Mrs. Smith’s unfounded accusations.

It is difficult for me to describe fully how Mrs. Smith was able to insert herself into my life beginning with the first day I called her after the election to tell her she had been elected. She made numerous phone calls to my home and made many requests for information which I accommodated. With regard to the Deed Restriction Committee, she wanted to know everything I was doing. In an email on 3/3/3003 she states, “Since I am on the Deed Restriction Committee, I would like to see any mail that Dawn sends involving deed restrictions too.” She wanted to have copies of many of my records from previous months, and I gave her everything I had. She wanted to go with me everywhere I went if it related to the Deed Restrictions, and I took her. She also insisted on driving with the managing agent when I told her that I was going as the chairman just once to establish the routine. Although I asked Mrs. Smith to go once, she went the second time without telling me until she had already gone and tried to go a third time. Her interference with the managing agent is documented in emails between the president, the managing agent and me. In an email dated 3/11/03 and sent to me and Mark Malhiot, the managing agent, Dawn Crawford states, “I need to talk to you tomorrow and review a few DR’s. Dana will be emailing you the photos from the other day. I am doing section 1, 2, 3 & 6 tomorrow at 9:00a.m.-Rose Mary is coming again! Since Dana is also coming with me so I can accomplish more, Rose Mary will have to be in the back seat (of my little two door Honda). How many more times will she go with me? And I am not doing alleyways tomorrow-you know she is going to want to go down them-Thanks, Dawn” Rose Mary had only been asked by me to go one time with the managing agent. In another email later in the month on 3/20/03 I notified Mark Malhiot of the following: “Dawn sent me an email and asked that I call her so I did. We went over a couple of matters and then I relayed to her again, what it was that I expected her to be doing. She seemed glad to have some direction. This was all stuff that we have discussed, but sometimes it helps to make a list and review. We’ll see if that helps. While we were talking she said she needed to go as she was doing another drive through so that Rose Mary could go again. I said whoa wait a minute. She said Rose Mary had already been with her twice. So I apologized for her inconvenience, told her that she did not need to come out here and told her I would call Rose Mary. I also told Dawn that Rose Mary told me that when she [Dawn] came the last time, Dawn did not have a map or a list, and so they just drove around. Dawn said that it wasn’t exactly like that. She said she came prepared to do the front section since it was time to do that one, and Rose Mary said that wasn’t HER section and so she wanted to do the back instead. That is why Dawn didn’t have a map or the list [to do the back sections]. So anyway, I called Rose Mary. I was very direct. I told her I was sorry, but that Dawn would not be coming, and that our agreement was that she and I would go with Dawn once to see what the process was. Rose Mary said we had no such agreement and once to her meant a “full day” and she hadn’t had that yet as she had only spent 5 and a half hours with Dawn! She also complained that Dawn brought her assistant and that she had to sit in the back seat the last time. Then I went into the business of how we needed to let Dawn do her job and we needed to not interfere. Rose Mary said that I was the one interfering with something she had set up to do, and I said that no she was interfering as she should have set up the drive through with the chairman of the committee and then I could have told her that she wasn’t supposed to set it up. Rose Mary also said, “So, I’m on the committee, but I don’t have any responsibilities or rights?” And I said, “When the committee meets that’s when you may participate.” Then she got ticked and started yelling at me. I just tried to be firm and clear. That doesn’t seem to work with Rose Mary. Dawn also told me that when she went out to take her on the drive through, Rose Mary asked her to come in and go over the minutes first. She said they spent two hours doing that. Dawn is very reticent to tell me anything, but when I said that she didn’t have to come out here this afternoon, she said, “Oh, thank you!” Why would anyone WANT to ride around and look for deed restriction violations? I had had enough after the first hour, but I felt obligated to stay until the end. What could you not figure out about the process after the first hour? Be ready. I’m sure you’ll get an earful.”

