Developers, Elected Officials, CAAC’s, Wannabes…Bring Us BS, And We’ll Sniff It Out!

 NO BS #2 – ‘Community Liason Committee’

This article appears in the August 2026 issue of the MPCA newsletter, regarding the CLC:

The article states that ‘CLC was formed initially to assist the Board in dealing with some of the heavy load of issues and problems that materialize every month. This allows for a broader review of any question or problem that may arise.’ It adds, ‘Most resident issues begin with contacting the HOA Board. If the Board is able to solve the issue, it does so. If the issue relates to the Use Agreement between the HOA and MPI, the Board may refer that item to this committee.  That way, the issue, once again, receives a broader consensus as to the resolution of that issue.’

While there’s no question that we have a ‘heavy load of (club) issues here, do ‘most’ residents get satisfaction by noticing the board on these? Do we know if, in fact, ANY issues relating to the Use Agreement have been referred to CLC? Ever? Anyone care to back that up with some facts? Now the puzzling part, what exactly does ‘…the issue, once again, receives a broader consensus as to the resoultion of that issue’ mean? Well, once that ‘consensus’ is reached, when, if ever, has a ‘resolution’ of one, or more, or any of the ‘heavy load’ of issues been reached? Documented? Reported to the community?

We know the board famously pronounced the club in violation of the agreement last year, adding publicly, that the club would be notified, yada, yada. That information was on our homepage for months, and the disappeared without a trace or explanation during the holidays.

Regarding ‘[CLC] members are tasked with doing an Annual Inspection of the club facilities paid for by the HOA, the results of which are provided to its residents.’ Okay, the CLC has produced 3 reports so far this year; in the last one, in April, based on a ‘current and very clear photo’, the dilapidation of the bulkhead on Red #3 was noted, and that the club as notified. That was the only ‘problem’ from the ‘heavy load’ of club issues reported this year.

‘Reported this year’…that’s interesting, as the CLC, for a living, breathing committee is  noticeably absent from (unnumbered) ‘page 2’ of the newsletter. And since we’re all dressed up here, we might as well delve a little into some other notable aspects of CLC’s performance YTD.

• • • The committee has had a slow and delayed start to its formal meeting cadence. They had “no action to report” in February, and their meeting on April 1, 2026, was explicitly designated as their “First Meeting of 2026”. (Prior meetings in late 2025 were informal and only attended by the Chairman). Having held only one formal meeting in the first four months of the year, the committee will need to meet frequently in the remaining months of 2026 to achieve its six-meeting mandate.
    • The committee’s progress on its core ‘Liaison and Advisory’ roles is currently stalled. Although the Chairman met informally with MPI in late 2025 to discuss key issues like the length of the agreement and MPI’s reluctance to provide a Certified Profit & Loss statement, negotiations hit a standstill due to “completely different” legal opinions from each party’s attorneys. By April 2026, the committee acknowledged it was in a “hold pattern” pending a final legal resolution between the Club and the HOA.
    •  The August article clarifies an important operational boundary to prevent resident confusion: the CLC “has nothing to do with any golf-related items” (such as the course, driving range, pro shop, or putting green). Their focus remains strictly on the community-funded physical facilities. Why is this qualification even required, and bolded. Surely, we residents have been fully pummeled with this distincition over the years, why remind us now? Or, is this published for the benefit of the developer in any possible legal action to defend their promised revenue stream from attack by rogue residents?