Poa supports villages-moffitt partnership

[cabo35]

The March POA bulletin addresses many questions raised in this forum. Articles largely clear up the RBOI (Boissoneault) controversy. The path to the outcome is indirect but the result seems to be that the equipment availability will not be duplicated as antagonists have purported. The net result, in fact, will mean more treatment options for Villagers. The POA articles are well researched and expose the bumps and blemishes influencing the decision making process. If Lauren Ritchie had been as thorough and unbiased as the POA, a lot of acrimony could have been spared. Just my opinion. Draw your own from today's POA Bulletin.

The Bulletin also sheds light on the ACS Relay for Life controversy. If the Bulletin was a daily, some big paper columnists would be out of work.

[Advogado]

The March POA bulletin addresses many questions raised in this forum. Articles largely clear up the RBOI (Boissoneault) controversy. The path to the outcome is indirect but the result seems to be that the equipment availability will not be duplicated as antagonists have purported. The net result, in fact, will mean more treatment options for Villagers. The POA articles are well researched and expose the bumps and blemishes influencing the decision making process. If Lauren Ritchie had been as thorough and unbiased as the POA, a lot of acrimony could have been spared. Just my opinion. Draw your own from today's POA Bulletin.

The Bulletin also sheds light on the ACS Relay for Life controversy. If the Bulletin was a daily, some big paper columnists would be out of work.

I agree that the POA has done a good job in digging into this issue and has been responsible for clarification of a number of matters.

From what I gather, I don't think anyone (except Boissoneault, which faces a new competitor, subsidized with donations from Villagers) has a problem with the Moffitt Center's coming here. The concerns that many, including myself, have expressed are: (1) the Moffitt fund-raising campaign, backed by the Developer (who has a financial interest in the project), has made misleading and contradictory statements in its solicitation of contributions; and (2) the Developer attempted to shake down Relay for Life and the American Cancer Society for funds for the Developer-backed Moffitt campaign.

In regard to the POA's support of the Center's coming here, the POA has NOT suggested that residents contribute to the Moffitt Center fund-raising campaign. In this regard, see the POA response to the letter captioned "Moffitt Equipment" on page on page 11 of the latest POA Bulletin.

Finally, in regard to Lauren Ritchie's article, I just re-read it. I don't think that any of her facts are wrong, but I would be glad to be corrected.

[cabo35]

I agree that the POA has done a good job in digging into this issue and has been responsible for clarification of a number of matters.


In regard to the POA's support of the Center's coming here, the POA has NOT suggested that residents contribute to the Moffitt Center fund-raising campaign. In this regard, see the POA response to the letter captioned "Moffitt Equipment" on page on page 11 of the latest POA Bulletin.

Finally, in regard to Lauren Ritchie's article, I just re-read it. I don't think that any of her facts are wrong, but I would be glad to be corrected.

Regarding your contrived post title, I respectfully submit that the conclusion of the article enumerates and speaks to the partnership "coming here", allowing Villagers to receive treatment at the Villages Moffitt Center. It acknowledged the benefit option for 2500 Villagers who currently travel to Tampa for treatment. Unfortunately, the forum will not allow you to edit your deceptively misleading title.

In regard to the POA's support of the Center coming here, the POA does NOT suggest that residents NOT contribute to the Moffitt Center. To abstractly suggest anything to the contrary is disingenuous.

Regarding your defense of Ritchie, I don't believe I disputed her selective assignment of fact, rather, I specifically suggested in my opinion, her thoroughness was deficient. To her credit, I believe her bias is not transparent. It is my opinion that she has persistently demonstrated an agenda that reveals an anti-Villages, anti-Morse and anti-big business bias.

Have a good day in the Villages.

[chuckinca]

Regarding your defense of Ritchie, I don't believe I disputed her selective assignment of fact, rather, I specifically suggested in my opinion, her thoroughness was deficient. To her credit, I believe her bias is not transparent. It is my opinion that she has persistently demonstrated an agenda that reveals and anti-Villages, anti-Morse and anti-big business bias.




Correct. She is doing her job - selling newspapers.

(believe you wanted to say ... reveals an anti-Villages ... )


.

[rubicon]

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

[Bogie Shooter]

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

What are the issues that they have "bent" to please the developer?

[Challenger]

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

You have already speculated on the reason for the POA's "turnaround" Why not support your speculation with some facts?

[downeaster]

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

If I remember correctly, the POA backed a Villages based Moffitt center as soon as it was announced Moffitt was locating in Leesburg.

I have followed the POA bulletins for years and can not recall them bending to please the Developer.

