1/ Marty, I believe, is focused on the distinction between CPI identifying violations, notifying the property owners, and seeking compliance, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the Board finding a continuing violation to exist for purposes of OPA actually taking action against an owner. Not until the Board makes that finding, can any action be taken against an owner's voting or amenity rights, or against an owner in Court. The latter is what Marty is focused on, differently than the mere identifying of a violation and sending of a notice letter seeking compliance.

I am fully aware of what Marty is saying. What I am saying is Marty is not addressing the issue he is attacking Peck over. All Peck did is quote something from the GM report. For doing so, Stuart Lakernick did indeed attack her, on this forum and during the Candidates Forum.

What Peck quoted, and what Stuart and Marty are attacking her over, is simply quoting something presented every month for years in the GM report at every regular board meeting.

As an aside, at the board meting Saturday, president Lakernick asked for a motion regarding CPI violations to "send to legal." It was approved unanimously. I have no idea what that motion means in terms of impact. Hopefully, those association members who had CPI violations sent "to legal" will not be deprived of their right to vote or use amenities at member rates since the board failed to find them in "continuing violation." In fact, it might be a good idea to check if any members have been inproperly classed as ineligible to vote without being declared in continuing violation.

The board needs a lawyer at meetings. 

2/ What the numbers clearly show is how effective CPI is at gaining compliance without the need for Board action. This is because thankfully, most members understand and have respect for the process and their DR-based obligations, which are contractual; and also because, despite what gets published by some, CPI does a very effective job of operationally working with members to achieve compliance.

Agreed.

3/ As for leaves, I would just encourage folks to have a look at the photos of cited properties, and they will see that it's not "some leaves," but rather, a real property maintenance issue, when properties are cited for leaf issues.

I will try to find the images you reference. However, keep in mind there are two distinct leaf violations - one for ditches and one for lots in general and they are charged differently by CPI inspectors.

4/ Lastly, I am baffled by your remark that Steve Jacobs has been subject to "harassment and ridicule" by other members of the Board. I've never witnessed that, at all, sitting in a lot of Board meetings and otherwise being pretty close to the action. And honestly, I would be pretty surprised if Steve would characterize his Board interactions that way. You may certainly endorse as you see fit, but that characterization in my view needed some correction.

Bruce, I recall several instances. Jeff Heavner, for one, lectured Jacobs in public. Can't recall the issue. I believe you were directly involved in some attempted action to remove or formerly chastise Jacobs when some board members accused him of leaking private info to me based on the flimsiest of so-called evidence. He did not. When I have the chance I will track down and publish video links or other references.