Evidence of the Dangers of having Mitch Nearby?
Mitch Waterman has earned many years of my disgust, and of course attention. He's not the only one -- but the guy some called "Bitch Waterboy" is a special case worthy of note. (Note for the lawyers -- please,please, please make this a public case open to discovery and public discussion! There is still time! I have preserved all of the evidence and much more than is published. I have all the screen shots, some video and images, and many perfectly legal audio recordings).
The following was found on Facebook. The bolding has been added to help highlight certain parts that might otherwise go under-appreciated. Screen shots available upon request.
If true, and I believe it is, this clearly demonstrates the recognized hazard that is a "disgruntled" former community manager named Mitch Waterman:
Facebook post Warning of the Unbridled Ex-employee
"It is standard practice to immediately release a Key Manager once they have announced their intent to resign from the Company - with pay thru the term of their Contract.
I am requesting the Executive Committee take the following actions immediately:
Remove Mitch Waterman from all SVCA Accounts and debit cards;
Change all administrative passwords to SVCA bank accounts, websites, and security cameras;
Immediately deactivate his company email account(s) or change password(s);
Ensure all keys are returned (and locks changed in areas housing sensitive information or equipment); and,
Ensure the return of all physical property belonging to SVCA, along with any confidential documents.
As Mitch Waterman has clearly stated, he has made the decision to resign, he should not be entitled to any severance nor a claim of Unemployment Insurance benefits. If he has expenses that are to be reimbursed, he must make a claim prior to his exit.
SVCAs attorney must draft an appropriate Exit Agreement with Mitch Waterman which protects SVCA from potential liability caused by Waterman. THE EXIT AGREEMENT MUST INCLUDE A REHIRE PROHIBITION. This will preclude him from being rehired as an employee or consultant for a minimum period of 5 yrs (20 yrs is my preference). This prohibition should include the provision that he will not return to work for SVCA in any capacity, even if he later becomes an employee of any SVCA contracted Company for the stated exclusion period.
The Executive Committee must meet swiftly with SVCA managers and staff. Conduct interviews with managers and key staff, and determine if their loyalty is with an obviously disgruntled exiting General Manager, or with the SVCA Corporation. If necessary, immediately release any managers or staff that may cause damage to or create liability for SVCA by, among other things, copying, downloading, or deleting critical data; misusing or misappropriating SVCA funds, debits cards, or bank accounts.
The Sudden Valley Community Association is a Corporation with annual revenue of approx. $4.5 million with assets totaling close to $12 million. Yet, the Executive Committee failed in their duties - by not only inappropriately hiring an inexperienced sitting BOD Director as SVCAs General Manager - but, the Executive Committee failed to respond to the years of complaints lodged against Waterman and certain staff. As current and former SVCA Board Presidents, Larry Brown and Leslie McRoberts were aware of the claims filed with the SVCA BOD and attorney based on Waterman's alleged acts of extortion, intimidation, and mismanagement. There have been Board Meetings and SV Views articles discussing accusations of Waterman drinking on the job; harassing, disrespecting and targeting certain employees and SVCA Owners; and, at least one complaint filed with the IRS surrounding several potential violations in which he was a direct participant.
Due to SVCAs Executive Committee's reluctance to act, the Sudden Valley Association and its Owners have been left exposed. We have no way of knowing the ultimate monetary damage to this Corporation simply by retaining inexperienced management for such a lengthy period. The resignation of Mitch Waterman, and the obvious animosity associated with the failure of the SVCA Board to renew his contract, require the Executive Committee take immediate action to protect SVCA Owners and our individual and collective Assets."
UPDATED 1/28/2016 :Sudden Valley Community Association Rewrites History, Continues to Hide
The SVCA Board held a second "hearing" last week. I am told they blocked any questions from the audience. They have now issued a new message to the public on their website. It re-asserts their claims, and re-writes some of the history in their favor, to try and make things look legitimate.
So sad to see this board so corrupt, including whatever "new board" approved this message
Anyway, this will now all have to be sorted out in another much more expensive venue, but here I do want to address some of the very specified lies and misdirections they are putting out in the public messaging:
1. When the SVCA says "When Security subsequently learned where he lived, they sent the citations to his address. There was no response to the letters, and so a copy of the notice of violation was sent to Ms. McCormac who is the owner of record of that property" they want you to believe they technically acted responsibly. They want you to assume that this is true, when in fact it is a lie.
Mitch Waterman claimed to have sent the letters but they were never received, and when challenged immediately on that, Sudden Valley failed to show any evidence they had been sent. This was noted from the very beginning, and raised during 4 appeal hearings.
I think the SVCA has been advised to rewrite this part of history so there is less of an appearance of extortion against a landlord, with an active avoidance of the tenant and actual witness to the event.