Are you confusing them with some other organization?

As to Ritchie, she is to the liberal media as Ann Coulter is to the conservative.

[Russ_Boston]

I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past.

Holy crap, that's the first time I've heard that. Are you sure you don't mean the VHA? I heard just the opposite about the POA.

[Advogado]

Regarding your contrived post title, I respectfully submit that the conclusion of the article enumerates and speaks to the partnership "coming here", allowing Villagers to receive treatment at the Villages Moffitt Center. It acknowledged the benefit option for 2500 Villagers who currently travel to Tampa for treatment. Unfortunately, the forum will not allow you to edit your deceptively misleading title.

In regard to the POA's support of the Center coming here, the POA does NOT suggest that residents NOT contribute to the Moffitt Center. To abstractly suggest anything to the contrary is disingenuous.

Regarding your defense of Ritchie, I don't believe I disputed her selective assignment of fact, rather, I specifically suggested in my opinion, her thoroughness was deficient. To her credit, I believe her bias is not transparent. It is my opinion that she has persistently demonstrated an agenda that reveals an anti-Villages, anti-Morse and anti-big business bias.

Have a good day in the Villages.

Cabo35:

As you might expect, I don't agree with your assertion that my post was "contrived". Actually, I'm not really sure what you mean by "contrived" in this context, but I don't think that you are trying to be complimentary. In my view, my post simply stated the facts.

In any event, your assertion leads me to believe that you didn't have time or take time to read the POA's reply to the letter on page 11 of the POA Bulletin, which I cited in my post. Therefore, I will now be even more specific than I was in my earlier post. The writer of that letter, after criticizing the Moffitt fund drive, states: "Sure, Villagers are very generous givers. But wouldn't it be a better idea to use their donations for something that is really needed?" The POA issued a two-word reply to that question: "We agree." What part of "We agree" do you have trouble understanding?

In reply to your attack on Lauren Ritchie, you concede that she is factually correct. It appears, however, that you just plain don't like the fact that she is outraged by the outrageous conduct on the part of the Developer in conducting the Moffitt Fund drive. Legitimate criticism of the Developer's conduct is not "bias" against the Developer.

[cabo35]

Advogado.....I believe we are on different wave lengths. I never said your post was contrived. I suggested the title of your post was contrived. Your title implies that Moffitt's coming here is not the focus of the issue. To the contrary, the title of my post was, word for word, the headline for the POA Bulletin. I also quoted from enumerated and specific excerpts to support the point that "coming here" was the focus of the Bulletin's headline.

Further, I specifically cited the plural version of article,(articles) as the basis for my brief assessments. You are wrong to infer I did not read the article on page 11. I read all the articles referencing Moffitt and fundraising. Perhaps my original post suffered in its clarity as I attempted to economize on the word count in order to encourage TOTVers to read the bulletin and form their own conclusions.

Without being redundant, I suggest you read again my OP. I did allude to the fundraising.

Regarding your reference to the page 11 letter to the editor, I suspect the letter was received and the comment made before the recent POA disclosure that the equipment in issue is apparently not the same as many had represented in making a case against Moffitt and the developer. The letter and response you cite is predicated on that flawed assumption. I have a recollection of antagonists ranting over the duplicity of equipment. That clearly appears not to be the case at the moment. I also euphemistically acknowledged the bumps and blemishes that were exposed in the decision making process. I deliberately left the detail out because I didn't see the benefit of elaborating on a flawed process, human errors and miscalculations that were largely made and corrected to some extent by the developer. I leave that criticism to those more inspired to do so.

I agree that the Relay for Life controversy was poorly handled, but I understand both sides of the issue. It could have been totally avoided with the slightest injection of diplomacy. I also agree that the developer's position can give those looking for it....the appearance of impropriety. I personally don't believe the facts and the law would support that position. I still have my rose colored glasses.

My disappointment with Moffitt is that an oncologist will not be on staff there. At least that's what I have been told.

Thanks for responding.

[graciegirl]

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

What possible reason could that be?

And I agree with what Russ said.

Taj will be on in a minute.

[Russ_Boston]

My disappointment with Moffitt is that an oncologist will not be on staff there. At least that's what I have been told.

I would think that a local oncologist would be on-site or at least available. They may not be "moffitt" doctors but perhaps CFHA staff? I would assume that your care is indeed prescribed by an oncologist and the Moffitt approach.

