69°Clear

Reston Association Board Member Seeks Closure Following Scathing Critique of Tetra Purchase

by Fatimah Waseem February 21, 2018 at 12:00 pm 104 Comments

After reviewing a blistering report about Reston Association’s $2.65 million purchase of the Tetra property, the Board of Directors is mulling next steps.

Controversy surrounding the 2015 purchase, which cost RA nearly double the most recent tax assessment, continues to shadow the board.

In an effort to court closure, At-large Director John Bowman is seeking to involve legal counsel from the state to offer what could be the third review of the purchase. The draft motion will go before the board at their regular meeting at 6:30 p.m.

The proposal comes as two RA members, Moira Callaghan and Jill Gallagher, presented a scathing critique of the purchase in late January. The report flagged concerns about conflicts of interest, inadequate internal controls and limited transparency.

Last year, RA contracted StoneTurn Group to complete a $45,000 review of the purchase. The 30-page independent review included 15 recommendations to avoid a similar situation from happening in the future. In their review, Callaghan and Gallagher contend StoneTurn’s analysis was incomplete and insufficient.

Bowman said taking no further action after the members’ report would be “an avoidance of responsibility.” He also indicated forming a special board committee to review the members’ findings would require considerable board resources. The board may also lack qualifications to complete a review.

Engaging help from the state’s attorney would address “any potential concerns regarding forensic expertise,” Bowman noted.

The motion before the board tomorrow reads:

“Even though we would probably not be advised by the Commonwealth’s Attorney of any action deemed appropriate – we would have referred the matter to a qualified third party; the cost to the Reston Association would be minimal if any; and this Board could close the matter and focus on completing the internal controls.”

How do you hope RA’s board will respond to the report? Respond below.

File photo

  • Umust B Kidding

    Fire Fulkerson, Chadwick, McBride, Butler.

  • Donald

    Another review?

    How much is enough? The Reston Members have already spent a lot of time, money and resources on a true independent entity — StoneTurn.

    As I review who they are — they have an impressive background and are very well qualified.

    “.. StoneTurn is a leading forensic accounting, corporate compliance and expert services firm that assists attorneys, corporations and government agencies on a range of high-stakes legal and risk-related issues. With professionals located in offices across the U.S., and in the U.K. and Germany, as well as a network of senior advisers in numerous other countries, we provide expertise in: Litigation, Investigations, Compliance & Monitoring, Valuation, Forensic Technology and Data Analytics.”

    I thought their report was thorough, independent and most importantly — left the RA Members with a list of recommended improvements. We’re not even close to completing them.

    An now, one member, who just came on the Board, wants yet another independent review. What? If you don’t like the answer you want, you keep spending Member’s dollars, and staff resources, until you do?

    When massive redevelopment is rampant around us, precious golf courses are threatened, facilities are in need of repairs — don’t we think it’s time to say — “it’s done, let’s move on”.

    Donald

    • John Higgins

      Agree. And more to the point, they specifically stated when presenting their report that they found no evidence of a conflict of interest or criminal activity. This is what those folks do for a living. It’s quite amazing that the board is being further distracted from productive use of their time.

      • Guest

        Stoneturn said they found no conflict of interest under RA’s policy because it was not robust. See Stoneturn’s comments at 13:00:

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ph0Dv0dYRbk

        • John Higgins

          Thanks for the link. Yes, the policy was cited as in need of enhancement. But the more relevant portion of the video is found starting at 1:03. StoneTurn was asked quite specifically if they found anything that anything that might rise to a level of conflict of interest *in any other organization*. The answer was precise: No.

          • J Gallagher

            The fact that RA had people on the selection committee for the independent review who were signatories on legal papers related to the purchase? The fact that the contract that was provided to Mediaworld was provided by the attorneys who were central to the purchase? The fact that our hired contract manager selected an affiliate to conduct the renovation with no RFP or contract? There were actions that seemed to have created an appearance of conflict for many of us – If you look at our own county’s conflict policy, an “appearance” of conflict Is all that’s needed – if it erodes the public trust, even if it MAY erode trust, it’s considered a conflict. I think stoneturn got the finding right but wish they would have pushed for “appearance of conflict” or “potential conflict” clause found in other organizations like our county or our federal government.

