Reston Spring

Reston Spring
Reston Spring
Showing posts with label StoneTurn Group. Show all posts
Showing posts with label StoneTurn Group. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Statement of Terry Maynard for Reston 20/20 at Special RA Board meeting on Tetra review, March 20, 2017



Statement of Terry Maynard, Co-Chair
Reston 20/20 Committee re
The StoneTurn Group Tetra Report and Follow-up
March 20, 2017


Good evening.  I am Terry Maynard, 2217 Wakerobin Lane, and I am speaking on behalf of the Reston 20/20 Committee.

First, I would like to thank StoneTurn Group and its investigative team for its excellent report prepared in far too brief a time.  It does exactly what you, Deidre, promised it would do:  It lays out a clear forensic description of what happened during the unfolding Tetra debacle.   Regrettably, from our perspective, it does not lay out specifically the who, why, and how of the many events it identifies. 

The members of Reston Association deserve to know all the details in this shameful episode, including those reported by StoneTurn Group and others that are not covered in this report.  We need to know, first, because somewhere between our Board and RA staff and its contractors, including counsel, RA spent $2.65 million of our money on a property worth less than half that in 2015.  Moreover, in 2016, RA spent nearly one million dollars repairing and renovating the property without any budget or identifiable Board approval until some $600,000 had been spent.  The total spending was nearly quadruple the quarter-million dollar forecast estimate in referendum documents. 
 
These are colossal errors.  We must know in depth how and why they occurred and who caused them to occur.  Then we must take steps to prevent these blunders from being repeated, and to discourage anyone from ever making them in the future. 

Our preliminary report, which used the StoneTurn results extensively, highlights several major areas of mishandling of Tetra’s purchase and repair.  As the many questions it raises suggest, it is meant to stimulate further investigation. 

In contrast to numerous mistakes StoneTurn Group documents, neither StoneTurn Group nor we have been able to identify a single attempt by RA or the Board actually to lay out a price offer, formal or informal, to Tetra’s owner for less than his asking price of $2.7 million.  To the contrary, we have an e-mail from the RA land use attorney’s office to the CEO attempting to justify the seller’s $2.7 million price.  Maybe such an offer document exists, but it hasn’t surfaced yet.  If it doesn’t, that’s a monumental failure of RA Board, staff, and counsel fiduciary responsibility. 

Similar unexplained and highly questionable events occurred throughout last year’s period of renovation, but I think we have made the point:  There is much more to know and do before closing this ugly chapter in Reston’s history.

What all this points to is the need for a follow-up investigation to understand fully all that occurred and to make appropriate corrective recommendations.  The core purposes of that investigation would be to identify specifically what mistakes, accidental or malicious, were made, identify who was culpable for those mistakes, and recommend to the Board appropriate corrective policy, process, and personnel actions.

We propose that the next RA Board of Directors appoint a special committee of RA residents with an extensive period to work and extensive authority to access RA documents and personnel to pursue this investigation.  Heaven knows, this community has the expertise to conduct such an effort.  In the end, the community is the aggrieved party in this fiasco, stuck with a white elephant, millions in debt for decades, and the near certainty that facility revenues will never cover costs.  Moreover, by using community resources, we have the opportunity to avoid yet another major expense related to this shameful episode. 

That said, we appreciate that this Board, the majority of which served throughout the purchase and renovation of Tetra, is not planning to take action on StoneTurn Group’s recommendations.  Moreover, as the CEO rightly pointed out in last week’s Board Governance Committee meeting, RA’s specific ideas on how to address process and procedural matters need to be refined.  We think that a further indepth investigation will help shape those ideas much more effectively and accomplish much more for the betterment of Reston.

Friday, February 10, 2017

RA's Tetra "Independent Review" Contract and Key Offers

Below we offer Restonians the full text of the "independent review" contract RA signed with StoneTurn Group and the first and final draft contract offers it made to Mediaworld.  Separately we have commented on some key substantive differences between the final Mediaworld draft and the agreement RA signed with StoneTurn Group highlighting how prejudicial the Mediaworld offer was.  If you compare the two Mediaworld contract offers, you will also find that the first offer was even more prejudicial than the final offer. 

Also, although there are few differences in the scope of the proposed contract between the several offerings, StoneTurn Group answers to questions at the community meeting  yesterday suggested that Restonians would not be satisfied with the result of the StoneTurn Group effort.

