Morrison Email Request for Info
- Jul 1
- 2 min read
From: Robert Hix [mailto:hixfix@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 8:31 AM
Cc: donald.day@sunlakescc.com; bob.walter@sunlakescc.com; gary.burkel@sunlakescc.com; sjgutknecht@sbcglobal.net; JGanino@BlackhawkProtection.net
Subject: Additional Release of SLCC HOA Information Request
Importance: High
Dear SLCC Master Board and Mr. Chris Mitchel, General Manager, SLCC;
We are in receipt of the attached information you provided in response to our information request regarding the origin, authorization, and process associated with the Morrison agreement. We do not believe that the request was fully complied with in a forthright and transparent matter. A review of this information has necessitated in our issuing a second request as indicated below:
1. The attorney invoice has everything except the amounts redacted. The interest is requesting this data is to determining to what degree the firm was engaged in the actual review of the Morrison agreement and advising the Board accordingly and how that relates to the engagement letter provided. The time and description of activities should not be confidential.
2. The attorney engagement letter does not describe any specific legal services requested by the Board in conjunction with a review of the Morrison agreement. It simply makes a general statement regarding a willingness to provide requested services. Was this law firm engaged to review the Morrison agreement and make recommendations or not? What written or verbal, board authorized, instructions were provided?
3. We are entitled to see whatever written correspondence or relevant SLCC food & beverage operational and financial information provided to potential providers in addition to the “RFP” (included as part of the attached file) used to solicit proposals. Specifically, the Morrison agreement actually references additional information provided, but does not include a copy in the exhibits. The RFP is lacking sufficient information as a standalone document for any potential provider to prepare a proposal much less an agreement.
4. Contrary to the public claims made by several board members, the only reference in the "RFP" in regards to performance or metrics is indicated on page four which simply states "standard industry (F&B) performance standards". The agreement fails to mention any performance metrics. Was this information ever requested by or provided to any of the potential providers?
5. How many providers were sent the RFP? How many formally responded? Which prospects were actually considered by the Board as viable candidates?
In addition, we are requesting a copy of the majority decision the Board made to authorize the creation of a task force to develop an RFP to solicit proposals for the Food and Beverage amenity including the date of the Board meeting Including a copy of any specific instructions the Board provided, the names of the initial SLCC members appointed, and the name and contact information of all service providers that were sent the RFP.
Sincerely;
Bob Hix
Ron Varner