          • John Higgins

            It’s true that appearances are important to preservation of trust. All professional codes of conduct warn to avoid appearances of conflicts. But appearances have to be put in context and shown to be relevant. Apart from some fear as to what the selection committee might have done, in the end their first choice was a team that was clearly not hand-picked to protect anyone. You will recall that MediaWorld had the opportunity to offer its own contract to RA, but declined to do so. The contractor’s recommendation of an associate (not an affiliate) should have been examined more closely by RA. That was a procurement management failure not a conflict of interests, unless someone suggests that a person in RA had a personal interest in the selection. There is a rhetorical fallacy called “Oversimplification”. Just sayin’.

          • J Gallagher

            Each of these things and more created distrust among the community – we just need to stop making excuses for decisions that could have been and should have been handled better – anyone on the Board could have been appointed to that selection committee yet they chose the only person who literally had her name on the line on this deal and Would have every interest in not having that review move forward. I do not recall them offering mediaworld the opportunity to present its own contract but do recall them signing a 4 page contract for an ethics firm and providing us a 19-page liability-laden, punitive contract for pro bono work. And insofar as the contract management is concerned – when you are paying a company over $100K to just manage construction and they miss a $400K overrun is one thing – but when you hire them AGAIN for an even bigger project – It makes me wonder if there’s some sort of conflict – there is context there, John – people didn’t know it and felt the conflict (look at the post above on Hook Road) – we need to stop minimizing bad back-room decisions and start expecting and creating a culture of transparent and financially sound decision making that are all in members’ best interest

          • 30yearsinreston

            Accountability is key
            RA has little, if any

          • 30yearsinreston

            ‘procurement management failure’
            Lol

          • Greg

            Your Just sayin’ is as clear as mud.

            RA affiliates, associates, and procurement management failures (or whatever you want to call them) are getting away with any manner of things — some of which may be crimes, and with impunity. Millions wasted on a now worthless facility.

            I call them incompetent, at best, and crooks.

    • OneReally

      Agreed.

      Let’s just fire anyone with a hand in the process of purchasing it. The board has been replaced.

      A swift and immediate clean out of the RA Senior leadership is enough for me now.

    • Umust B Kidding

      Also agree. We need ACTION, not more review, specifically the termination of Fulkerson, Chadwick, McBride, and Butler as well as improving any number of acquisition and management of projects. Kicking the can down the road rather than carrying out its official duties is too much like RA Board’s of the past. Do it now.

      • Donald

        I would prefer the board focus on the Enemies at the Gates.

        Developers, County Planners, redevelopment, density increases, open space encroachment, golf course destruction, maintenance of RA amenities, infrastructure. I can go on.

        Donald

        • Greg

          And the RA has failed at all of that. Miserably, while wasting millions of dollars on things over which is has no control and little influence. Isn’t madness defined as doing the same thing again and expecting different results?

    • Greg

      It’s a review by the Virginia Commonwealth’s Attorney — this does not cost RA or members a penny.

      https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/contact/AgencyDetail.aspx?agId=82

      • Why do you bother?

        OK, but to what end? There are no more unanswered questions, except what penalty will be handed down for malfeasance.

        • Greg

          Not necessarily. I pointed out in another comment what crimes and torts may have occurred. The CA’s review will not cost anyone and will be completed by lawyers fully experienced in criminal matters and will resolve it truly independently and with citizen / RA member best interests at hand.

          In any case, RA management, starting with Cate Fulkerson, and Chadwick Washington should be fired.

          After that, it’s time to move on and either make the Lake House a positively performing financial RA asset or dump it.

      • cosmo

        It’s our tax money they’re spending though.

        • Greg

          True, but the review will not add to your taxes nor will not reviewing deduct from them.

