12/4/22, 2:49 PM
“WHAT PROTECTS US FROM THEM?”
It cost Ranch resident Carol Orr $250.00 for asking, “WHAT PROTECTS US FROM THEM?”, meaning the Crooked River Ranch (CRR) Board of Directors (BOD) at the July 18 Board Meeting.
At the June 20, 2022, Regular Board Meeting, the CRR/BOD unanimously voted to impose three new dubious, retaliatory and punitive resolutions further restricting targeted homeowners rights. Resolutions 2022-06-20 A, B & C.
The Board’s passage of the Resolutions triggered many questions from several concerned Ranch residents, including Ms. Orr and resident/reporter Pat Kruis from the Madras Pioneer.
As previously reported, certain current and former Ranch Officials have engaged in an on-going effort to disrupt, discredit, obstruct, harass and silence not only our news reporting, but anybody that questions the Board’s actions and/or conduct.
At the August 1 Work Session Meeting, Orr was FINED $250.00, allegedly over her conduct at the July 18 meeting.
The Directors made no attempt to consider any relevant information/ evidence before rendering their final ruling.
According to Orr, at the October 28 Candidate Forum, newly elected President Kari Vickery suggested that she-Orr submit a “paragraph” requesting the $250.00 FINE be reviewed.
As requested, Orr submitted her paragraph/letter on November 4 with an attached Resolution Violation Appeal Form, also dated November 4 that incorporated a YES/NO REQUEST FOR HOMEOWNER PRESENTATION.
Orr checked YES, requesting the right to present her defense-presentation in person.
Copy Attached Below
Orr’s letter stated in part, “This letter expressly requests you review and consider the removal of the $250.00 fine based on your admission (Vickery’s) that you did not review significant evidence required before the imposition of any financial punishment. If I understood you correctly, you said you did not review the actual video evidence of the alleged violation. I’m asking that you please look at the video published 9/16/22, on Ranch Matters in their story “Weaponized Resolutions.”
“As a Mutual Benefit Corporation where’s the Benefit for the homeowners and in particular me, when a Director, in a public meeting interrupts my designated time to speak, slanders me, and I’m fined for trying to defend myself. As homeowners we should have an absolute right to respond and defend ourselves without fear of punishment. Fundamental fairness and basic due process should be the Board’s guiding principles regarding this matter and not vendetta’s or personal grudges that have been targeting me and others for a very long time.”
Orr’s letter ended,
“It’s also worth mentioning that homeowner and Madras Pioneer reporter, Pat Kruis published a story about the Board’s three Resolutions on 8/31/22 and I have been told that she said, ‘I think a lot of this is about Carol Orr.’”
President Vickery emailed Orr the following response on November 7:
“Dear Ms. Orr, Thank you for submitting your letters of appeal for review. During our Executive Session today, November 7, 2022, I presented your letters of appeal to the entire Board of Directors. We had a thorough discussion regarding the history of the situation and reviewed the information you provided. Upon reconvening Open Session, the Board of Directors voted unanimously to enforce the fine of $250 that had been imposed, due to violation of Resolution 2022-06-20-B on July 17, 2022. At this time, the Board of Directors will consider this matter closed. If you need to make payment arrangements please reach out to Judy Lapora, Ranch Manager and she will be happy to assist.”
WHAT HAPPENED TO ORR’S RIGHT TO PRESENT HER IN PERSON-DEFENSE?
THERE WAS NO VIOLATION ON JULY 17!
At the July 18 meeting, former Ranch VP Carl Harbour schooled Orr on the importance of getting facts right. He told her, “Make sure you have your FACTS right” and confirmed the Board is legally bound to follow Roberts Rules. More about Roberts Rules later.
Vickery’s response not only DENIED Orr her right to an in person defense, but also incorrectly listed the alleged violation date as of July 17 and like Harbour stated, “Make sure you have your facts right.”
Ranch Matters (RM) emailed President Vickery and the Directors on November 16 the following:
“As I’m sure you know, we’ve been following and reporting on the June Resolutions and subsequent fining of former Director Richard Ebers and resident Carol Orr. According to Carol Orr, at the October 28, 2022, Candidates Forum, you suggested she submit a ‘paragraph’ regarding the review of her fine. As you directed, Ms. Orr submitted her letter dated November 4 along with a ‘Request for homeowner presentation’ where she clearly requested the right to present her defense-presentation in person. Ms. Orr also asked that you and/or the Board review the actual video evidence of the alleged violation that was published on our news sites. Would like to give you an opportunity to comment on the following couple of questions:
Why wasn’t Ms. Orr allowed to present a defense before the Board voted to enforce the $250.00 fine? See attached Resolution Violation Appeal Form, dated November 4 and signed by Carol Orr.
Did you and/or the Board at the November 7 Executive Session Meeting review the video evidence as part of your deliberations? Have you and/or the Board at anytime looked at the subject video?
As an aside, there was no violation on ‘July 17, 2022.’”
Vickery didn’t respond, however, Director Julia Randall did. RM received several text messages from Randall between November 16 and November 28.
We asked Randall about what she saw and how the Board decided to sustain the fine against Orr. She replied in one of her texts,
“There was a letter I saw during the first week of August that I’m referring to. 11/7 just reaffirmed what happened in July. We received 2 letters to review from her at the November meeting. One rambled and one didn’t sound like her.
However, they weren’t given any weight.
The whole matter of not being able to severe (sic) the cases and not setting precedent by reversing everything. It wasn’t about Carol at all. No matter who would’ve been involved, the Board wasn’t ok with reversing or setting precedent.”
According to Director Randall’s comment, the Board was apparently hell-bent on sustaining Orr’s fine and not at all interested in evidence. Her statement, “…They weren’t given any weight” meaning Orr’s evidence, suggests the whole appeal process was a sham and probably explains why they denied Orr’s right to an in person defense.
WHAT DOES ROBERT’S RULES SAY?
If a Association member is accused of an alleged violation they have a right to DUE PROCESS, a clear understanding of the allegations, time to prepare a defense, present a defense and call witnesses.
“WHAT PROTECTS US FROM THEM ?”
Ranch Matters Staff
*Clicks count, please LIKE & feel free to SHARE our stories