A FACT-BASED RESPONSE TO THE “REASONS TO VOTE NO ON BOARD RECALL” FLYER
A FACT-BASED RESPONSE TO THE “REASONS TO VOTE NO ON BOARD RECALL” FLYER
What the flyer establishes - and what it does not
The issue should be decided from contracts, budgets, financial statements and Board records - not labels, selected statistics or unsupported assertions.
1. Labels are not evidence
The flyer calls the SL Accountability Group a “small radical group,” says it has “no actual knowledge” of contract negotiations, and says it is interfering in Board decisions. Those labels do not rebut SLA’s financial or contract analysis. Homeowners do not need to attend confidential negotiations to evaluate executed contracts, budgets, monthly financials, invoices, Board minutes and actual operating results. SLA analyzed both the Morrison/CCL and Troon agreements and issued reports to the Board identifying serious provisions it believes do not favor Sun Lakes.
The flyer also says SLA is “ignoring residents’ votes” without identifying the vote, question, result or conduct involved. The PAC issue is likewise misstated in the rebuttal record: the entire PAC resigned because, in its view, the Board would not allow it to function according to its charter while implying that PAC input was considered. The rebuttal specifically states this was not the case in the Food & Beverage procurement process.
2. “Losses under FSR” does not establish losses caused by FSR
The flyer totals SLCC income/(loss) for 2019-2024 at $(1,670,775) and labels it “TOTAL LOSSES UNDER FSR.” The arithmetic may match the figures printed, but timing is not causation. The flyer itself shows positive results in 2022 and 2023. To attribute the full six-year net loss to FSR, the Board would need to identify which expenses or revenue shortfalls were within FSR’s contractual responsibility, what FSR did or failed to do, and the resulting financial impact. The flyer provides no such analysis.
The rebuttal further notes that the Board sets the budget and therefore bears responsibility for Board-approved financial decisions. That does not automatically absolve a manager of every performance issue, but it makes it misleading to present the Association’s entire net loss as though it were an FSR-caused loss without separating Board decisions from management performance.
3. The F&B chronology does not reconcile
The flyer says “5 years” of F&B losses exceeded budget by $1.5 million under FSR, but elsewhere calls the same figure “F&B losses from 2019-2025.” That is a seven-calendar-year span, and the flyer says CCL’s contract was signed in March 2025. The $1.5 million figure should therefore be shown year by year, with the exact measurement period and the manager responsible for each period.
The rebuttal also states that FSR recommended curtailing F&B operations during the early stages of COVID in 2020, that the Board rejected that recommendation, and that the decision caused as much as $500,000 in unnecessary losses. That is a material claim that should be tested against contemporaneous Board records and financial statements rather than folded into a generalized allegation of FSR failure.
4. Calling CCL a “success” omits the critical 2025 result
The flyer calls the CCL negotiation a Board success while acknowledging CCL’s “poor initial financial performance” and a change in its monthly fee beginning in October 2025. Because the contract was signed in March 2025, the original 2025 budget, monthly actuals, year-end variance and revised CCL economics should be presented side by side.
The rebuttal identifies approximately $700,000 of excess 2025 F&B/CCL loss as a critical issue. The present document does not include the underlying financial statements needed to independently establish that amount, so the records should be produced. Being “within budget” after October does not erase or explain a material unfavorable variance incurred earlier in 2025. The proper comparison is: original budget -> actual result -> variance -> revised terms.
5. The Spectrum claim is incomplete
The flyer contrasts an FSR-proposed $1 million Spectrum signing bonus, including a stated $250,000 payment to FirstService, with a later $1.65 million payment to Sun Lakes. The rebuttal states that the PAC recommended professional negotiating assistance and that the Board then engaged HOA counsel, who worked with the Board President to obtain more favorable terms. The flyer therefore does not establish that the improvement occurred simply because the Board displaced FSR.
The rebuttal also raises disclosure questions: why were the negotiated results not presented to members in a Town Hall, and why were members not offered an option concerning their pro-rated share of what was described as a “door-fee”? Those questions do not determine the contract’s legal or economic treatment, but they are legitimate transparency issues for the Board to answer.
6. Other FSR allegations are asserted, not demonstrated
The flyer lists excessive bank fees, a neglected dehumidifier, sprinkler/acoustics problems, improper internal controls, poor F&B management, poor communication and “no corrective actions” to control HOA losses. It provides no bank-fee amounts, work-order chronology, identified control deficiency, allocation of responsibility for the lounge work, or documentation supporting the absolute claim that no corrective action occurred. These allegations may warrant review, but the supporting records should be produced before they are presented as established findings.
7. The Troon “highlights” omit the information needed to evaluate the deal
The flyer highlights a detailed scope of work, SLCC input on certain personnel matters, Troon absorbing stated start-up/transition costs, Troon oversight of CCL, controller attendance at Finance Committee meetings and next-business-day homeowner responses. Those may be contract features, but they are not a financial analysis and do not show the agreement’s total cost, risk or value.
The flyer does not disclose or analyze Troon’s base management fee; incentive/performance fees; reimbursable or pass-through expenses; staffing cost changes; contract term and renewal provisions; termination rights or charges; measurable performance standards and remedies; indemnification and liability allocation; purchasing/rebate economics; or the cost and practical effect of placing Troon over CCL as an additional management layer.
Even the favorable-sounding provisions require the full language. A right to modify scope on 30 days’ notice does not reveal whether fees can also change. “Troon will absorb all start-up and transition costs” does not define those costs or show whether they are recovered elsewhere. And if SLCC already has a direct F&B management relationship with CCL, homeowners should know exactly what Troon adds, what authority it exercises, what duplication it creates and what that additional oversight costs.
The records that should answer the dispute
• Original 2025 F&B budget, monthly actuals, year-end variance and the portion occurring after CCL assumed management.
• The October 2025 CCL fee/compensation change and its financial value.
• Year-by-year support for the claimed $1.5 million F&B over-budget figure, identifying the responsible manager for each period.
• Specific components of the $(1,670,775) six-year SLCC net loss claimed to have been caused by FSR, with supporting records.
• Troon’s total annual fees, reimbursable costs and incentives; contract term; termination rights; performance standards; remedies; and the incremental cost/value of Troon’s oversight of CCL.
Bottom line
The flyer contains selected figures and selected contract provisions, but repeatedly moves from those facts to broader conclusions without showing the records needed to establish causation, total economics or comparative performance. Homeowners should be given the underlying contracts, budgets, monthly financial statements and Board records so they can evaluate the competing claims directly.
ASK FOR THE RECORDS. VERIFY THE NUMBERS. DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION.