      • Donald

        So the Commonwealth’s Attorney will see an affidavit filed by a Board that voted on a disgruntled board member’s feelings, while that same board let a contract earlier in the year to a top forensics firm to do an unbiased review. A review which the board has taken little, to no action.

        Yes, I’d love to be a fly on that wall in Richmond.

        Donald

        • J Gallagher

          The staff and Board have taken action on many of stoneturns recommended actions.

        • Greg

          The CA’s office is in Fairfax. Neither you nor I have any idea what they will look at and what they may pursue.

          And, more importantly, we are not talking about feelings. I posted elsewhere what the torts and crimes may be.

          The “forensics” firm is not staffed with fill-time, trained, specialist attorneys who prosecute crime. They are also not unbiased, uninterested, or both.

          Let the CA’s office do what it is paid and there to do.

  • Milos Foreman

    Being a new homeowner in Reston, specifically in South Lakes, can anyone tell me how the Director representing South Lakes (Blitzer (sp)) voted on this issue? From what I have read about this issue, that could be the issue that decides how I will vote, unless that Director can address the issue since she did not in her candidate statement.

    Thanks.

    • John Higgins

      Ms. Bitzer was not on the board when it voted to sign a conditional purchase contract or when they put the question to a vote of the membership by referendum. Suggest you read the report by the StoneTurn Group for a comprehensive (and competent) review of this whole matter.

      https://www.reston.org/Portals/3/2017%20News%20Releases/Reston%20Association%20Report%20Stone%20Turn17.pdf

      • Umust B Kidding

        Ms. Bitzer was running for the SL position on the RA Board and was an enthusiastic supporter of the Tetra building purchase–without having read the appraisal or done any other research on the matter.

        • John Higgins

          Fine. But that’s not the question asked by Milos. As the informed observer I believe you are, you know that board candidates have virtually no ability to research decisions taken by their predecessors. I disagreed with her (and half the members who voted on the question) as to the purchase, but I accept the outcome of the process. By the way, both the 2010 and 2015 independent appraisals of that property supported the seller’s asking price. Both documents are available on RA’s website.

          • J Gallagher

            A lower price was supported by the appraisals (both) as well.

          • John Farrell

            No, they didn’t. Neither appraisal supported the $2.65 Million price.

          • John Higgins

            Thanks for the invitation, but I must decline. In this forum it’s appropriate to cut hairs, not to split them. Hope we can explore this one day over a distilled beverage.

          • cRAzy

            The dodge…..
            You are wrong on this Mr. Higgins. NEITHER appraisal supported the $2.65MM price–and that’s a pretty damn big hair to split!

          • John Higgins

            If wrong, it sure won’t be the first time. The hair I had in mind was the word “supported”. The appraisal was quite clear in saying that the property had an indicated value of $2.65 million if developed to its expanded restaurant potential. Clearly, some argue that such development faced significant regulatory barriers. But the seller, and others, believed it was possible. The appraisals said, in effect, if you can put a restaurant there, the site is worth what the seller is asking. And that’s why RA commissioned the appraisal. It appeared to me that RA was so fearful of commercial development, once they determined the seller had not simply plucked a number out of the air, they fell to the “take it or leave it” offer by the seller. Fault the negotiation, fault the diligence of examining the development potential…fine. But I resist spreading across the community the notion that the appraisal said one thing and the RA disregarded it.

          • 30yearsinreston

            Fake facts
            The appraisals did not support the ask

        • Why do you bother?

          ” was an enthusiastic supporter of the Tetra building purchase–without having read the appraisal or done any other research on the matter.”

          So, just like the sitting board.

          • John Farrell

            Not really. The only supporters of the Tetra purchase who are still on the RA Board are Ms. Bitzer and Mr. Sanio. Mr. Sanio is term-limited and will leave the Board in April.

            Ms. Bitzer is running for re-election.

