First and foremost, the Water Company will only deliver water.
The Water Company exists solely to deliver water to its member as required by law, its charter and its bylaws.
After cleaning up the mess, our plan will bring lower rates with better service, transparency, ethics and fairness to the Water Company as follows:
So that’s the broad strokes of the plan. Vote for us to give us a shot.
July 19, 2018 > Dan Norton and Mark Stamas are pleased to announce their candidacy to the Cascadel Mutual Water Company board, to fill the two vacant seats that expired in June 2018.
First, the beginning of the story. The night of the June 2018 nregular water board meeting Mark Stamas called a Water Company board member to find out who is on the Water Company board and to ask a question. The board member didn’t really know.
The board member not only couldn’t name the board, when he tried, he named people from the POA board. The particular person he named, is not a water member, and thus couldn’t possibly be on the water board.
This tells us that the opposition has so confused Cascadel that a board member on the Water Board doesn’t know who is on the board, and can’t differentiate between the opposition’s two boards. Not surprising. But disappointing.
Mark then asked this board member if the Water Company board and the opposition’s POA board are secretly planning to force the Water Company to “assume the responsibility for roads” as they later described it, thus making the Water Company impose on our property rights. The board member said he is not at liberty to say.
This tells us that the opposition has absolute control over his board members and routinely conducts business secretly. We won’t.
In the course of the remaining conversation, what became clear is there is a plan to “assume” roads at the Water Company. We were informed of their plan in a survey mailed immediately after this phone call.
Mark immediately decided to run against the opposition at the annual meeting, and said he was considering a run and asked for that board member’s support.
It’s safe to say that it was also this conversation that triggered the first election postponement. This is disenfranchisement. Then, we did run, and now it’s been postponed again.
As to why the oppositions plans to make the “more financially secure” Water Company “assume the responsibility for roads”?
In practical terms, the opposition’s POA is broken. Plus, he plans to use the Water Company to sue again, anyone choosing not to contribute to his “managing entity” or whatever convoluted mess he creates next The court was clear. Owners can contribute to roads any way they like, such as the Fire Safe Council.
In other words, the opposition has no standing or authority to collect for “roads” no matter what letterhead “managing entity” he uses.
The opposition always has had, and continues to have, a “my way or the highway” approach. Though he hides behind his boards, in practical terms, there are no boards.
There is a lack of evidence that directors are thinking for themselves. Sadly, it’s safe to say the Water Company has become a personal front for the opposition too, just like his POA.
In sworn written testimony before the small claims court, the opposition revealed the POA is his personal “managing entity” and “point of collection”. At this point, it seems likely the same is true of the Water Company now. We need open discussion, transparency and inclusion.
Once the opposition learned of the phone conversation described above, the opposition sent a survey, announcing their plan to “merge” the opposition’s two fronts.
What this history confirms, is that the fate of the Water Company is now likely to be exactly the same as the POA.
That is, if we stand by and do nothing.
The opposition has never had to defend his position in a competitive election. Now he does for the first time. If somehow, the opposition is reelected, there is a real potential for the Water Company to go down the drain, no pun intended, just like the POA. His POA is our model. After nine years under the opposition, for all intents and purposes his POA is finished. Otherwise, he would not be proposing roads for the “more financially secure” Water Company now.
He has already disenfranchised us by denying us our legally required annual election, without cause. Twice.
Here’s one potential scenario if these shenanigans continue:
All of the above speculation describes activity that is likely criminal. The law seems to mean nothing to the opposition. For example, when the original POA went defunct, the opposition just took over with illegal elections and illegal business. Who knows how long since there was a legal Water Company election.
Based on the opposition’s record there is a high likelihood the Water Company is next in line for failure.
Expecting a different result is insane by definition.
Please vote for Dan Norton and Mark Stamas for the Water Company.
Please email email@example.com to voice your views and support us.
The opposition has already stalled the election three times. There is a high likelihood of more delays.
Vote for Dan Norton and Mark Stamas to Save the Water Company.