REASONS FOR THE RECALL OF GARY BURKEL
- Jul 5
- 2 min read
• It has become apparent that a voting bloc of Board members, led by Gary Burkel, is
committed to replacing FSR as the Association's management company. At least one Board
member publicly campaigned on that objective.
• While the Board has the authority to evaluate management performance and consider
alternative management companies, fiduciary obligations require that such decisions be
conducted through an objective, transparent and properly documented procurement
process.
• Failure to follow accepted procurement and governance practices may expose the
Association to unnecessary legal, operational, and financial risk.
• Sun Lakers with procurement experience are deeply concerned about both the process and
the quality of the current Request for Proposal (RFP) being used to evaluate and potentially
replace FSR.
• When established procedures are bypassed, abbreviated, or inadequately documented, it
creates the appearance that the outcome may have been predetermined rather than the result
of a fair and impartial evaluation process.
• Our community cannot afford a repetition of the Morrison/CCL experience and the
operational and financial consequences that followed, including losses exceeding $700,000.
• The Board's responsibility is not merely to select a management company, but to ensure
that any selection process is fair, objective, transparent, and designed to protect the
Association's interests.
• Because of these concerns, and in an effort to halt a procurement process that we believe
falls short of accepted fiduciary and governance standards, we are exercising our authority
to initiate the recall of Gary Burkel, whom we believe bears primary responsibility for
advancing and supporting this flawed process.
• Burkel and the previous Board’s vetting and selection process to appoint the first six
members to the reestablished PAC was seriously flawed, leading one to question what their
agenda was in appointing vetted and unqualified members. Seventeen members submitted
application and only the first six were even called for an interview. Those interviewed
reported that the board had no list of basic vetting question they were asked. At least one
candidate reported that he was asked no questions about procurement at all. Another
appointment was made by a person that stated that they had no previous RFP or
procurement experience.
• Burkel’s role and conduct as the board liaison to Procurement Advisory Committee (PAC).
He is pressing for changes to the Charter and PAC Handbook which weaken the role of the
PAC while not including other board members in the decision process and controlling what
the PAC works on. The role of a liaison, as clearly stated in all SLCC Advisory Charters is
“Active Listening”.
More to details will follow which will further expose his controversial conduct.