Although we have been having some difficulty with the comments section, we welcome your thoughts in the comments section below on these contract alternatives.  If you are having problems posting your comment, please send them as an e-mail to terrmayn@yahoo.com and we will post them.  

 

 



Reston 20/20 Statement to StoneTurn Group at the Tetra Review Community Meeting, Februrary 9, 2017



Statement of
Terry Maynard, Co-Chair, Reston 20/20 Committee
To the StoneTurn Group
Re the Independent Review of the Tetra Property Acquisition and Renovation
February 9, 2017

Good afternoon.  My name is Terry Maynard, 2217 Wakerobin Lane, and I have been a resident of Reston for more than three decades.   I am co-chair of the Reston 20/20 Committee, an informal committee of Restonians interested in sustaining Robert Simon’s vision for our beautiful planned community.   In other community roles, I have served as a member of the Reston Citizens Association Board of Directors and its representative on the Reston Master Plan Task Force.  

As Reston 20/20’s co-chair, I am here this afternoon to encourage you to pursue a vigorous investigation and comprehensive report on what we believe is the greatest leadership crisis in the history of the Reston Association.   Never have so many people in Reston’s leadership on the RA Board of Directors and among its senior staff behaved so unethically if not outright illegally, demonstrated such complete incompetence in analyzing and managing the finances of a single RA project, and used secrecy behind a legal façade to protect the guilty while so neglecting the interests of the community. 

The challenge ahead of you to try to uncover, digest, analyze, and present to the Reston community, not just the Board, a report in just one month detailing all the errors and misdeeds that have been reported, much less a course of corrective action, is daunting.  Still, the community needs you to detail the who, how, when, and why of all these events or we will continue to be ill-served.  A simple set of process improvement recommendations will be inadequate and a further waste of RA members’ money on the Tetra fiasco.  Moreover, your process recommendations will quite likely be ignored by the Board of Directors and RA staff in the end.

Reston 20/20 has been at the forefront of the effort to prevent and expose the ongoing fiasco dating back to at least April 2015.  Our blog has more than 40 posts about the evolving Tetra morass ranging from analyses during the referendum period of the financial hole it has now put the community in to RA’s prejudicial negotiations with Mediaworld for the independent review contract you now have.   Most of it is original; some of it we re-posted from other sources, including our op-eds that have appeared in RestonNow and the Reston Connection.  And we have testified before the RA Board and at its community meetings during the referendum period. 

I look forward to discussing any and all of our work with you at your convenience.  You will find in reading our products and in our discussions that we try to document our methods as well as our results, including any assumptions that we may have made, wherever we can.  Nonetheless, our analyses are based on publicly available information—including information we have requested and received from RA—and, as a result, are necessarily more limited than we would like.   

To get you started in looking at what we have done, I am giving you a selection of posts from the Reston 20/20 that shows a bit of the range of work we have done on the issues surrounding Tetra.  I hope you come to understand, challenge, and report on these issues and others.  Maybe most importantly, it includes a paper identifying the eight key issues that we believe ought to be addressed in your effort.  This issue paper was included in the RFP you received.  We think it should be the foundation document for your investigation and report. 

You have a challenging task ahead that is of vital importance to the good governance of our community.  I wish you the best in your efforts and offer to sit down to discuss the Tetra matter with you at your convenience. 

Thank you for your time and good luck. 


Attachments (in chronological order):

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Prospects for a thorough Tetra independent review don't look good after this afternoon's community meeting.

UPDATED:  We have included the video of the two-hour meeting at the end of this post.

This afternoon (and continuing through this evening), RA and its Tetra Review Committee held a community forum to provide StoneTurn Group (STG) community inputs about the continuing Tetra financial fiasco as a part of its just-initiated independent review.  STG was represented by Deidre Flaherty, a founding partner at STG.  Also at the table were Mike Sanio, VP, RA Board, and Eric Carr, Chairman of the Tetra Review Committee (but not a member of the Board).  

The meeting was lively, sometimes intense, and probably much different than STG was expecting.  The community members all agreed that they loved Reston and usually respected RA, but argued that the Tetra affair was terrible.  At the most general level, the 40 or so Restonians there clearly displayed the high level of distrust the community holds for the RA Board and its handling of the Tetra acquisition and renovation.  While VP Sanio repeatedly noted that the Board also wanted to understand what went wrong and correct processes to prevent the mistakes from happening in the future, community members highlighted that the Board and RA staff caused all the specific problems, that it was forced to take on the independent review by the community, and that the Board controlled the "independent review" process, including offering only a prejudicial contract to Mediaworld which would have done the work for one dollar.