      • guest

        You were treasurer during the purchase, right? When did you learn that the appraisal was for a restaurant with deferred maintenance included? Isn’t that how the appraisal met the seller’s desired price? What was your advice to the board and association staff at the time?

        • John Higgins

          Yes, I served until May 2015, just before the referendum. The need for repairs and deferred maintenance issues was generally known in the first quarter of 2015. Specifics were delivered in an engineering report in April. Much has been made of the deferred maintenance issue, incorrectly in my view. The place needed repairs and RA said, do the repairs and we will pay the asking price. Later, the seller offered to give RA the money for the work rather than doing it himself. Risky, but RA accepted.

          I don’t recall when I first learned that restaurant potential was a factor, but I suspect it was immediately prior to the vote to send the question to referendum.

          My advice to the board was to slow down, gather a lot more data before holding a referendum. I was unconvincing.

          After I left office, the membership approved the purchase. Speaking then as a member, I urged the board in writing to default on the purchase contract, forfeit the deposit (I think it was $27,000) and dodge this bullet. Again, unconvincing.

  • Someone call the FBI pls

    This issue is far from being resolved. In fact it cropped up again when vendors were called and contracted to provide an estimate how and when to overhaul Hook Road Park. So again we re looking at millions of dollars in expenditures although the community has said, loud and clear, we do not want a parking lot and some want to leave the wall also. So again, the whole process is flawed and circumvents any community input.

    When will the 18000 households under RA wake up and smell the coffee, telling the board loud and clear that their wrong doing has to stop? Because Rescue Reston sure has not done a good job from rescuing Reston from developer interests, except for one case which is ongoing.

    Sorry for the long response.

  • Greg

    It’s Commonwealth’s Attorney in Virginia. And, yes, it’s time.

    Time to seek justice with the involved board members, the RA CEO and staff, or all for fraudulent concealment, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion. Criminal and civil.

  • Why do you bother?

    Yeah, I’m sure they want to “move on”. I’d like to see them move on…and off the board, preferably into jail for mishandling of stakeholder funds.

    • Umust B Kidding

      Only Sanio (soon to leave) was on the Board when this decision was made. Bitzer was campaigning to get on the Board then (2016) and enthusiastically supported the Tetra purchase.

  • 30yearsinreston

    Raze the building and turn it into a 24X7 dog park
    If the lakefront property owners dont like it, they can buy it

  • Reston1970

    If a review by the CA has the potential to result in criminal charges for any or all involved, I am all for it. So far NOBODY has paid for this boondoggle, and they need to. Short term, every single person on staff who had their hands in this MUST loose their job. Period.

  • Mike M

    Townies will be townies and they generally get away with it.

  • RestonRick

    Didn’t we, the citizens of Reston vote to buy lake house in 2015? This article seems to be pretty one sided. This appears to a political power grab power by getting people riled up on an old issue. I’m tired of the politics of grievance and hate to see it seeping into Reston. If we vote for the “slate” (the voting block of Sridhar, Tammi, John and Travis) we’ll lose our independence. We will replace good independent minds willing make compromises with a group of people with a pre-planned agenda that are also out to extract their pound of flesh for a single issue they don’t agree with. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7e3cb8aa5f92b7667f85b92a9b7540857cc16379a5b4b65227f1cd523aa8b872.gif

    • Donald

      I understand the slate will be called “4 for Reston”.

      These people aligned with Hebert, Bowman and Carr will create a majority that will always allow any of their motions to pass. The other board members might as well stay at home.

      Donald

      • Guest

        Hearing? How about providing some facts with proof. Thanks.

      • J Gallagher

        So there was an old board who were part of the tetra affair, who voted unanimously to support its purchase. A new crew is now in there trying to clean things up. Now there are four running who support the new board’s efforts to clean things up, strengthen policies, transparency, etc . And you don’t want us voting for them because…?

        • Donald

          Because they are no better than the other board, if not worse. Gaining a voting majority at this community level will be extremely detrimental.

          Assume they get a hair up their A$$ and decide to close down amenities like programs or pools. With a guaranteed majority voting block, there is nothing the community or the remaining board members can do.

