Formal Complaint of Mr. Burkel's Comments

Subject: 1. Issues regarding Mr. Burkel’s Comments at Open Board Meeting 5/27/26

2. Mr. Burkel’s participation at the Delegate Assembly Meeting 5/28/26

Date: May 28, 2026

To: Members of the Master Board of Directors, General Manager SLCC, and Delegates.

The purpose of this document is to request that Mr. Burkel’s behavior at the two above referenced

meeting should be formally addressed by the Board and General Manager for possible sanction.

1. Issues regarding Mr. Burkel’s comments at the Open Board Meeting 5/27/26

I would like to start by addressing Mr. Burkel impulse to engage in the Members Comments section

of last night’s Open Board Session. While there is nothing that forbids a board member from doing

so it is generally not considered “best practice” for a board member to interrupt or debate with

homeowners during the “Member Comment” or “Open Forum” portion of the meeting. What you

did last night made you appear defensive. Had you followed the procurement advice provided in

2024 or learned from your participation in the Governing Policy project I believe there would be

little to no criticism of you role as a board member. I suggest that if a board member is allowed to

interject and make comments during the Member Comment session, then you must allow the

presenter to return to the podium for a rebuttal comment as well.

More specifically, I reject his attempt to spin the criticism of a board member as inappropriate or

somehow unfair coming from a person that has not been elected. The false premise you suggested

that a candidate’s election to the board somehow is transformed into an absolute authoritarian

mandate is ludicrous. It comes across as a feeble authoritarian attempt to justify remaining

unaccountable. Our governing policy and Davis-Stirling explicitly state that a board member has

no authority other than what is derived from a majority board decision. I suggest that the first

obligation a board member has is get beyond their inner circle and engage a broader stakeholder

perspective to better reveal what is in the best interest of all members. There is no doubt of the

authority of a board to collectively make a decision. The only question is whether the process

followed represents proper exercise of fiduciary responsibility. The clever catch phrase of “those

who what to change things should get elected to the board” is offensive and contrary to the

democratic republic form of governance that must prevail. Had my time not expired my statement

included the following:

The selection of a management company is one of the most consequential decisions a Board will

make on behalf of the membership. It must be conducted with transparency, procedural integrity,

and accountability to the membership. The fundamental issue is not whether change is

warranted, but whether the current RFP and review process has been conducted with sufficient

transparency and procedural integrity to merit member confidence.

I also found it gratuitous that you chose to interject yourself into the Treasurer’s report to lay claim

for credit for the improvement in our cash on hand balance. I suggest that it requires a substantial

stretch of the imagination for you to lay claim to much more than you coincidently were a board

member during the period of time the improvement occurred. You did acknowledge that part of it

was a result of the one-time windfall Spectrum deal, but you personally had little to nothing to do

with it. Secondly, you have failed to acknowledge that one of the reason we fared so well was that

FSR was significantly under budget due to resignations which may have contributed to an unstable

work environment created by the previous board as a result due to the way the management

company procurement process was announced an conducted by you and Mr. Day.

To date you have also not acknowledged the $700,000 additional loss above budgeted subsidy we

experienced due to Morrison/CCL decision made at the beginning of 2025. I find the response to

me in an email dated 2/21/26 flippant:

“Regarding the CCL issue, I acknowledge they have not performed to my/our expectations and

they know of my/our dissatisfaction. They have at least taken some responsibility for their

poor performance and agreed to fix their fee for 2026.”

Need I remind you of the report presented to the Board dated 3/25/25, issued by four prior

members of the PAC, which delineated 32 serious problems with the Morrison/CCL agreement

which you chose to ignore? The board sat on it until Mr. Ganino decided to initiate an amendment

which only prevented Morrison/CCL from exceeding the baseline budget agreed to, but what you

fail to point out is that Morrison/CCL is still in control of the hours of operation and staffing levels

which means they will simply restrict both in order to ensure they do not exceed the established

budget. This is not a solution that provides good value to our members!

2. Mr. Burkel’s participation at the Delegate Assembly Meeting 5/28/26

I was in attendance at the Delegate Assembly and witnessed Mr. Burkel avoiding direct answers

and misrepresenting facts associated with the Morrison/CCL relationship and the Management

Company procurement process. He spoke about the PAC as if it was his committee to direct. I find

his disparaging comment about Mr. Treichler’s resignation completely unacceptable for any board

member much less that of the office of President. Clearly Mr. Burkel has not read the PAC charter.

The role of a liaison is “active listening” not directing the activities of the committee. In my

opinion, Mr. Burkel is clearly out of his element to be the President of the Board when asked to

account for his actions and interact under pressure.

I believe the board should also thoroughly investigate what role Ms. Christine Rogers played in the

management company procurement process including obtaining all pertinent correspondence,

Now that Mr. Burkel decided to expose that the RFP was developed by a previously anonymous

individual it also begs the question of what authority did the board have to create an unannounced

work group or ad hoc committee to engage in the activity. What other members of our community

were involved? There is no evidence that the Board authorized this activity.

My purpose is not to attack Mr. Burkel personally, but to serve notice that the Board should not

tolerate members spewing factually unsupported, incomplete, or subject to dispute claims or

statements, especially those so obviously self-serving. I believe it would be prudent for the board to

consider the above and formally indicate disapproval in order to prevent further occurrences and loss

of board member protections by the loss of “Board Authority” as described in Davis-Stirling.

Concerned,

Bob Hix

PS. A copy of this document is also being sent to the members of the Delegate Assembly as it is clear

that some do not have a adequate understanding the issues and what constitutes proper governance

according to our governing documents and Davis-Stirling. If the Delegates are to take a position it

should be well informed and not based upon personal opinion.