Almost every Restonian who spoke challenged RA's handling of the Tetra affair and, more specifically, was skeptical that STG could pull of the kind of independent review the community (vice the Board) expected within the 19 days (February 28, 2017) and $45,000 budget allowed to investigate, analyze, draft, review, and publish a meaningful investigative product on the topic.  Flaherty was repeatedly challenged on how STG intended to provide a comprehensive report and, in particular, expressed concern that RA would extend the contract and add to its contract cost under this time and materials contract.

Answers by Flaherty to several questions from resident Ed Abbott, chairman of the Reston Recall Committee, concerning the scope of STG's work were not reassuring.  Specifically
  • Flaherty stated it was not STG's intention to identify people who were responsible for the financial and management disaster so they could be held accountable. 
  • In response to another question, Flaherty did not know if STG would make public the details of RA Board discussions held in Executive Session.  Sanio noted that STG would have access to anyone they wanted, but Richard Chew--a former RA Board member--pointed that Board members may not disclose the substance of Executive Sessions, even after they have left the Board.
  • Flaherty also said that STG would not be looking for conflicts of interest (COI), but would report them to her two points of contact (Sanio and Carr) if they were discovered in the course of their work.
  • Similarly, Flaherty stated that STG would not pursue violations of Virginia law, including the Property Owners Association Act, but would inform Sanio and Carr if they discovered any.  Carr noted that he would report any allegations of illegal activity reported to him.
Partially in response to these acknowledgements, Sanio read the statement of work deliverables which suggest that some of these concerns may be addressed.  Here is the text of contract's statement of deliverables:
1) reviewing the accuracy of budgets and other information provided in the referendum for the Tetra/Lake House Project by the Association to its members and the Board, as well as the process utilized to prepare those documents;
3) making such recommendations for revising, modifying and/or supplementing the processes, internal controls and governance procedures of the Association to ensure future large-scale projects are (a) accurately budgeted and (b) conducted in accordance with best generally accepted principles and practices for similarly situated not-for-profit organizations.
Restonians present at the meeting were not very encouraged by these contract requirements, several speakers noting Restonians need to know the who, what, how, and why of the many bad decisions made in the Tetra purchase and renovation process.

From the two hours of discussion we attended, it appears that RA members can expect little more than some process and procedure improvement proposals from STG as called for in its third task.  Many suggested that this would be just additional waste of money on a project that has already cost Restonians millions of dollars. 

In case the embedded version disappears again, here is the link to the video on youtube.com:  https://youtu.be/NJaot1Sv7Qw




Tuesday, February 7, 2017

The StoneTurn Group Tetra review contract is significantly less prejudicial than RA's final offer to Mediaworld.

A review of the last contract RA offered Mediaworld LLC to conduct a review of the Tetra fiasco shows that, in several cases, it is much more demanding and/or prejudicial than the contract it subsequently signed with the StoneTurn Group, which is now conducting the review.  Below we identify the key substantive differences between the two contracts (excluding the obvious financial and consultant vs. independent contractor distinctions) so that Restonians can see for themselves how prejudicial the deliberations with Mediaworld were.

All together, what this comparison highlights is that RA did not deal in good faith with Mediaworld in its negotiations.  It demanded a contract so restrictive and potentially costly to Mediaworld team members that that it expected Mediaworld to refuse to sign it.  That is eventually what happened.  

(The paragraph references listed below are the requirements of the Mediaworld contract draft unless otherwise specified.)

Para. 3.1(c):  This paragraph may be one of the most important in the Mediaworld draft.  It has no counterpart in the StoneTurn contract.  Specifically, it calls for Mediaworld's team members to each sign a confidentiality agreement as follows:
The Consultant shall ensure that all Consultant Team Members, including any replacements or additions to the Consultant Team Members, who perform any  Services under this Agreement adhere to all of the provisions of this Agreement as if such provisions were expressly binding upon each such Consultant Team Member, individually, and shall require that all Consultant Team Members, including any replacements or additions consistent with Section 3 Paragraph 3.4, infra, execute the Confidentiality  Agreement set forth as Schedule B attached hereto and return the executed  Confidentiality Agreement prior to the initiation of any work under this Agreement, which Confidentiality  Agreement shall become a part of this Agreement.
There is no Confidentiality Agreement requirement at all in the StoneTurn Group contract.  We have included Schedule B from the Mediaworld contract to show what RA expected the Mediaworld team members to sign.

