Stonebridge Advisory Group
This site has historical information on Stonebridge.
NOTE from SAG admin June 20,2024: Loren Sattinger, Stonebridge Board Member, asked to send a copy of the statement he made at the OBM on the date above to the SAG subscribers. SAG uses it’s resource to send/and post information for our subscribers that may affect their interests in the community. It is rather long but worth reading. Below is a copy of his statement.
Statement given by Loren Sattinger, Vice President, Board of Directors, STONEBRIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC, on June 19, 2024 at the open board meeting, apologizing to Mr. Paul Altschuler for the May 6th board post on Stonebridge Engage.
*
My statement tonight concerns Mr. Altschuler’s Facebook post, the board’s post on Stonebridge Engage on May 6th, and his two questions posted on the BCF and the board’s answers. WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IS SOLELY MY VIEW AND MAY NOT REPRESENT THE VIEW OF PRIOR OR CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS. I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THEM. THEY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. I SPEAK ONLY FOR MYSELF. I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBER’S MINDS, BUT TONIGHT THEY CAN HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT WHAT’S ON MY MIND. Tonight’s “shout out” during the board president’s message to Mr. Altschuler was a positive step forward. Thank you for listening. I will now read my prepared statement.
*
First and foremost, I offer my personal apology to Mr. Altschuler for my role in the board’s May 6th post. Now, the rest of my statement will explain why I objected to the BCF answers given to Mr. Altschuler’s questions on May 20 and May 27. My personal belief is that he is owed an apology by the board for its May 6th post on the Stonebridge website, and for the board’s answers on the BCF that did not contain an apology. Whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Altschuler actions, what only matters is what the board posted on May 6th and how the board answered the BCF questions.
*
The BCF was created as a means for the board to officially communicate answers to questions submitted by homeowners. It was intended to be the unified voice of the board. Ask yourself this question: what if an answer was not what one or more board members wanted to say and did not represent their beliefs? One achievement I am most proud of as a board member was to allow board members to object to a BCF answer that they did not support, and then be able to discuss their objection to the answer at the next OBM. This ability provides each board member with their own voice and opinion, and not be included in a general statement that they do not agree with. This is good for both the board member and good for the community.
*
A board post on Stonebridge Engage is not usually published until all board members agree to it. The post is usually discussed and possibly modified so that all board members can agree. The May 6th Stonebridge post was agreed to by all board members, with some minor adjustments. However, I do not believe there was sufficient time taken to carefully consider the contents. I will explain why I believe this shortly. I regret that I agreed to the post. I now have the opportunity to explain my decision and why I have reconsidered my actions. My original agreement to the post was made without first considering the Board Code of Conduct. After reading Section 10 of the Code of Conduct, I reconsidered my decision. Stonebridge homeowners do not have the ability to the post a reply on the Stonebridge Engage website. The homeowner’s recourse is to post on social media, submit a question on the BCF or to ask a question at the OBM, or otherwise engage discussion within the community
*
Now, let’s consider what Section 10 says:
10. The Board of Directors deems it necessary and appropriate to reaffirm a policy that Board Members shall refrain from treating Members with disrespect or abuse in the course of the performance of their functions or duties as Board Members. For purposes of this paragraph, the terms “disrespect or abuse” with respect to a Member shall mean defamation of a Member and the following other actions with respect to a Member: physical abuse or the threat of harm including but not limited to cursing, threats of physical harm, economic harm, property damage to either that person or to their family, gender, racial or ethnic epithets.
*
Mr. Altschuler posted on the Facebook site Stonebridge Monroe 08831 that he could provide gate clickers for $7.10, which was his cost. Replacement clickers are available for sale in the Clubhouse for $50.00. The HOA cost for the clickers is now approximately $42. The FB site, Stonebridge Monroe 08831 has limited its access to only Stonebridge residents which has 913 current subscribers. The FB site administrators ensure that only Stonebridge residents have access to the site, and therefore the posts on the site are not available to the general public.
*
This is the time frame for the board’s May 6th post on the Stonebridge website. It was posted at 2:35PM.
