This page will be periodically updated to provide my views on important topics impacting IVGID.

The following topics are discussed below:

1. Rec Facilities – commercial enterprises or community recreational amenities?

2. Are you in favor of hiring a third-party company to manage IVGID or its key components?

3. What are the top priorities you would address as a Trustee

4. What are your thoughts on the current facility fee structure? Would you suggest any changes?

5. How do you feel about the subsidies provided to various venues?  How should or can these be impacted by the levels of central services charged to the venues?

6. What is your view of the role of the Board?  What should a Trustee’s relationship with staff look like?

7. What are your thoughts on the state of the accounting systems and the quality of the resulting financial statements?

8. What are your views on the Forensic Audit findings?  Do you support addressing the issues in the audit?

9. What is your position on short-term rentals (vacation rentals)?

10. Did you resign from IVGID’s Audit Committee before the end of your term, and if so, why?

11. What are your thoughts on the new proposal to make Incline Village/Crystal Bay a city?

12. How should IVGID and the Board be involved with other government entities to address the issues we are experiencing in Incline Village? (e.g. Washoe County, TRPA, NLTFPD, Tahoe Transportation, etc.)?

13. Did you form the PAC that is supporting you?  Why are the 3 of you running together? Why should we allow the PAC to influence our vote?

1. Rec Facilities – commercial enterprises or community recreational amenities?

I view recreation facilities as amenities - not commercial enterprises. Certain members of the current IVGID Board majority have consistently stated over the past 18-20 months that our recreational facilities need to operate like for-profit commercial enterprises.  They have consistently repeated this position in public meetings during their discussions of agenda topics having anything remotely to do with the operations of the individual venues, district budgeting and finances, operating and accounting controls, or management/staffing of IVGID. This view has impacted Board actions (and lack thereof) on budgeting, venue pricing (both resident/non-resident pricing) and infrastructure investment.

The Board majority does have the support of some members of the community, many of whom feel the recreational venues should stand on their own financially, with some going so far as to push for IVGID to sell or divest any individual venue that cannot support itself without the benefit of the facility fee. Some of these residents also feel that IVGID has no statutory right to even own or operate recreational facilities.  Certain candidates for IVGID Trustee have made public statements that would seem to support this view.

There are many in the District that do not share this view.

As a candidate for Trustee, I wanted to provide my view on this important topic so there is no doubt about where I stand.

First, some background.  IVGID was created by Washoe County under State law (NRS Chapter 318) in 1961 and authorized to levy taxes to pay for improvements.  IVGID then issued bonds to pay for the cost of improvements.  This initially consisted of building water, sewer and road improvements, with repayment provided through assessments levied against the properties that benefited from the improvements.

However, shortly thereafter, in 1965 Washoe County amended IVGID’s enabling ordinance to add recreation facilities to its responsibilities. This was followed by a series of acquisitions and investments in the District’s portfolio of recreation facilities:

• In 1968 IVGID purchased Burnt Cedar Beach and Incline Beach for $2.1 million.  At the same time, IVGID instituted an annual recreation fee to pay for bonds issued to finance the purchase and make improvements.

• In 1976 IVGID purchased the Championship Golf Course and Executive Golf Course (now called the Mountain Golf Course) for $1.2 million, and Ski Incline for $1.5 million.

• In 1977 IVGID acquired the 58-acre “core area” parcel which extends from Tahoe Boulevard to Incline Way, which was used for IVGID’s original seven-court tennis complex.  Part of this parcel was also used for the playing fields at the Middle School, which are owned by IVGID, but were jointly developed by Washoe County and IVGID.

• In 1991, construction began on the Recreation Center, which opened in 1992.

• In later years, other facilities like the skateboard and bike park were added, as were a series of major renovations to the golf and ski venues.

• Throughout that time-period, the annual recreation fee was adjusted upwards to help fund the acquisition and operation of the portfolio of recreation venues.