          Eliminating outside counsel is also a big tell-tale. A big one.

          It’s absolutely frightening. This board’s (and every board’s) primary responsibility is to protect the value of my home. And so far this board has not looked at any of the critical issues facing Reston — redevelopment, traffic, density, open space encroachment, Hidden Creek, the Kensington encroaching into the PRC. Nothing. It’s shameful.

          Vote them all out.

          Donald

          • John Higgins

            I don’t claim unique insight, but I have uncommon perspective. I participated on seventeen RA boards. Two or three of those (I’m too lazy to research) included Bob Simon himself and the highly respected John Lovaas. Some boards focused on responsible, passive governance (a good thing in my view) and some were driven by activists. None, in my opinion, were bad boards; instead, I’d categorize them on scale of productivity. But common to all of them was a vocal minority – often a minority of one – who questioned, irritated, or shamed the board toward greater deliberation. It is indeed dangerous to our interests to have a board lacking diversity of views.

            At the meeting when StoneTurn delivered its report, John Bowman wisely admonished the board to avoid “group think”. That’s not likely to be a self-initiative, voters will have to enable it. We would do well to listen to what the candidates have to say and vote according to how their individual positions suggest a direction we approve. Speaking for myself, I value independence and will be looking for that more than the perennial promise of reform.

          • Donald

            I too am looking for those that demonstrate independent thinking and critical thinking.

            This isn’t a “you’re either with us, or against us” community — at least it wasn’t that way when I moved here over 44 years ago.

            I’m looking at those who intend to focus on the big issues facing Reston — development, and redevelopment, aging infrastructure, and encroachment. Having a positive attitude will go a long way with me too.

            Donald

          • J Gallagher

            Eliminating outside counsel is the first step toward independence. Outside counsel sucks nearly $1 million from our budget which could be used to pay for those amenities that lend value to our homes. And not for nothing but one outside counsel not only draws a huge salary from RA but also reserves the right to represent the wolves at the door as you say – developers and those pushing density increases in Reston. We need in-house counsel who is solely dedicated to the interest of RA members.

          • Donald

            I feel sorry for this individual. I suspect land use, contracting, covenants, legal committee decisions, design review board items, etc., will be a hell of a work load. Wondering how many staff and resources he’ll be hiring and procuring?

            Having seen this before, it won’t be too long before the in-house attorney will be soliciting outside counsel to assist him. The budget will look for he same in the future. Just different buckets.

            Donald

          • Donald

            Guess you got your wish. Who’s the new attorney?

            Donald

          • J Gallagher

            You know more than I do apparently – are you in the inner circle of folks in the know?

          • J Gallagher

            Wait – the old Board voted unanimously on every single decision – not once did any member dissent or even abstain – worse the decisions were discussed behind closed doors so we couldn’t even hear the debate or see the vote – this Board is telling you what they are going to do in advance of the meeting so you can show up and speak out on it if you want – not sure how this trend toward transparency – which needed a majority to happen – is a bad thing??

          • Donald

            The agenda packets have been published, ahead of time, since the ROA days. Quit twisting the facts to justify your opinions.

            Donald

          • John Higgins

            Ms. Gallagher points to a recurring problem. One even the well-intentioned current board struggles with. Far too frequently, the material in agenda packages consists of simply a title page with a note that something will be provided at the meeting. In some cases that’s done by making it available in the directors’ Dropbox, which we members cannot view.
            If backup material is not available for advance review, the issue is not ripe and ought to be deferred, except in the most rare cases.
            Last meeting the board withdrew to executive session to do a CEO performance review. They emerged with a motion to hire an independent counsel. Huh? No doubt we will learn more, but it’s a current example of the nebulous practice Ms. Gallagher refers to.

          • Donald

            The board decided to hire an inside counsel? Really, without any member comment? What happened to the CEO? This is getting absolutely ridiculous!

            Donald

          • Greg

            Independent or inside counsel?

