Correction to the Article of Ms. Tetro in the UCO reporter

I have heard some complaints about the evaluation made by UCO Treasurer Dorothy Tetro, concerning the WPRF budget and just on what the 70% is based.

There is no question that she was not present when discussions began about the RENT ABATEMENT for CASUALITY LOSS. In those discussions both sides AGREED ALL of our payments are RENT.
It is therefore the entire payment against which the abated amount is calculated… FOR THE CASUALITY LOSS. I am amazed that this team, requesting reelection, still does not have a clear understanding of the “dispute”

I hope it has become clearer that we DO NOT HAVE ANY expectation or entitlement to abated rent during any renovation staging. The real dispute, regardless of the multiple fantasy claims of others, is clear! The millennium agreement provides for rent abatement for CASUALITY LOSS ONLY. Our responsibility for delays caused as a result of our efforts to combine “RENOVATIONS” while using the insurances claims money in recover, was to be sure, a difficult operation. The alternative was to permit the insurance money to replace wallpaper, carpet and NOT MAKE ADA COMPLIANT CHANGES TO REST ROOMS AND ENTRANCES. We replaced rotted window frames and windows to preserve the insurance replaced interior improvements eliminating the need for assessments after the insurance funding was completed.

We should be able to discuss openly with WPRF the time line of delays, many of which were permit inspections that repeatedly failed. We should remember both sides mutually agreed to accept the finished report of the CH2MHILL engineering study, that has not been released to the Delegate Assembly and, if memory serves me was about $ 1,600,000.00 they felt was due to residents.
How can they justify 11 Million???

So why are we in arbitration? The engineering report clearly approximates the offer by WPRF. It was a good beginning for opening a serious discussion, and yet, even now, it would seem the UCO Treasurer is unaware of the fundamentals of our COMPLAINT. THE UCO VICE-PRESIDET AND PRESIDENT HAVE FAILED TO EXPLAIN TO EVEN ONE OF UCO’S OFFICERS THE NATURE OF OUR COMPLAINT? At this late date, how is it possible that 7 Officers are not on the “same page” on this dispute?

They have a rally on March 2, 2008; perhaps you should attend and demand an explanation of these important differences. Why do they continue to bash others rather than present their vision of just how we may WIN/LOSE the arbitration? Why have they no vision of major changes to IMPROVE services in this village? Why do we need a office building, which incidentally has INCREASED IN COSTS SINCE THEIR ILLFATED IMPROPERLY NOTICED MEETING, CALLED A “POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, WITH NO NEED TO CHECK-IN". Ask about the increased costs and delays that they cannot justify. Remember this plan was approved, and still it has been 6 months since all was completed, in September 2007. Do you remember their complaint that it took the prior Administration 8 months for permits to completely renovate a 35+ year old building necessitating many code upgrades. Why then has a new building approved and contracts signed failed to begin for the last 6 months?

Attend the rally, hear them speak, decide if you may count on “progress” from this group who has spent most of their effort touting themselves as the “good guys”. Can we believe the next two years will be any different? Just who can you trust, those whose ego drives them to make our decisions or those who want
YOU to DECIDE? It’s up to
Y O U !!
We should be voting for
C H A N G E! They have had their chance and floundered. Now it is "YOUR" CHANCE

Ed Black