Thus, over the last 55 plus years, IVGID has owned and operated recreation facilities, which have been supported financially via a combination of user fees and a facility fee collected annually from each qualifying parcel owner.  The annual facility fee has generally increased over the years such that, along with net surplus from individual venues, there was adequate funding available for investment in and operation of the overall portfolio of facilities.  (I’ll refer to this arrangement as the “IVGID recreation model”). 

Every parcel owner that has purchased their property over the last 55 years was fully aware of the recreation model.  They made their investment decision with full transparency. When I moved to Incline Village, this model was a key part of my decision to invest and live in this community.  I believe it’s one of the critical factors that sets us apart from other communities in the Tahoe region and makes Incline such a special place to call home. I believe this was also a factor for most of the people that have moved to Incline Village over the last 55 years.

With that as background, I want to be clear that I DO NOT view each of the venues within our portfolio of recreation facilities to be commercial enterprises.  I am of the STRONG VIEW that the venues are part of a portfolio of community recreation amenities that provide a community service to IVGID’s residents – that the portfolio provides significant benefit to our quality of life and the value of our residences. 

This does not mean we shouldn’t be optimizing revenue streams and cost structures from the venues. Nor does it mean we should make major capital investments in the facilities without building a strong case for the relative costs and benefits.  I am a strong advocate of both.   However, when it comes to evaluating the individual venues, I am of the view that:

• The venues serve and are in the common best interest of the community as a whole. 

• They are primarily for the benefit of owners and residents, but are available to the general public (beach excluded) to help offset operating costs and to add to the attractiveness of Incline Village.

• We should be taking a portfolio approach to managing the facilities.  Short and long-term operating and strategic decisions on usage fees, operating costs and capital investment should be informed by a view to make the facilities sustainable at the total district level.  More specifically, the individual venues should be reliant on each other and the annual facility fee to be sustainable at the total district level. Inherent in this view – I support the decades-old practice of collecting a reasonable annual facility fee to supplement the revenue generating capabilities of the venues.

Related to this, since IVGID was created to provide utility and recreation infrastructure and services, I believe the development and operation of these facilities should be IVGID’s key core competencies.  I believe we should build our INTERNAL leadership team to possess the skills and experiences needed to run them effectively and efficiently. It’s the role of the Board of Trustees, working with the District General Manager, to take the steps necessary and provide the resources necessary to put this team in place.  I firmly believe it would be an abdication of the Board’s responsibility to outsource any of these positions or responsibilities to outside third parties.

2. Are you in favor of hiring a third-party company to manage IVGID or its key components?

I am categorically opposed to outsourcing the management of the district to a third party.  I believe any such actions would be a complete abdication of the IVGID Board’s core responsibility – and admission of its own failure - to hire and manage their only direct employee.  The recent Troon proposal being entertained by the Board would have added another redundant layer of management, at a significant cost. The GM would have been an employee of and primarily loyal to the Troon company – not IVGID. And it had extremely unfavorable exit provisions that were punitive to IVGID.

We clearly have issues that need to be solved. But we have a roadmap to each of those issues, courtesy of the reports we have already received from 3 outside firms (the bulk of which are redundant).  I do not believe we need to outsource leadership to do that.

As a Board, we need to hire a qualified leader and help him/her build out the leadership team so they can tackle the issues. That team may need temporary help to implement needed changes – for example Tyler Munis experts will be needed to help complete the system migration.  However, implementing solutions needs to be led by IVGID staff. Staff will own the long-term maintenance and operation of the processes and systems that underly the solutions. Having them involved in the process of designing and implementing the solutions is the only way to make the fixes sustainable.

I have been a customer of various outsourcing arrangements in my professional career.  There are situations where this makes sense. However, outsourcing should always be limited to only areas that are not your core competencies. IVGID was formed and amended to essentially provide 2 functions – the construction/acquisition and operation of utility and recreation facilities.  By definition, these functions need to be our core competencies.  Our GM and his/her leadership team need to be comprised of professionals that collectively have the related expertise. The Board needs to ensure we have that collective experience, or we will fail as a Board and a community.   

