Cheap isn’t economical
Those in Leisure World who constantly want to cut expenses forget that cheap is never economical. It takes wisdom to know the difference.
Threatening staff with layoffs and pay cuts is NOT the way to maintain loyalty and good service.
Who cares to go all out to do a good job when the employer is holding an axe over one’s head, which axe may fall any moment because some “committee” wants to “save” by eliminating staff or reducing benefits.
This is particularly ridiculous using the excuse that Social Security has not increased. Should our staff shoulder the burden?
The necessities that have increased astronomically are food, medicine and gasoline. Would those people who want to cut expenses, using the Social Security argument, force the gas stations, pharmacies and grocery stores to keep their prices at par with the Social Security income?
I can only say, “go ahead and try it.”
The investments in our homes are major.
Every effort should be made to secure and preserve the beauty of LW and to make it a desirable place to live (which it is to our silent majority).
Only in this way will we enhance the values of our property as much as possible, reduce vacancies and have LW serve as a lovely community in which to retire and enjoy life.
Regine Schumacher
Mutual 17
Farewell Margarita Bahr
The end of a good director who was also president of Mutual Two since June.
Margarita Bahr resigned the Mutual 2 Board on Nov. 3. She has been a top vote getter and popular effective worker for over eight years. She told me she just could not sit back without making an effort to open the eyes of the residents about the pending lawsuit. Bahr wrote and delivered a message at the October board meeting that was aimed to the residents with the hope that many in our mutual would realize that a big financial problem is brewing.
After four surgeries—two of which were major—last summer, she with her walker or cane performed all of her required duties, and she answered all resident calls to satisfy their needs. I have known her for many years in her professional life, and now as a community volunteer. She has always been a giver rather than a taker, while raising two children after her husband died young.
Her degrees in dietetics and nutrition led to work in large hospitals, and she has a good background in the business qualities needed in a good director. Later, she served as a consultant to the Latino community, pregnant women, children, alcoholics, drug addicts, and the HIV infected. Her life has been one of service, and after she retired she decided to continue to be of service in her community.
Will she be missed? I say yes, as it seems her opposition worked hard to undermine her position as a voice of the people. She does not hold with the position that the only way to solve issues is to take them to court. We all know this makes others wealthier, and in this case the losers will be the residents of the Mutual Two. I am going to include the letter she read at the board meeting, which as far as I can see, does not contain anything confidential but does say that the M-2 board’s attorney might not win.
Eugene Keefner
Mutual 2
Margarita Bahr’s Oct. 2 Letter to Mutual 2
Problem: I am presenting this as a shareholder and as president. I have received 18 form letters and a number of phone calls from shareholders, who do not wish Mutual 2 to be involved in litigation.
Many of us are concerned that the attorney hours can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, which we seniors will have to pay.
Past History: After the Franz et al versus Golden Rain Foundation lawsuit, the mutuals did not collectively choose to deal with the subject of the status of the mutuals and the Davis-Stirling Act.
At present, some mutuals and attorneys state the mutuals are under Davis-Stirling, and other mutual and attorneys state they are not under Davis-Stirling.
Davis-Stirling: I requested our two past presidents to address this issue as a written policy stating that we are adhering to the Davis-Stirling Act as Mutual 1 and some other mutuals have done.
I have limited knowledge in legal issues, and in my humble opinion, if there is only a verbal comment rather than a written policy, can there be a problem?
The question is: can a verbal statement be enforced without going to court?
NO!
What occurs when an issue arises and the sitting board at that time realizes that it is more economical, easier, and more convenient for that board not to adhere to Davis-Stirling?
Too Many Cooks Stirring The Pot: In LW we have an abundant number of experts who, without benefit of a law degree, passing the state law boards, and specialization in CIDs, have decided that they know all the answers.
They consider themselves experts on the status of our Mutual.
Thus they have spent years making their opinion known and preaching their opinions and indirectly benefiting many attorneys.
When I have been asked about our status, I have answered more or less the following, “I think and hope that we are under Davis-Stirling, as it appears to protect the rights of those living in the mutual.”
After hearing more from different folks, I cannot be 100 percent sure of the answer because I do not have the legal qualifications to present my opinion as a definite legal truth.
What Margarita Does Know: Taking this issue to court will cost the mutual big money it/we do not have.
Will our attorney’s best thwart this unnecessary litigation? None of us know. Even if the insurance company agrees to pay, a court case will still cost us in increased premiums.
I have been told that I am naïve, but I pray that the directors/shareholders and attorneys can find a way to settle this disagreement in the most economical, effective manner for the benefit of our community.
Margarita Bahr
Mutual 2, Oct. 2