At the most trivial perceived slight, Mrs. Smith would demand an apology, and I often gave one, even though there was nothing for which to apologize, just so the Board could move on. I tried to accommodate almost every request as she became more demanding until she stated that she wanted me, as well as every other board member, to copy her on EVERY email sent to any other board member! After her interference with the managing agent’s Deed Restriction duties, Mr. Malhiot, the president, told me I could remove her from the committee “If you no longer need or want her assistance you may thank her for her interest and relieve her of her position on your committee. I would suggest that you have reasons listed as to why you no longer need her assistance on the committee, in order to have Board support, but it is not a voting matter, and I would not try to override your decision in any way. It’s your committee and I intend to let you run it the way you see fit. Unless I misread the by-laws, that’s within your rights as chair to decide who will be helping you.” (email 3/12/2003) but I replied (email 3/12/2003) that “I’m willing to have Rose Mary on the committee for the sake of peace on the board.”

At the Annual Meeting last November, I indicated my support for Rose Mary Smith because she stated at the meeting that she was against enforcement of the unauthorized Deed Restrictions and against foreclosure. I had never personally met Mrs. Smith prior to that evening. Mrs. Smith denies saying she was against foreclosure, but I heard her say that she was against foreclosure as did others. Regardless, she has reversed herself on the unauthorized Deed Restriction issue by stating in her flier that she now approves of them and by asking for a legal opinion from the Board’s attorney with regard to their enforcement and legality. Mrs. Smith was quoted in the Houston Chronicle following the Annual Meeting as saying, “There’s just too many restrictions.”

A less obvious reason for the "conflict" on the current board is that I called to the attention of the Board at the December meeting that two board members, Matt Landry and George Kochel have title issues. As stated in the May 2003 issue of the NCCIA Newsletter in a commentary written by Mark Malhiot, president of the Board “The motion was made and passed to ratify the election of Mr. Matt Landry, who was a resident, but not an official owner of record at the time of his election, but has since become an owner of record. (The by-laws stipulate that you must be an owner of record [name on the title of the property you state you represent] [at the time of your election] to serve on the Board of Directors.” (Please refer to the By laws at nottinghamcountry.org for the rules regarding qualifications for board candidacy.) It should also be noted that the vote by the board majority at the April regular meeting to allow Mr. Landry to serve in violation of the By laws is another improper action by the Board majority. Regarding the title issue, the Board officer elections in December resulted in a tie for two of the offices (Vice-president Mary McGarr/Sam Griffin and Treasurer Len Messina/Dave Barrow). Mr. Messina and I withdrew to end the stalemate in an effort of good will, but I asked that the Board revisit the election results if it were determined that any board member had become ineligible and therefore not qualified to vote on Board matters. The Board majority has removed Mr. Kochel from the Board in April 2003 for not being an owner of record at the time of his election, but no revisiting of the Officer elections has been made.

I have devoted many hours of my time to the improvement of our community over the years, not for any reason other than to improve the environment, lifestyle and value of our community. Other than trying to help others and receiving satisfaction about that, I have no other agenda. As they say, this is a volunteer position, and if I thought that our neighborhood were safe from those I see as taking advantage of our residents, I would happily relinquish my position on the board and get on with my life and many other activities that I enjoy which has always been my priority.

While I have served on the Nottingham Country Community Association Board the last two and half years, I have accomplished these things:

I (We), ___________________________ and ____________________________, as owner(s) of property at address _____________________________________________, Katy, TX 77450, in Section _____, Block _____, Lot _____ located within Nottingham Country Subdivision, Harris County, Texas, on this date, _______________________, 2003, request of the Board of Directors of the Nottingham Country Community Improvement Association, Inc., that a Special Meeting shall be called immediately so that ten days after receipt of this letter (and others that shall represent at least 25% of the total membership of the Association as stipulated in the By laws as being required for calling a Special Meeting) by the President of the Association, a Special Meting shall be called and held for the sole purpose of affirming or denying a motion by Mary McGarr to recall individually each of the following board members: Dave Barrow, Sam Griffin, Matt Landry, Mark Malhiot, Mary McGarr, Len Messina, Linda M. Rountree and Rose Mary Smith.

Signed: _________________________________

Printed: _________________________________

Signed: _________________________________

Printed: _________________________________　

Phone (for verification purposes): __________________________

Please mail to: Mary McGarr

XXXXXXX Chestnut Hills Drive

Katy, Texas 77450