            And, yes, what happened to the CEO?

          • John Higgins

            Independent.
            We can presume that the two-hour executive session also resulted in a CEO performance appraisal, the details of which are never published.

          • Donald

            A two-hour executive session, no published outcomes. I smell collusion. One cabal’s agenda to the next cabal’s agenda.

            Nothing changes.

            Donald

          • Greg

            Conspiracy. Call the CA’s office…

          • John Higgins

            Hope I didn’t add to confusion. The decision to seek in-house counsel was taken when the board passed the 2018-2019 budgets. To my knowledge, their search continues.

            The motion to hire an *independent counsel* is different. I expect we will hear more about that this evening. I cited it only as an example of moves that originate outside of sunlight with no opportunity for member input. (By the way, I’m content with the board governing without subjecting every decision to referendum. This one was just curious.)

          • Donald

            Independent counsel ? Why? I really smell something here. It’s in a brown bag, on our doorstep.

            Donald

        • Donald

          Any corporate entity should be extremely fearful of boards that have an established and agreed upon majority voting block.

          Other board members in the minority will never have the ability to make an impact, and will be relegated to the back of the bus – useless figures with no voice.

          Just do a search on “dysfunctional board of directors” or “when corporate boards go rogue”.

          Donald

          • Greg

            That’s conspiracy. All the more reason to get the CA’s office involved — now and then if such a conspiracy occurs.

          • Donald

            It’s happening real-time.

            Donald

          • J Gallagher

            So the last Board who voted unanimously on everything was…???

          • Donald

            You miss my point entirely. Good deflection, but it won’t work.

            I said — MAJORITY.

            If and when your team, “4 for Reston” is voted in, and aligned with your colleagues Carr and Hebert, you will have a united, majority voting block. The remaining three board members will be powerless/useless.

            It’s a well orchestrated plan, I give you credit. But, it will be horrible for the community. It’s quite apparent, from other commenters here, pools and other member amenities are on the chopping block.

            All while developers and land use planners eat RA’s proverbial lunch.

            Sad, just sad.

            Donald

      • Umust B Kidding

        You really are missing the point, and doing so intentionally.

        • Donald

          I think I totally understand RestonRick’s point, and agree with him.

          Donald

    • J Gallagher

      Many people voted based on information that was not quite complete/accurate –

      • Greg

        That’s support for the causes of action on fraudulent concealment and conspiracy.

        Forensic accountants are not the appropriate finders of fact on these.

    • Bernie Supporter

      “We will replace good independent minds willing make compromises with a group of people with a pre-planned agenda”

      Well said. Definitely will vote against the entire “Four For Reston” slate, and I urge others to vote them down, too.

  • 30yearsinreston

    Why should the perpetrators of this brazen scam continue to profit ?
    Its not enough to sweep the facts under the carpet just because they are messy
    The Commonwealth Attorney is the correct office to determine if any illegality occurred

    Why should they not be consulted

  • Margaret P

    At this point learn the lessons, make changes for the better and be done. The constant need to have someone’s head is ridiculous. The board members have changed. The RA employees did the jobs they were told to do. The lake house does rent and was bringing in money from programs that people complained about, so RA stopped. Which is absolutely ridiculous if a program is bringing in money or at least covering its costs – do it. Enough is enough. There are far more issues that need to be addressed on a daily basis then were mistakes made years ago. The answer is yes, learn, live and move on.

    • Greg

      What “far more issues” need to be addressed?

      How do you know the RA employees did the jobs they were told to do?

      How is a program covering its costs if the lake house is losing money?

      Do we spend millions of dollars to provide highly subsidized daycare for 22 kids? When there are plenty of other options available?

      • Donald

        All of our amenities and programs are highly subsidized. That’s to be expected.

        RA is not a for profit enterprise, there shouldn’t be profit centers. Otherwise, we might as well start filling in pools, bulldozing tennis courts, eliminating path maintenance and snow removal, stop caring for thousands of trees, stop maintaining the lake dams, and just up our liability insurance about 10 times it’s present coverage.

