The UT Contract for the use of our prize amenity contains a major flaw.

Section 6 includes a comprehensive indemnity (exemption from all liabilities) for UT.

There is NO indemnity for our HOA.

To make matters worse, the contract was sent to the pool committee a number of times for review and input. One of the committee members is a professional who deals with insurance's as part of her job. She was adamant that the contract included an Indemnity for our HOA.

O'Reilly, Rigsbee and Bartlett ignored that free common sense professional advise to our HOA's detriment. This is gross mismanagement.

Read the contract for yourself: http://www.dietzfordirector.org/swimming_pool.htm

Sal Costello

Significant Contract Concerns

Sal is correct. There are significant concerns CCHOA members should have with the contract.

1. There are no protections for the CCHOA in this contract. We gave UT and the team all the rights and privileges to use, as defined. But, the contract doesn't ask for any protections back to the CCHOA if an accident occurs or if there is any other claim. The insurance section states the CCHOA must provide insurance. The swimmers must provide insurance. But, UT and the State don't provide any protections to the CCHOA, according to this contract.

2. In the indemnification clause, the CCHOA holds harmless the University, the University's officers and employees from all claims, demands, causes of action and judgements for taxes, etc. NONE of these same indemnifications were made for the CCHOA or its Board or employees. Does this seem the right thing to do to protect the interests of the CCHOA?

3. The CCHOA also gave away the free right to use the Circle C logo on marketing and promotional materials. These are broad uses. The logo has value. Was a value placed on the logo use? The contract states if the logo is used for any other reason, it must be ''approved by the board''. Which board? UT or CCHOA? Why give unlimited rights to use for marketing and promo materials?

4. Did an attorney review this contract for the CCHOA? If so, what was the cost of review and when was it done? The Pool Committee reviewed the draft contract. Many important suggestions weren't addressed in the final contract.

5. During summer (May - September) UT and the team have pool access 1/3 of the time. Is this what you want for your pool? Where will your parking be at the swim center if UT has it 1/3 time?

6. These concerns and questions should be addressed by the new and expanded CCHOA Board. All contracts should be reviewed for fair market value, insurance, indemnification, bidding if total value is greater than $10,000. All contracts should be written with a 30-day notice termination clause.

Pam Voss

Swim Meets at Pool?

Also, one other major topic the contract doesn't address:

Swim meets.

Will swim meets occur at the CCHOA? Are they permitted? Are they not to occur in the future? The contract doesn't address the topic at all.

If they do occur, what dates? Who approves? Cost per meet? Interference with CCHOA members' use of pool? Indemnifications from other than UT swim teams?

These are all important questions to ask.

Is the Board looking out for the interests of the CCHOA? The topic of swim meets should have been addressed in the contract. Meets have occurred in the past? Are we to presume they won't occur in the future? Significant questions to ask the CCHOA Board.

Pam Voss

Wrong...the flaw is the contract

Actually the real flaw is the entire contract. The swimming pool is no longer the residents' property. It was given to outside interests years ago.
And only recently did we get a ''whopping'' $30,000 to offset the $250K+ we residents have to pay to maintain this pool for the privileged few. At least the contract provides for termination. Let's be sure that this parasite organization is gone in 90 days so the residents can FULLY enjoy THEIR pool by summer! Swim team, you are on notice. Buh bye!!!