We may have opportunities to outsource certain support functions that are necessary to operate the district.  As one example, we currently outsource our legal function.  We can and should consider whether outsourcing our legal function and other support functions makes sense from an operational and economic sense.

3. What are the top priorities you would address as a Trustee?

My top priorities are grounded in 2 of my core beliefs.  The first is that Trustees should be accountable to residents, owners AND staff.  The second is a professional philosophy that I’ve followed my entire career – that as a steward of IVGID, I should leave things in a better state than what I inherited. With that in mind, here are my top 3 priorities:

First – we need to rebuild IVGID staff.  We should be an employer of choice – and I do not think we currently are.  This is my first priority because we can’t accomplish other priorities if we don’t have great leadership and staff. We need to aggressively recruit at all levels.  Most importantly, the Board needs to hire and develop a GM.  It then needs to provide that GM the necessary resources to enable him/her to build out the leadership team and the rest of the staff.  We need to work with the GM to ensure we have training and development programs to retain and groom the next generation of leaders.  We need to demonstrate respect, trust and the needed level of caring for the organization to rectify toxicity that currently exists.  Then we need to get out of the way and let them do their job.  They are and will be the experts in operating the District – not the Board.

Second – we need to put our financial house back in order.  There are 2 elements of this.  The first is to upgrade our accounting systems and staff, which I addressed in Topic 7 below, titled “What are your thoughts on the state of the accounting systems and the quality of the resulting financial statements?”  The second is to address our fiscal policy decision-making.  We currently have insufficient reserves in our utility fund and are operating in a manner that if not changed will eventually make our general fund insolvent.  The current year budget has an operating deficit of around $4 million.  This is due to out-of-control spending and a short-sited decision on the part of the Board majority to slash our facility fee.  In the short term, we’ll need to challenge spending to better align with our priorities and eliminate wasteful spending.  We’ll also need to do a better job of rate setting for utilities.  Then we need to change our financial planning horizon from a short-term current year horizon to a longer term, 5/10-year horizon, which leads to my 3rd priority.

Third – we need strategy-driven, fiscally responsible, investment in our recreation and utility infrastructure.  Both are critical for our long-term success and sustainability.  Unfortunately, most of our facilities were built decades ago at around the same time.  As a result, most are in need of improvement or replacement.  The effluent pipeline is well under way. That needs to be completed expeditiously.  Most of our recreation facilities need to be addressed in one way or another.  We’ve discussed the needs for many years, but we’ve fallen short on action.  We currently compile a 5-year capital spending plan.  But it’s largely treated as a compliance exercise by certain current Board members.  We need to change this from a compliance exercise to a 5/10-year strategic exercise. I believe we need to:

• Work with staff to update master plans.  We need a disciplined, realistic inventory of required and potential projects over a 5/10-year horizon.

• Engage with staff and the community on how we should prioritize projects – obviously health and safety related spending should be our first priority.

• Develop cost estimates for each item.

• Use the results of the preceding steps to develop options for 5/10-year sequencing of projects based on different funding levels.

• Align on a final plan that best balances the needs and agreed-upon priorities with related costs.

The result would be a long-term strategic capital plan that informs both 1) how we staff and execute against the plan, and 2) the required level of facility fees or other funding that will be needed over the long-term to execute against our priorities.  The reason this needs to be a 5/10-year planning horizon is because it will be impossible to execute in the short term, both from a funding and staff capacity standpoint.  Importantly, the plan needs to be a living document that will evolve over time as priorities evolve.  Finally, the Board needs to hold staff and itself accountable to using it as the basis for significant decisions. 