        Donald

        • Greg

          No, Donald, in addition to deflecting from my unanswered questions, highly subsidized daycare for 22 kids is not an amenity. And especially one for which a now worthless building was purchased and renovated for $2.65+ million — and even more so when there are plenty of other alternatives avaialble. That nearly $3 million could have been put to much better use — or better yet never spent to begin with.

          And not for profit does not mean operate at huge losses.

          RA advertises (at what cost we wonder) ALL of it’s so-called “amenities,” for use by paying customers who are not RA members. While this may appear noble, it also makes it obvious that there are too many amenities that are used too infrequently by those of us who pay the RA assessment.

          The more underused pools, open for fewer than 90 days a year at that, filled in the better. Let the underused tennis courts revert to natural space.

          • Donald

            So, which pools have you and your team decided to shut down? I’d like Reston Now and the Connection to write that article as quickly as possible. The community needs to know before the elections.

            Donald

          • Greg

            Donald — that’s sarcastic, and unbecoming of you, but funny all the same.

            it’s news to no one that we advocate for closing pools and tennis courts.

            But for the record, I’d shut all but two to four large destination pools that are heated, have heated outdoor hot tubs, and can operate all year. I’d shut all of the tennis courts and fire the entire RA tennis staff — and I would abolish STD #5.

            Home values are most affected by schools, not obsolete, outdated, underused relics from the hippy era.

          • Donald

            Who’s the “we” that you refer to?

            Donald

          • Greg

            I’m English and used British English. In American English, the correct use is “me” (singular “I” in this instance).

          • Donald

            Thank you for the clarification.

            Donald

          • Conservative Senior

            You have my vote!

    • Donald

      Here here.

      Donald

      • Why do you bother?

        You meant “hear, hear,” right?

    • 40yearsinreston

      Without accountability, a similar fiasco will occur

      Free passes don’t work

      • Donald

        It is occurring right now.

        The “4 for Reston” with Hebert and Carr are in the thick of it already.

        Donald

        • J Gallagher

          What is occurring now?

    • Why do you bother?

      Told to do by whom?

  • Donald

    It appears, at the moment, 72% of the viewers of this article are disagreeing with Mr. Bowman’s motion.

    Donald

    • J Gallagher

      When multiple monikers are the same person it doesn’t really count

      • Donald

        My goodness, saying anything to keep your agenda alive.

        Donald

  • Yeahno

    Dump the board, someone laundered some $$$$$

    • 40yearsinreston

      follow the $$$

  • Umust B Kidding

    Mr. Bowman’s proposal is totally unnecessary and ultimately ridiculous. The only thing the state’s attorney will look for is whether there is a criminal act it can prove in court among the pathetic series of decisions and actions by the RA actors. It will not suggest any actions by RA. From a Reston perspective, it doesn’t really matter whether there were specifically illegal actions (and I don’t see any). What matters is that an incredible number of stupid decisions were made, some of which may have financially benefited individuals/companies inappropriately. Fire these actors; problem solved.

    • 30yearsinreston

      I would prefer that the CA tell us that
      You have no standing
      From the perspective of accountability it extremely important for Reston

  • J Gallagher

    How about 2014, 2015, 2016 Boards when tetra decisions were made?

    • John Higgins

      That’s a lot more research than I’m inclined to do. A quick look confirms my memory, it was rare for all decision items to pass unanimously. Regarding Tetra, it’s likely you will not find dissenting votes.

      • J Gallagher

        Yeah that’s what I saw also – that’s what I was referring to – tetra – big big decisions being made in Exec session w no public debate – you are correct – I recall some Board members saying there was pressure to move ahead quickly, to vote yes –

  • TRS

    FRAUD MUST BE INVESTIGATED. Follow the money.

  • MJSouth

    The report states could have been handled much better and presented specifics for future endeavors as in any other business concern. To continue the “gotcha” mentality brings into question the motives of a board looking more and more dysfunctional.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list