Para. 4.2:  This paragraph admonishes Mediaworld not to share any Confidential Information with third parties.  Again, no such paragraph exists in the StoneTurn Group contract.
Certain Acknowledgements and Agreements.  Consultant and Consultant Team Members shall not disclose to any third party any Confidential Information of the Association obtained by Consultant in the course of performing the consulting services.  The Consultant may, as appropriate and necessary, use Confidential Information in their review, research and in preparation of their draft and final report to the Association.  Neither Consultant nor Consultant Team Members shall use to his own advantage, or to the advantage of any other person or entity, any Confidential Information gained from the files or business or employees of the Association.
Para. 5:  This paragraph addresses ownership of the Mediaworld product, stating that it belongs to RA.  In part, it addresses a concern raised in earlier drafts of the Mediaworld contract in which RA claimed to own the "work products" (notes, e-mails, etc.) developed in the course of the contract.  (For more on this dispute, see the Reston 20/20 notes on the December 7 special meeting of the RA Board to address contract issues between Mediaworld and RA.)  No such claim is made in any shape or form in the StoneTurn Group contract.

5.         OWNERSHIP OF IDEAS, COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS
5.1       Property of the Association.  All  deliverables, including the draft and final reports of the Consultant are the sole and exclusive property of the Association.  The Consultant hereby assigns to the Association all of the Consultant’s right, title and interest in and to all of the Deliverables, including the draft and final report.  The Consultant further represents that, to the best of the Consultant’s knowledge and belief, none of the Deliverables shall violate or infringe upon any right, patent, copyright, trademark or right of privacy, or constitute libel or slander against or violate any other rights of any person, firm or corporation, and that the Consultant shall use the Consultant’s best efforts to prevent any such violation.
5.2       Property of the Consultant and Consultant Team Members:  All work products, records, notes, e-mails and documents prepared or created by the Consultant and Consultant Team shall be and remain the property of the Consultant and subject to the confidentiality provisions contained in Section 4.
Para 10.11:  This paragraph requires Mediaworld to pay liquidated damages of $2,000 per breach or threatened breach of various terms and conditions in the contract as determined by RA.  The analogous paragraph in the StoneTurn Group contract (para. 9.11) calls for injunctive relief as determined by a court.  Here are the two paragraphs side-by-side:
Mediaworld:  
10.11   Liquidated Damages.  The Consultant hereby expressly acknowledges that any breach or threatened breach of any of the terms and/or conditions set forth in Section 4 or 5 of this Agreement shall result in substantial, continuing and irreparable injury to the Association.  Therefore, in addition to any other remedy that may be available to the Association, in the event of a breach of Section 4 or 5 of this Agreement by either Consultant or Consultant’s Team, Consultant shall pay Liquidated Damages to the Association in the amount of Two Thousand Dollars per breach.  Such Liquidated Damages shall be deemed to be a genuine pre-estimate of the foreseeable damages incurred by the Association due to breach and shall be Association’s sole recourse for late breach of Sections 4 and 5 of the Agreement.
StoneTurn Group:
9.11 Injunctive Relief. The Consultant hereby expressly acknowledges that any breach or threatened breach of any of the terms and/or conditions set forth in Section 4 or 5 of this Agreement shall result in substantial, continuing and irreparable injury to the Association. Therefore, in addition to any other remedy that may be available to the Association, the Association shall be entitled to injunctive or other equitable relief by a court of appropriate jurisdiction in the event of any breach or threatened breach of the terms of Section 4 or 5 of this Agreement. The period during which the covenants contained in Section 4 shall apply shall be extended by any periods during which the Consultant is found by a court to have been in violation of such covenants.
Statement of Work, Para. 1:  The Mediaworld draft contract limits its access to people for interviews, including a specified list of individuals in Schedule C of the draft contract.  Given the terms of the contract, it is likely Mediaworld would have had to negotiate an amendment to the contract to interview anyone else or be found in violation of its terms.  In contrast, StoneTurn Group is not  constrained in any way, including meeting members of the community (such as Reston 20/20).  Again, we present the two contrasting paragraphs for your information.
Mediaworld
The Consultant will conduct interviews with certain Association staff, Board members, committee members, and the contractors substantially involved in the Tetra/Lake House Project as designated and set forth in Schedule C to this Agreement.
StoneTurn Group
The Consultant will conduct interviews with all Association staff, Board members,
committee members, and other third parties substantially involved in the Tetra/Lake House Project as well any other individuals (including members of the Reston community), as the Consultant deems necessary and appropriate.
Schedule B:  This is the Confidentiality Agreement that each member of the Mediaworld team would have been required to sign, holding them "jointly and severally" responsible for any confidentiality breaches as determined by RA.  There is no such schedule and no similar language in the StoneTurn Group contract.