2. When SVCA says "The tenant appealed his fine and received a hearing by a three member panel of the Board. This panel reduced his fine. He then opted for an appeals hearing before the full Board, minus the three Board members who had heard the original appeal. The tenant didn’t show up for that hearing so the reduced fine was upheld". Mr. McRoberts and the SVCA board are, again, attempting to rewrite history.
The tenant (me) appealed the fine, yes, but via a corrupt court where information was purposefully withheld from me, including the details of the mysterious "speeding ticket" Mr. McRoberts wants you to believe existed from the beginning.
I don't use the word "corrupt" lightly. When one of the board members actually has to ask ME what fines the hearing is about, and has to ask Mitch Waterman to correct her own paperwork about the fines being addressed, and a second (of three) board member has to openly state that I was not given and am not to be given a copy of the materials under review at that very "hearing", it is by definition corrupt.
3. When SVCA states "This panel reduced his fine" they do so in a context that suggests the reduction was an outcome of the appeal hearing. I suppose they want you to think they were reasonable.
In fact that fine was reduced BEFORE the hearing, which is in writing from their own lawyer. In fact, the board members themselves didn't even know the purpose of the appeal hearing before I asked them AT THE MEETING and Mitch Waterman made it up, on the spot (clumsily, I might add).
As has been previously outlined in testimony, they made up these fines as they went along... first there were then 3, then 4, some reduced, added, changed... as fit their needs. Some were backdated, and falsly witnessed... which they admitted in an appeal hearing.
This new public messaging from SVCA suggests they feel a strong need to cover up their actions and and sway public opinion towards a new, crafted version of history.
4. Perhaps most telling is the final paragraphs... where Mr. McRoberts attempts to explain away preventing the "full board" from deliberating on what was supposed to be a "appeal before the full board", and reducing fines. The saddest part is where he paints AJ McCormac as unruly and discourteous... disgusting behavior from this board and especially it's board chairman, in my opinion.
I note that they carefully attempt to "repeal" the defamatory letter of June 10, claming that to be a gesture of good will. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to "take back" lies and libelous letters like that... they are a matter of public record, for which Mitch Waterman and the SVCA Board should be held accountable.
Let's get that "letter of June 10" up into the public eye, shall we? Soon enough.
Sudden Valley Landlord Appeals
Tomorrow, Thursday evening Jan 14, the SVCA Board will meet (again) to listen (again) to a landlord describe how Mitch Waterman fabricated a dramatic fake story, compelled his staff to lie to support him, and used his administrative position to push fines and penalties onto a tenant and a landlord in Sudden Valley.
This is a "second appeal" because the first appeal led to nothing. The tenant's separate appeal also led to nothing but continued false charges and this website.
Despite overwhelming evidence of foul play on the apart of SV staff, and zero evidence of wrongdoing by the tenant or the landlord, the SVCA Board allows the false charges to stand, maintains a slanderous claim against the tenant's reputation, threatens the tenant with Small Claims Court, and even increased the fines for the landlord.
Any reasonable person would be ashamed of these proceedings, and aghast at the outcomes thus far. Reasonable people doing just that so far include an elected County representative, lawyers, two deputies, real estate professionals, professional mediators, business people, scientists, and other Sudden Valley residents.
Yet the board persists in pushing the false charges, and the NOT ONE BOARD MEMBER acknowledges the problem in public, despite a very smart and honorable professional negotiator trying very hard to navigate some outcome that is better than these embarrassing and most likely illegal actions.
All of this on your dime, by the way. The legal costs this far have been substantial, according to a report of comments allegedly made by a concerned board member. And these legal costs are not part of a defense against a lawsuit (which insurance might have covered). This is your SVCA Board spending real money to pursue these false charges over and over, through 4 appeals, despite overwhelming contrary evidence, as if driven by a vendetta (or fear of liability for the initial lies).
Where is the leadership in Sudden Valley?
Behind the scenes, I have been told of this board person and that board person agreeing with the evidence, feeling the charges were made up, disagreeing with the board votes, disagreeing with the board members that are leading this scam, and disagreeing with Mitch Waterman's methods and claims. I've even heard of apologies expressed... yet the appeals happen, the votes get counted (allegedly), and the charges stand.
There is no outcome from this blind pursuit of ego, ambition, fraud, or cover-up that is good for Sudden Valley residents, Sudden Valley real estate values, or the community.
The only right move is to acknowledge the mistakes, express a sincere intent to improve things, and plan to move forward with integrity.
What will the board do this time? Tomorrow is their last official opportunity to fix the problem, or choose to make it worse.
Update: No word on whether this "hearing" will be public or not, or whether recording will be permitted. One day before and it's not clear if it will be another "closed to the public" meeting with no transparency.
Living in Sudden Valley! lol but not really laughing, more like crying
They hate this video, but it's so very true in Sudden Valley. You don't have to believe me... you can just live there yourself and dare try to trim a tree, plant a bush, adjust a window sill, or object to a "committee" decision. And the roaming nits with clip boards? REAL! And they travel in packs!