In terms of my views on individual facilities, the Incline Beach House and Snowflake Lodge are clearly beyond their intended or functional life span.  They need to be addressed.  Assessing the various alternatives should be informed both by community input and an analysis of utilization and revenue generating potential.  Unlike certain current Board members who are of the view that the scope should be determined based on past revenue streams, my experience in the consumer products industry has taught me we need to first determine what the revenue generating capacity SHOULD BE based on different scoping alternatives in terms of product offerings, service levels and physical capacity.  A $16 million Incline Beach House project with indoor seating is likely not the answer.  Nor is a limited scope project that essentially entails new restrooms.  The same approach should be used for Snowflake Lodge--it could be one of the most picturesque facilities in the basin, but it’s being dramatically underutilized due to its age, size and functionality.  In looking at that project, we’d be negligent if we did not consider the opportunities and drawbacks of a facility that could be utilized on a year-round basis.

In terms of our racquet facilities and skate park, it is well understood that we have safety issues at both.  We’ve taken a band-aid approach to maintenance, and I am supportive of the current Board’s direction to improve these facilities over the next 1-3 years. 

The Rec Center is also in need of renewed attention. We have a master plan for the facility. We need to brush it off and determine what makes sense and is doable within the context of the 5/10-year strategic capital plan. 

Regarding RFID-only gate-restricted access to our beaches, I am not in favor of constructing additional physical barriers that further restrict access.  I do not believe we have an issue in the off-peak beach seasons and believe signage and other existing infrastructure adequately protect the beach deed.  Monies for the construction of such physical barriers can be better spent elsewhere within IVGID.

4. What are your thoughts on the current facility fee structure? Would you suggest any changes?

I believe the controlling Board members made a mistake when they dramatically reduced the fee.  I believe we’re already seeing the negative impacts, with budgeted capital spending levels that are insufficient to fund important deferred maintenance priorities. Left unchanged in the longer term, this will starve our facilities of much needed maintenance, replacement and expansion.  

Some, including current Board members and other Trustee candidates, have expressed the view that slashing the facility fee was necessary or even required because we had been over-collecting and building up excessive reserves.  I do not agree with this view.  NRS 318.197 gives IVGID the authority to fix, increase or decrease facility fees for recreation facilities.  I believe we were collecting appropriate levels of fees to facilitate necessary improvements but were negligent in actually approving and executing related improvement projects.  As a result, we have a significant backlog of both deferred maintenance and other improvement projects.

Over the last 15 years, the fee had not increased.  I believe it represented an incredible value relative to the recreational facilities IVGID provides to all residents.  As mentioned in the third priority in my response to Topic 3 above, “What are the top priorities you would address as a Trustee?,” I believe the fee should be tied to the projected long term funding needs as determined by the 5/10-year strategic capital spending plan.  I strongly believe we should revert to the model that served our community well for decades.  Specifically, that we should utilize excess funds from our more valuable recreation facilities (i.e., Diamond Peak), supplemented by a reasonable facility fee, to support, maintain and invest in recreation facilities of the broader District at a total portfolio level.  

5. How do you feel about the subsidies provided to various venues?  How should or can these be impacted by the levels of central services charged to the venues?

As noted in my response to Topic 1 above titled “Rec Facilities – commercial enterprises or community recreational amenities?,” I do not believe we should be operating our recreation facilities as commercial enterprises.  I believe they are community recreation amenities that, along with a reasonable facility fee, should be sustainable at the total district level.  Inherent in this view is that many of our recreation facilities will not stand on their own financially and will require some level of facility fee to survive and thrive.  That facility fee is what many refer to as a “subsidy.”  The fee has historically funded capital improvements and operating shortfalls at all of our recreation facilities at some point in our history.  I support the continued utilization of the fee to support our venues.  Without it, our facilities are simply not sustainable, and that would be disastrous for all of us. 