[Avista]

I have been a patient of Moffitt for the last 8 years. Following my cancer surgery and radiation, they saw me every three months for 5 years. The last few years I have been in their Survivership program and am seen annually. http://www.moffitt.org/Site.aspx?spid=23FBA71FB2EC4512B137B733BDC50181

I am so pleased they are coming to The Villages. When I was in Tampa this week, everyone was mentioning it in a very happy manner.Don't know if the survivorship program will be here, but the person I talked with thought someone would probably be here one day a week (for that program). It's not such a bad drive down to Tampa--no tolls like Orlando, but will still be nice to have them here.

[cabo35]

I have been a patient of Moffitt for the last 8 years. Following my cancer surgery and radiation, they saw me every three months for 5 years. The last few years I have been in their Survivership program and am seen annually. http://www.moffitt.org/Site.aspx?spid=23FBA71FB2EC4512B137B733BDC50181

I am so pleased they are coming to The Villages. When I was in Tampa this week, everyone was mentioning it in a very happy manner.Don't know if the survivorship program will be here, but the person I talked with thought someone would probably be here one day a week (for that program). It's not such a bad drive down to Tampa--no tolls like Orlando, but will still be nice to have them here.

Thank you for sharing your experience with us. It really puts things in perspective.

[Xavier]

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

Wow, did you strike out! If you have followed the POA at all, you couldn't possibly come up with your conclusions. Please, please tell us what you think you know - we don't mind if you speculate.

Xavier

[Xavier]

Deleted duplicate - oops!

[Xavier]

I have been a patient of Moffitt for the last 8 years. Following my cancer surgery and radiation, they saw me every three months for 5 years. The last few years I have been in their Survivership program and am seen annually. http://www.moffitt.org/Site.aspx?spid=23FBA71FB2EC4512B137B733BDC50181

I am so pleased they are coming to The Villages. When I was in Tampa this week, everyone was mentioning it in a very happy manner.Don't know if the survivorship program will be here, but the person I talked with thought someone would probably be here one day a week (for that program). It's not such a bad drive down to Tampa--no tolls like Orlando, but will still be nice to have them here.

I've changed my avatar for today in honor of all you have endured. I lost my Mom to breast cancer in January. As you can see we both have a special buddy to help us through the hard times.

Xavier

[ajakk]

The POA is the closest thing to an unbiased source of news in TV. They try to give facts and look at an issue in an unbiased manner, unlike the VHA who is just the developer's lap dog and wouldn't think of having an independent opinion. The last article in the POA bulletin just confirmed their support of a new cancer center and questioned the ethics involved in separating Villagers from their money for something the Village Health System already had funds for.

NOBODY, including the POA, is or was against Moffitt locating an affiliate here. EVERYBODY should be against the tactics used to mislead us into donating under false pretenses. The money has always been there and this was even acknowledged by Village Health System.

[Xavier]

EVERYBODY should be against the tactics used to mislead us into donating under false pretenses. The money has always been there and this was even acknowledged by Village Health System.

Your words - NOT POA words.

I believe that POA may have been the very first to suggest that The Villages seek to have Moffitt here.

Xavier

[Pturner]

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

Hi Rubicon,
As others have surmised, perhaps you are confusing the POA with the VHA. The POA has always favored a Moffitt Center in TV. The POA also once sued the developer, so "once again bending to please the Developer" is quite off the mark.

I don't think the POA and Ritchie sing the same song at all. Cabo's point, I think, was that Ritchie simply omits facts that don't support her opinion. The POA includes facts that both support and mitigate its conclusions. Because of this, the POA is a more reliable source for giving both sides of the story.

[Pturner]

I've changed my avatar for today in honor of all you have endured. I lost my Mom to breast cancer in January. As you can see we both have a special buddy to help us through the hard times.

Xavier

What a kind, empathetic and loving thing to do!

[graciegirl]

The POA is the closest thing to an unbiased source of news in TV. They try to give facts and look at an issue in an unbiased manner, unlike the VHA who is just the developer's lap dog and wouldn't think of having an independent opinion. The last article in the POA bulletin just confirmed their support of a new cancer center and questioned the ethics involved in separating Villagers from their money for something the Village Health System already had funds for.

NOBODY, including the POA, is or was against Moffitt locating an affiliate here. EVERYBODY should be against the tactics used to mislead us into donating under false pretenses. The money has always been there and this was even acknowledged by Village Health System.

Ajakk...I just reread the POA article and I didn't get that it questioned "the ethics involved separating Villagers from their money for something the Village Health System had funds for."

PTurner, well said as usual. Xavier, so sorry that you lost your mom. Hugs.

[ajakk]

Ajakk...I just reread the POA article and I didn't get that it questioned "the ethics involved separating Villagers from their money for something the Village Health System had funds for."