*
The first in a series of email exchanges between the board members began on May 6th at 11:10 AM. Several emails were exchanged between the board members until the agreed upon version was posted at 2:35 PM. From the time the first email was sent until the message was posted, a total of 3 hours and 25 minutes elapsed. In retrospect this was insufficient time to review and reflect upon the message, and whether or not it was appropriate to post. This is what I was referring to earlier. This all happened quickly without sufficient time for serious reflection. HOA counsel was fully aware of the post, and despite his legal training and considering the fact that he wrote the amended Code of Conduct, he did not try to stop the board from posting the message. Again, it is my opinion that the post was contemptuous of and treated Mr. Altschuler disrespectfully. The board’s message on the Stonebridge website said Mr. Altschuler’s actions compromised the safety of the community. Further, the board demanded that he discontinue selling clickers. The board’s demand to discontinue selling clickers was beyond the scope of its direct or implied legal authority. Mr. Altschuler’s post did not break any laws. Selling clickers is not illegal. I believe that the board’s post was the wrong. The board has since said on the BCF that Mr. Altschuler did nothing illegal, and some board members refuse to apologize to Mr. Altschuler for its post.
*
The gate entry problem has existed since the very beginning of the development when the developer did not re-program the entry gate on Tower Boulevard with something other than the original default coding from the manufacturer. All clickers the developer provided to the original homeowners at closing were programmed with the default code from the manufacturer. As far back as 2016 (and perhaps even earlier), the IT Committee and others notified management and the board members about this problem. Mr. Altschuler notified the prior board of the problem. None of the management companies or any board ever addressed or corrected the gate and clicker coding problem. This same problem still exists. Clickers with a default coding or factory coded setting are sold from Amazon and other retailers that will open the entry gates without the need for re-programming. Mr. Altschuler’s selling the replacement clickers is not the problem with gate entry into Stonebridge. Nothing was ever done to reprogram the gates or the clickers. I don’t know if this is now even possible to re-program the gates. If it is, then more than 1,800 clickers would need to be reprogrammed. None of this has been done, so the gate entry problem continues to exist.
*
I regret my vote approving the board’s May 6th post. As I said earlier, the post was hastily considered and the board members should have taken more time to thoroughly review the content before it was posted. The board must maintain the highest personal standard for integrity within Stonebridge. What the board may have believed was provocation from Mr. Altschuler’s Facebook post is totally irrelevant. The board must maintain the highest ethical standards consistent with the Code of Conduct. The board must look only at its own actions. Once again, this is my personal view. Every former and current board member is entitled to their own view. My statement does not speak for any other board member. It is up to them to decide how they want to address this matter, if at all. Former and current board members are free to express their own opinions.
*
When I ran for the board in 2023, I promised that I would always let the homeowners know where I stand on issues. This is where I stand.
*
As a board member, I offer my personal apology to Mr. Altschuler for my approving the May 6th board’s Stonebridge Engage post. His actions were not illegal. Calling him out by name for his actions on the Stonebridge Engage website I believe was a violation of the Code of Conduct. I do not believe that the safety of the community has been compromised by his selling clickers on a FB site that can only be accessed by Stonebridge homeowners. The board has stated he did nothing illegal. That being said, this new board will be looking into enhancing gate security. Depending on costs involved, enhanced measures may require homeowner approval for capital expenditures above $25,000. Enhancing the gate safety by itself has nothing to do with other safety issues that may face Stonebridge. Stonebridge is an entry gated community to simply restrict vehicle entry and nothing more.
*
I take full responsibility for my actions in approving the May 6th board post. What does it mean that I take full responsibility for my actions? First, as a board member, I have now apologized to Mr. Altschuler. Second, I now apologize to the community. Third, I pledge to work with this board with objectivity and civility to make decisions that keep Stonebridge the most desirable community to live in Monroe. Fourth, I will not resign from the board over this matter. In the event that my not objecting to the board’s May 6th post on the Stonebridge website and my objections to the BCF answers are deemed cause to remove me from the board, the board and/or the homeowners may remove me from the board by following all of the procedures contained in the amended By-Laws. Finally, you may hold me responsible by not voting for me if I decide to run for re-election in 2025.
*
This has been lengthy and I thank you for your patience and for listening. I felt that I needed to explain the issues and that required context. If anyone would like to read a copy of my statement, please contact me.