One of the issues we currently have is that we don’t have a clear picture of how our various venues are actually performing.  Part of this is the lack of reliable financial reporting for the venues over the last couple of years.  But even with reliable financial reporting, the manner in which IVGID has chosen to allocate central and fleet costs to the venues prevents us from gaining a clear picture of how they’re operating.  We have allowed our spending levels to balloon in recent years, caused in part by market-driven inflation forces, and caused in part by our own actions.  The loss of staff has caused us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars with 3rd party firms on staffing. In addition, we’ve spent similar amounts or more on redundant consulting engagements and investigations that have looked at the same basic areas for the same periods of time and delivered largely redundant findings.   As a result, spending in our general fund has skyrocketed.  And rather than deal with the spending, we simply allocate ever-increasing amounts of central costs out to the various venues, with no regard for the value of central services the venues are actually receiving.  Over the past 3 years alone, we have almost tripled the amount of central services charges allocated out of the general fund to the various venues from $1.3 million in fiscal 2023 to $3.7 million in fiscal 2025.  

These actions harm us in 2 ways.  First, when we simply allocate costs out to venues rather than managing them in a central department, we disperse the dollars and the accountability for those dollars.  Venue managers are hit with massive costs.  They have no transparency on what is in the allocations and no way to control or impact the amounts.  As a result, we lose our ability to effectively manage the costs.  Second, our recreation venues are loaded with a cost structure that materially exceeds what they would incur on a stand-alone basis.  They are not reflective of the actual costs to operate the venues.  Community members and Trustees then misuse those numbers to erroneously assess the performance of the venues. 

If elected Trustee, I’ll use my background and work with staff to design and propose a more effective, decision-useful set of allocation metrics so that 1) we can more efficiently and effectively manage and control our costs, and 2) we will have a more transparent, contribution-based performance reporting system for the recreation venues that enables venue managers, leadership, the Board and the public to more appropriately asses performance and make operating/pricing decisions.  I believe it’s quite possible we’ll have a significantly different view of how our various venues are performing once we do this.   

 6. What is your view of the role of the Board?  What should a Trustee’s relationship with staff look like?

The operation of the Board is clearly governed by the Nevada Revised Statutes and other applicable law – the Board is responsible for:

• The creation, amendment and oversight of staff’s adherence to District policies, practices, ordinances, and resolutions.

• The oversight over the District’s financial reports and the systems of internal controls.

• Working with District management to set goals, priorities and courses of action in response to the particular needs and concerns of the District.

Thus, the Board has only 1 direct employee – the GM.  The Board’s most important responsibility is to hire a qualified GM with the requisite leadership and combination of relevant business/government experience needed to lead the District.  Once hired, no individual Board member, including the Chair, should provide the GM with direction acting on their own.  The GM can only be given direction by the Board in open meetings.  The Board also needs to provide any support the GM needs to help build the leadership team with individuals who possess the appropriate leadership and functional expertise to lead their respective divisions.  The Board should then step aside and trust them to do their work.  The members of the leadership team (not the Board) are the experts. The Board needs understand that and treat all staff with respect.  The Board needs to set clear and measurable expectations of the GM and hold them accountable for meeting those expectations. It needs to address any issues involving staff to the GM so he/she can assess the merits of the observation and take any appropriate action.  Importantly, the Board also needs to protect the GM and staff from abusive behavior, either originating from within the organization or from the broader community.

 7. What are your thoughts on the state of the accounting systems and the quality of the resulting financial statements?

We clearly have issues with the state and quality of our accounting systems and financial statements.  These are well documented via the reports we’ve received from multiple consultants.  The community, the Board, and importantly IVGID staff are all aware of the issues and all parties, including myself, are strongly in favor of implementing the needed improvements.

From what I observed during my time on the audit committee, I believe there are 2 primary causes. One of the leading reasons is that we’ve been chronically understaffed.  I was informed that we operated at about 50% vacancy in our finance and accounting staff for a couple years.  The other reason is the fact that our conversion to the Tyler Munis system went poorly, caused by inadequate planning and insufficient staffing.  The lack of staffing is also negatively impacting our ability to set up good processes and an acceptable system of internal controls.  Both of those require sufficient staffing levels to both prevent conflicting capabilities and provide capacity to perform necessary control steps.