I was referring to to the paragraphs in the front page article of the March newsletter:

"Like many other Villagers, we are very disappointed in the manner in which the media, the Villages Health System, and the Foundation have been presenting the partnership, as we have found misleading and inaccurate statements."

"We have made them [residents] aware that the Villages Hospital System has been saving money for the construction of the Brown-wood Hospital and will use monies from that savings account to cover any shortfalls in the fundraising effort."

[Advogado]

Hi Rubicon,
As others have surmised, perhaps you are confusing the POA with the VHA. The POA has always favored a Moffitt Center in TV. The POA also once sued the developer, so "once again bending to please the Developer" is quite off the mark.

I don't think the POA and Ritchie sing the same song at all. Cabo's point, I think, was that Ritchie simply omits facts that don't support her opinion. The POA includes facts that both support and mitigate its conclusions. Because of this, the POA is a more reliable source for giving both sides of the story.
Just a minor correction: While the POA supported the class-action suit against the Developer, the POA, itself, did not bring the suit, as you stated. The class-action suit was actually brought by individual residents who are active in the POA. For a list of plaintiffs, go to http://www.thevillagesfl.us/classactionsettlement.htm

The reason for this, I would think, is that the POA is merely a voluntary-membership organization and not a "standard" homeowners' association with mandatory membership and the power to assess fees. Consequently, the POA probably doesn't have standing to sue the Developer on behalf of all residents.

While this may sound like I'm splitting hairs, the distinction may become important if we have another major issue arising out of the actions of the Developer. I.e., although, in such a case, we will have POA support, we will again need interested individual residents who are willing to take the initiative and devote the time and effort to stand up for all of us.

Incidentally, the fact that membership in, and financial support of, the POA is voluntary has enabled the Developer to weaken its clout by subsidizing the VHA, which the Developer clearly has in his pocket.

[graciegirl]

Just a minor correction: While the POA supported the class-action suit against the Developer, the POA, itself, did not bring the suit, as you stated. The class-action suit was actually brought by individual residents who are active in the POA. For a list of plaintiffs, go to http://www.thevillagesfl.us/classactionsettlement.htm

The reason for this, I would think, is that the POA is merely a voluntary-membership organization and not a "standard" homeowners' association with mandatory membership and the power to assess fees. Consequently, the POA probably doesn't have standing to sue the Developer on behalf of all residents.

While this may sound like I'm splitting hairs, the distinction may become important if we have another major issue arising out of the actions of the Developer. I.e., although, in such a case, we will have POA support, we will again need interested individual residents who are willing to take the initiative and devote the time and effort to stand up for all of us.

Incidentally, the fact that membership in, and financial support of, the POA is voluntary has enabled the Developer to weaken its clout by subsidizing the VHA, which the Developer clearly has in his pocket.

And so, did the five individuals get to keep the 300,000. incentive fee?

[Advogado]

And so, did the five individuals get to keep the 300,000. incentive fee?

Graciegirl:

As far as I know they kept it ($50,000/apiece). At least, I hope they did. It was a tremendous deal for the rest of us: $300,000 / $40,000,000 = 3/4 of 1% of the amount recovered for the rest of us. Also remember that the payment to the plaintiffs, by the Developer, was in addition to the $40,000,000 and did not come out of the $40,000,000.

Having some knowledge of: (1) all the work that went into the preparation and conduct of the negotiations with the Developer (the Developer initially denied any liability whatsoever) and (2) the plaintiffs' risk of personal liability and no recovery at all, I would not have begrudged the plaintiffs a much higher award. I, personally, would not have gone through what they went through if I were only interested in making $50,000, as opposed to seeing justice done.

Likewise, I do not believe that the plaintiffs were motivated by personal gain, although I am not sure that that is what you are implying. Some other posters have said so, however. I think their attitude shows a tremendous amount of ingratitude for what their neighbors have done for them and, frankly, it irritates the hell out of me. In earlier replies to those posters, I have pointed out that critics of the lawsuit are not obligated to keep their share of the class-action settlement. The critics can simply write the Developer a check for their share-- about $1,000 apiece. After having done so, they can then feel perfectly free to properly criticize their neighbors who worked so hard to get us what the Developer promised us: a continuation of our amenities.

[cabo35]

And so, did the five individuals get to keep the 300,000. incentive fee?

Gracie....you have touched upon a subject that I have been reluctant to comment on for some time. It's kind of a sacred cow that has had little scrutiny and as usual, my personal assessment can be somewhat abstract in such matters.