SCHEDULE B

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT


The undersigned, ______________________________an individual, (Undersigned Individual) as a material inducement for Mediaworld Ventures, LLC (the “Consultant”), to submit the undersigned’s name and resume as a Consultant Team Member pursuant to the Consulting Agreement (the “Consulting Agreement”), between RESTON ASSOCIATION  (“Association”) and the Consultant, does acknowledging said Consulting Agreement and agrees to be specifically bound by  and specifically agrees to comply with Sections 4 and 5 of the Consulting Agreement, which Sections are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein. 

The undersigned individual acknowledges and agrees as follows:  (a) that the undersigned is being granted the privilege and being permitted to perform services for Consultant and will be working on a contract project for which Consultant has been hired by the Association; and (b) that while the Consultant and the undersigned, as a Consultant Team Member, performs services under the Agreement, the Association shall furnish, disclose or make available to the Consultant and the undersigned Confidential Information (as such term is defined in the Section 4 of the Agreement) related to the business of the Association; and (c)  the undersigned will receive the benefit of providing valuable assistance to the Consultant by providing his or her knowledge and expertise to the Association in evaluating the operations of the Association and that the opportunity  is adequate and sufficient consideration for the undersigned’s agreement to join in and be bound with the Consultant to the same confidentiality provisions as the Consultant in Section 4 of the Agreement, which undersigned hereby acknowledges, and agrees to be bound by; and (d) the undersigned has consulted with, or has had the opportunity to consult with, independent, legal counsel regarding the undersigned’s rights and obligations under the Agreement and this Confidentiality Agreement and that the undersigned fully understands the Confidentiality Agreement’s intent, purpose and terms..

The undersigned individual during the term of the Consulting Agreement and this Confidentiality Agreement, and at all times thereafter, agrees that he or she will not disclose to others outside of the Board of Directors of the Reston Association or the Tetra/Lake House Committee, use for his or her own benefit, or otherwise appropriate or copy any Confidential information, except as otherwise provided in Section 4 and 5 of the Consulting Agreement.  In addition, the Undersigned Individual further agrees to retain in the strictest confidence any Confidential Information he or she learns in performing work for the Consultant unless and until such information has been made generally available other than by breach of the Agreement.    

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties intending to be legally bound, have set their signature and seal and executed this Confidentiality Agreement as of December ___, 2016.

_______________________________(Seal)
                                                                                     Undersigned Individual

                                                                                    _______________________________
                                                                                    Mediaworld, Ventures, LLC

                                                                                    _______________________________
                                                                                    RESTON ASSOCIATION

Schedule C:  This schedule identifies the people Mediaworld may interview in fulfilling its contract.  As noted above, StoneTurn Group is unconstrained in whom it may interview in carrying out the contract.


SCHEDULE C



List of Persons Identified By Consultant To Be Interviewed

1) Cate Fulkerson;
2) Larry Butler;
3) Robert Wood;
4) Other  Reston Association Staff, as requested;
5) Current Board of Directors members;
6) Ken Knueven;
7) David Harris;
8) Companies which conducted the two (2) Appraisals on the Lake House Property;
9) General Contractor which performed the renovations of the Lake House Property;
10) Land Use Counsel for the Association;
11) General Counsel for the Association.
12) The Design Firm utilized to develop plans for the renovations of the Lake House Property.


The Association will use its best efforts to make available the Board members and current staff in the list above, pursuant to an agreed upon schedule by which the interviews will be conducted.  The Association will assist but will not be responsible for whether or not interviews will or can be conducted with former Board members or former Association employees. The Association will also provide space for the interviews to be conducted, presumably, unless otherwise specified at the time, at the Association’s offices.  Consultant will use it best efforts to conduct any interviews, especially of Bpard members and employees of the Association at the Association’s offices.  Consultant will use its best efforts to coordinate the interviews in such a way as to minimize the impact of these interviews on the Association’s Board members and staff, including but not limited to insuring that the Consultant and Consultant’s Team Members, as necessary and required, are aware of the schedule of interviews and coordinate their schedules as necessary to be there for the designated dates and times of interviews to avoid the necessity of duplication of efforts.