Over the last 12-18 months, we’ve been relying on external consultants to complete our basic day-to-day priorities.  As a result, we haven’t had sufficient capacity to develop and implement process improvements.  This is not sustainable.  The cost for consultants is very expensive.  In addition, when we implement process and control improvements, we want our own people leading this.  We want personal ownership of the solutions.  And we need to build the internal knowledge and expertise on those solutions, which is best achieved when our own people are executing them.

I believe we need to first ensure our finance and accounting leadership team is hired and in place.  Then we likely need to engage Tyler Munis experts to work with leadership to complete the migration and help us optimize the system.  Over time, this will lead to re-engineering many of our policies, processes and tools in ways that result in better controls, better efficiency and better quality. 

8. What are your views on the Forensic Audit findings?  Do you support addressing the issues in the audit?

I do not think the Rubin Brown (RB) engagement was warranted.  However, I believe the issues noted in the report should be addressed. IVGID was aware of most of the issues noted, as they were largely consistent issues noted in reports issued by 2 different consultants we had previously engaged to review essentially the same areas covering the same time periods. Staff has already implemented changes related to a number of the observations and has plans for the majority of the remaining significant observations.

I believe the funds (in excess of $300,000) could and should have been used for more important priorities.  As background, I have extensive experience in investigations related to potential fraud in financial reporting.  There are clearly circumstances in which those investigations are necessary.  In the vast majority of cases, basic preliminary tests and limited investigative procedures disprove an allegation.  If not, and specific evidence of fraud is found, additional targeted tests and steps are performed to investigate and flush out the specific evidence.  Keep in mind that investigations can be incredibly invasive, disruptive and harmful to staff.   That’s why they are typically used only when specific evidence of fraud is detected. 

In the case of the RB investigation, there was no evidence of fraud. Management, the Board and our auditors repeatedly told us that.  Nonetheless, we engaged RB to perform a forensic audit.  In my professional opinion, this was made worse by a number of factors:

• The manner in which the engagement was scoped.  There was clearly no focus area.  Rather, it was an unfocused, shotgun approach that was extremely disruptive to the broader organization.

• It was done at the same time we had already hired another third-party accounting firm, Baker Tilly (BT) to help us get our books in order.  That engagement was necessitated by the loss of staff. It was required to help clean up the backlog we had on the preparation of basic reconciliations, financial statements, etc., and to help us prepare us for our annual audit.   The scope of the RB engagement overlapped the BT engagement in many areas.  BT is a reputable accounting and audit firm and would have informed us if they detected any evidence of fraud in the work they were doing.

• It loaded a significant burden on our already understaffed organization, diverting their time and energy away from the critical day-to-day scope of their jobs, which negatively impacted our ongoing and year-end financial statement preparation.

• It was a key factor in our inability to obtain an audit opinion on our fiscal 2023 financial statements from Davis Farr (DF), our ongoing auditor.  The very existence of such a broadly scoped forensic audit was an obvious factor leading DF to hold off on their work.  The diversion of resources to the RB work also negatively impacted our ability to provide necessary audit evidence to DF.  Both of these factors were key items quoted by DF in the scope limitation that prevented them from issuing an opinion on our financial statements.

I communicated each of these concerns to the Board in public comments when they were contemplating entering into the forensic audit engagement with RB.  I also expressed my view that because of this combination of factors, the funds were better spent engaging additional resources to actually help us improve the state of our financial reporting and prepare the year-end financial statements for the required audit.  

9. What is your position on short-term rentals (vacation rentals)?

Short term rentals are not within the jurisdiction of IVGID’s authority to provide water/sewer/trash services and recreational opportunities.  Therefore, I have no opinion on the matter as a candidate for IVGID Trustee.

