- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
MY LUNCH WITH CANDIDATE MICHELLE SHARPLES!
By Robert Sterin
Michelle Sharples( candidate for SCA board) and I had lunch Monday at Craft Kitchen at her request and I hadn’t been there in a long long time and it was delicious.
The lunch was very cordial but serious for the most part. My first serious question to her was to confirm that her company was paid for services by SCA to provide musical entertainment for Masterpiece Cuisine’s Happy Hours while she served on the Restaurant Committee. She confirmed that to be true.
I asked her next why she didn’t disclose that potential conflict of interest on her candidate declaration. I didn’t like her answer and provided her a copy of NRS116.31034 which states that : “9.Each person who is nominated as a candidate for membership on the executive board must:
(a) Make a good faith effort to disclose any financial, business, professional or personal relationship or interest that would result or would appear to a reasonable person to result in a potential conflict of interest for the candidate if the candidate were to be elected to serve as a member of the executive board;”
She didn’t think she had a duty to disclose. From a transparency and ethical perspective I believe she did. Michelle is very sharp and detail oriented. I urged her to amend her disclosure form and she felt she did not have an obligation to do so.
I believe a reasonable person could see her business interests to be a potential conflict of interest due to her past practice clouding her as a candidate and a potential board member. Her failure to disclose in my view failed to meet the requirements of the law and at a minimum, disclosure to homeowners was conveniently overlooked and as such a breach of ethics. Accordingly this ought to disqualify her candidacy. Where was the SCA attorney? Who gave her a pass?
Shawn Hicks , chair of the Election Committee? He certainly knew. Oh, he was also chair of Restaurant Committee. Conflict? Damn right! The official conflict complaint filed with the board that was on the February board agenda was ignored. Pieces beginning to fit?
I was getting the feeling I was being played. Hopefully you understand that concept.
But that wasn’t my biggest issue with her. She confirmed that she had read the draft MC contract and blessed it going forward as did the committee. But when I pointed out that every financial person and finance committee person past and present who had read the contract none of them supported it as it was such a bad deal for SCA including current Treasurer Forrest Quinn. I went through a couple of the big points with her like the fact that the drafted contract did not guarantee the full service restaurant. She said to me that “I must look at the big picture” and went on spinning for 3-4 minutes. At the end I said the big picture doesn’t guarantee a full service restaurant which was the whole idea of the Restaurant Committee. ” How could you support that? ” I asked. I said how was that in the best interests of SCA homeowners? She replied ,”without big deficits a full service restaurant would never work and we weren’t going to do that?”
I said to myself for such a smart entrepreneur how is it possible she blessed this contract with only a guarantee of the continued pop up services with limited number of days and hours which they now call the bridge?
Another candidate says he was told by Michelle that she had not read the contract initially when Shawn Hicks submitted it to board. That is consistent with what another restaurant committee member had told me. I find it rather troubling that Ms. Sharples statements are inconsistent at best.
I was being played. And so are you.
THEN THE BIG SHOCKER. I said “How could you bless this deal without an escape clause?” And she stated there was one. I said ” Show me.”.
Because we got along well, I said how could you expect a homeowner to support you with such a glaring hole in the contract? She insisted that the escape clause was there. I said please show it to me if you can find it. She couldn’t. And now the board agenda for March 27th confirms that Ms. Sharples got this wrong too. And frankly she has been working closely with Shawn Hicks who clearly has been out negotiated by Masterpiece Cuisine.
The current proposed long term deal with MC is such a bad deal for SCA and Michelle supports it. That should tell you enough.
So I ask myself. Ok you are being played. But what’s in it for her? Frankly I don’t care. But if you are considering voting for her, you should care.
I say to you ,the homeowners, the same thing I say to myself, why would you want a board member who clearly is blessing a very bad deal and also wrongfully has believed critical clauses to protect SCA and its homeowners were in the contract BUT THEY WERE NOT? Again she is neither consistent nor accurate. She is an agent of smoke and mirrors. She is a good sales person. I think you the homeowner are being played.
On the lighter side….
When the check came for lunch we both insisted on paying. She said she invited me and she did. But I proposed to her that we do Rock, Paper, Scissors two out of three times and whomever wins doesn’t pay. She agreed. Michelle is very smart and determined and really a lot of fun. So on the count of 3 I threw Rock and she threw Scissors. Rock smashes Scissors. One for me. After many years of doing this game I knew that women generally throw Scissors on the first throw 90% of the time. The trick is what happens next and that is not so easily predictable. There was a pregnant pause as Michelle and I studied each other. Then on the count of 3 I threw Rock again and she threw Scissors again. I won. The moral of this story is that there is no free lunch .LOL! Losing at Rock, Paper , Scissors is not a disqualifying factor. But supporting a truly bad catering/ non restaurant deal is. Food and beverage service for SCA is a good idea. This is just the wrong deal.Fellow homeowners please join with me and voting for only 4 candidates led by James Mayfield, Clara Lau, James Sypitkowski and Martin Maxey. By voting for only these 4 we can, if elected, have 2 years of solid common sense competent governance. There is so much work for the new board to do. This current board is leaving a mess. While Michelle is smart, smooth ,fun and articulate her ethical choices and business judgment for SCA are not what we need. Please support the above 4 candidates without casting your 5th vote.
That will ensure the 4’s election. Ballots are 9 days from being mailed.Until next time…Robert
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.