Circle C Neighbors

I received this surprise email that was sent at 1:18 am. It's from 1 of 3 board members, who appears to be trying to spread the blame to the other two.

I was at the meeting that F. Franklin mentions below, in this discussion area. Rigsbee did say that producing a voter list was a judgment call. I heard it, and others heard it as well. Poor judgment, in my opinion.

Rigsbee and I do agree he's arrogant. Is this arrogance appropriate for our CCHOA?
------------------------------------
2/1/04 1:18:55 AM, TEXAS66@aol.com writes

I broke my standard practice and actually called up and read some of the comments on Sal Costello?’s ?“alternate website?”. I was amazed, and somewhat impressed, that according to some of the commentary there on I was the sole reason that the CCHoA Board and we three individuals were sued, it was allegedly directly my fault. First of all, although I disagree with the conclusion; it must be a high honor to have been alleged the sole precipitant of a $100,000+ lawsuit. I honestly didn?’t realize that as the mere secretary/treasurer of the CCHoA, that I could have been the sole generator of such an action. Had I really that power, I perhaps should have used it to a better outcome.

As in any such guerilla challenges, any charge is deemed appropriate, if the outcome is reasonably predicted. I guess, as one who has not been hesitant to express his opinion, either as an individual or as a member of the CCHoA board, I am fair game. While I have enjoyed my precarious position on your board, I respectfully submit that with ample previous illustration, my thoughts are not necessarily agreed to by the remainder of the board. I choose not to list the issues here, but there are several upon which I was outvoted.

Even should I wish it to be otherwise, the fact of the matter is that each of our directors exercises his own independent opinion on virtually any and all questions placed before the board. As an individual, I would only hope that my opinion would be automatically, unilaterally followed ?– unfortunately, that is not necessarily true. Ours is a board of directors commissioned to represent the collective interests of the homeowners (investors) of Circle C Ranch ?– which each does to the best of his ability. Each board member fully expresses his opinion, and votes according to his view of what is in the best interests of our community.

(continued)

RIGSBEE speaks, spreads blame II

So, I wish to thank those who think I am so powerful as to singularly control whatever it was that you think compromised the Association, and the Board?’s actions thereon. So, Sal, in answer to the myriad of attacks and accusations found on your website, it is true that I am ?“old?” (I have seen the beginning of my 6th generation on this old Earth), and I am aggressive (no question, have always been), and I am, perhaps ?“arrogant?” (when I believe that I?’m right, I will fight for that position), and I am a retired oil company lobbyist (the past 15 years of my 36-year career I was given the opportunity as an only child to return ?“home?” to be with my aging parents here in Austin, the only such opportunity was to open an Austin office for my company to represent the shareholders?’ and employees?’ interests before governmental entities of Texas, and of eight other SE states ?– yes, laws required me to register in most states as a ?‘lobbyist?’), BUT, am I able to unilaterally control the actions of the CCHoA Board of Directors? Although I would wish it to be so ?– it ain?’t so. And, I respectfully need to remind all of your readers ?– both of them ?– that the Board works according to its collective decisions.

To whomever gave me the high accolade and recognition of being the sole determinant of what happened negatively to the CCHoA in either the litigation or its actions, I am honored, but I must respectfully admit that I don?’t have that level of or degree of power. Even if I wished to be Caesar, which I don?’t, my thoughts or comments cannot compromise or dominate the actions of the CCHoA Board of Directors.

Sal, please explain to your warriors that to attack me, they really need another plan of attack. They need to attack me because I?’m old, or because I am a 4th generation South Austinite, or because I?’m a licensed professional engineer in two states, or because I?’m a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, or because I was, indeed, a registered lobbyist for an oil company in nine states. But, don?’t attack me because I had any independent control or authority over our CCHoA Board of Directors. Regrettably, that is not so.

Ken Rigsbee

Rigsbee doesn't get it...

Rigsbee doesn't get it that the members of the CCHOA aren't interested that he's a good son to take care of aging parents, or that he's a licensed engineer in multiple states, or that he's seeing 6 generations in his family, etc.

Rigsbee doesn't get it that the members of the CCHOA are interested in how he and each of the other Board Members dictate what happens in CCCHOA.

He doesn't get it that when he states that the CCCHOA ''...is not the PTA...and there will NOT be a democratic vote'' on the Bylaws....that all decisions are made by the Board - the CCHOA members aren't impressed that he's a good son or an engineer.

What CCHOA members are impressed by is solid professionalism and respect for the rights, interests, and beliefs of others that live in CCHOA. The CCHOA members are the sole persons he should be interested in when he is in a leadership position of the CCHOA, rather than tooting his own horn.

Too bad he doesn't understand his responsibilities as a Board member - his responsibilities to you and me.

Duty of good faith


Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Art. 1396-2.28

CIVIL STATUTES
TITLE 32--CORPORATIONS
CHAPTER NINE--NON-PROFIT, COOPERATIVE, RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE
1. TEXAS NON-PROFIT CORPORATION ACT
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Art. 1396-2.28 (2004)

Art. 1396-2.28. General Standards for Directors

A. A director shall discharge the director's duties, including the director's duties as a member of a committee, IN GOOD FAITH, with ordinary care, and in a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interest of the corporation.

...

C. A director is NOT relying IN GOOD FAITH, within the meaning of this article, if the director has knowledge concerning a matter in question that makes reliance otherwise permitted by this article unwarranted.

How can any member of the board claim to not have knowledge that their refusal to publish a voting list, as required by Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Art. 1396-2.11B was a clear violation of Texas law?

How can any member of the board claim to not have knowledge of the fundamental requirements regarding our voting rights that are set forth in clear language in the governing documents of the CCHOA?

Apparently Ken Rigsbee would have us believe that his will was overruled by that of the remaining two board members in these and other matters when he says, ''my thoughts or comments cannot compromise or dominate the actions of the CCHoA Board of Directors.'' The plain fact is that NOWHERE in the minutes of the meetings of the board of directors is there ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of Mr. Rigsbee recording his dissent to any action of the board which he found to be at odds with our governing documents or Texas law.

In fact, there are NO DISSENTING VOTES by ANY of the board members (or even a record of any discussion having taken place) about voting rights of the members of our association.

I would be remiss if I failed to point out that the public meeting wherein I pointed out the specific Texas statute that the board was breaking was also attended by our president, Jim O'Reilly who stood next to Mr. Rigsbee throughout. Both of them heard what I said to them, as did numerous others who attended the meeting. Would Mr. Rigsbee have us believe, then, that Mr. O'Reilly voted against him with full knowledge of the illegality of his actions?

And what of the remaining director, Mr. Bartlett? Should he not at least be charged with knowledge of the plain language of the governing documents of our association? After all, he has been a director here since appointed by Gary Bradley SIXTEEN YEARS AGO. Does he also claim to have no knowledge that what they were doing was illegal?

Think about it.