  10. Did you resign from IVGID’s Audit Committee before the end of your term, and if so, why?

I did in fact resign from IVGID’s audit committee before the end of my term.  The following perspective on why should be helpful.

As I was in the process of retiring as the Chief Accounting Officer of the Procter & Gamble Company, I was approached by one of the current Board members to see if I’d be willing to serve on the audit committee.  IVGID needed committee members and my background was a great fit.  I have over a decade of directly relevant experience as an auditor for 2 of the largest accounting firms in the world and 2 decades of audit committee experience. I thought this would be a great way to contribute to the community.

Throughout my professional career, I built a reputation centered on one simple phrase – “do the right thing.”  This is centered on honesty and ethical behavior. The audit committee and its members are responsible for overseeing and promoting a strong compliance and ethical culture. 

While serving on the audit committee, I took issue with the actions of certain Board members.  Most troubling, I witnessed Trustees violating well understood conflicts of interest guidelines and disseminating inaccurate financial information.  In each case, I notified the Board members, through both direct communication and public comments, but they chose not to take my advice. As a result, I ultimately concluded I couldn’t serve as an audit committee member. I couldn’t be responsible for overseeing an ethics and compliance culture for a Board when certain members, in my opinion, didn’t demonstrate an acceptable level of ethical behavior.  And I was not willing to allow my professional reputation, which was built over a 40-year career in auditing and controllership, to be damaged by association with a Board majority that acted in that way.   

11. What are your thoughts on the new proposal to make Incline Village/Crystal Bay a city?

It is my understanding that the advocates for the City of Incline Village / Crystal Bay do not intend to assert control over IVGID's authority to provide water/sewer/trash services and recreational opportunities.  Therefore, I have no opinion on the matter as a candidate for IVGID Trustee.   

12. How should IVGID and the Board be involved with other government entities to address the issues we are experiencing in Incline Village? (e.g. Washoe County, TRPA, NLTFPD, Tahoe Transportation, etc.)?

IVGID has very clear ownership of recreation and utility services for the district and should take direct responsibility for issues within that defined scope.  With respect to issues that involve or can be optimized by working with adjoining entities, I believe that IVGID should play a primary role in leading the narrative and lobbying for actions that directly impact IV/CB residents. I believe that in order to do that effectively, we will need to repair and improve our existing relationships with the various agencies in order to be effective in bringing issues and potential solutions (preferably win-win) to them rather than having them dictate the agenda and actions. 

13. Did you form the PAC that is supporting you?  Why are the 3 of you running together? Why should we allow the PAC to influence our vote?

I am not part of, or affiliated with, the PAC.  I am running my own campaign independent of the PAC.  The organizers of the PAC did ask me if they could support me, along with candidates Michelle Jezycki and Michaela Tonking.  I am proud and humbled to have their support. 

I had also publicly expressed my support for Michelle and Michaela well in advance of the PAC being formed and approaching me.  I’ve spent significant time with Michelle and Michaela discussing IVGID’s issues and opportunities.  I’m sure we won’t agree on everything - but they have skills we urgently need, and they’ll act in the best interests of the community.

I’ve attended or watched virtually all Board meetings over the last 2 years, and I have observed that Michaela has always acted in the best interest of the community.  I haven’t seen evidence of any underlying agenda that’s driven her actions. She’s been constructive and has consistently listened and pushed for compromise solutions, even in the face of a board that at times had no interest in listening or compromising. She’s held both staff and other trustees accountable. 

Michelle has incredible skills in human resources, organization leadership, strategy and in running her own businesses.  She has the highest level of personal and professional integrity and has acted in a constructive, collaborative manner.  These are skills and traits that we desperately need if we are to successfully rebuild the organization. 

I’m confident that the 3 of us, working with Trustees Noble and Tulloch, can change the way the Board operates such that we will have open, constructive, respectful, debates that will be motivated by the best interests of residents, homeowners and staff.