It is seldom mentioned when the $39,800,000 settlement is bandied about by those that use it to support their position, that the actual settlement is spread out over 13 years. While the yearly sum is still remarkable, it somehow diminishes the wallop of the $39 million dollar figure. The attorney fees were negotiated and settled at $6,700,000 dollars and the original individual residents "settled" at $300,000 presumably to be shared by them.

As these sums of money are the product of a settlement, in my mind it raises haunting questions.

Why did the developer settle relatively quickly? Did he get a better deal than he had anticipated? In real dollars the settlement comes to a little over $3 million a year from the developer. Chump change for him as his antagonists frequently suggest.

What incentive did the class action filers have to hold out for a bigger award? I believe they are all good people, but, could the prospect of a $300,000 score, cloud judgement and induce a settlement when a holdout would have been more beneficial to all Villagers? As a large class of Villagers would be impacted by the settlement, did they have an opportunity to endorse or ratify the settlement? I don't know.

I didn't notice any awards for actuarial studies. A public disclosure on the finances in issue, to the rest of the "class" seems like it would be interesting and important. Maybe I missed it. Perhaps such studies were included in the $6,700,000 legal fees. I don't know.

If the developer put $6,700,000 dollars on the table for lawyer fees, could that hasten an early settlement in the developers favor. I haven't heard an argument from many here that he isn't devious or shrewd. There are 8760 +/- hours in a year. How many years would it take a $300 dollar an hour lawyer...working 7 days a week....24 hours a day....365 days a year to reach $6,700,000? That's a lot of billable hours. My point is simple....what incentive would attorneys have to hold out for say....$6 million a year instead of $3 million? I don't know.

In fairness to the litigants, they took the risk in filing and invested the time and stress of going through the process. Do you suppose the developer knew that when he offered the settlement? I don't know.

While the settlement is frequently posted and quoted in this forum and some papers, this citation from the settlement is seldom referenced:

The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' allegations or on the denials, or other defenses made by the Defendants. However, the parties entered into negotiations in connection with the alleged insufficiency of the Reserve and Replacement account and other matters and have entered into a preliminary settlement agreement.

I reiterate that I believe the litigants are all good people who took on a just and noble cause. I appreciate the success they achieved. I am concerned about a system of resolution that does not consider all those that are affected by a "settlement". It creates a cautious, skeptical distrust when those that have the power to settle, have a financial interest in negotiated outcomes. In that regard, I believe the "settlement" paradigm is flawed. I don't know?

Have a good evening in The Villages.

[nitakk]

I am grateful that these individuals pursued this matter on our behalf, and I think every person who travels the new cart paths owes them a lot for their courage. Taking on the Morse family is daunting and scary with the bottomless pit of money and attorneys at their disposal, and I find it poetic justice that the award they received came directly from the developer's pocket.

This also gives me some clarification as to why the newspaper and VHA love to trash the AAC. It is the only governing body in the Villages the developer can't control and they now have to watch the award money being spent by Villagers, for Villagers. If any of you five read this, I thank you.

[rubicon]

Cabo35 My sentiments exactly except you speak to it with more clarity. I wondered why residents were not given an opportunity to discuss the offer before the POA settled. Perhaps that is not a part of the legal process? All that ocurred was a written notice expalining that if a resident wanted to opt out they had x days to file an individual claim. Prhaps that is all that was required but it would have been nice to have been asked. And why under a class action did the POA agree to a confidential agreement. Perhaps this is standard procedure but we know they did because the attorney of record at the 3/18/08 meeting kept repeating that she had to refrain from specifics because of this agreement. And since we are not privy to this confidential agreement we don't know what future precedents were established with this settlement? The attorney did not satisify the many questions I had concerning this quick settlement, especially since the developer is not the sort of person who is accustom to compromise. Not only was the settlement amount somewhat illusionary as stated in a previous post but also ask yourself who really has control over the proceeds? Attend an AAC meeting and decide for yourself. By the way this is one of those issue that caused me to question the POA position on Moffitt. This is my opinion based on the fact that the 3/18/08 meeting left me with more questions than answers and I may be incorrect and welcome any input that may shed light on this issue.

[Pturner]

Just a minor correction: While the POA supported the class-action suit against the Developer, the POA, itself, did not bring the suit, as you stated. The class-action suit was actually brought by individual residents who are active in the POA. For a list of plaintiffs, go to http://www.thevillagesfl.us/classactionsettlement.htm

The reason for this, I would think, is that the POA is merely a voluntary-membership organization and not a "standard" homeowners' association with mandatory membership and the power to assess fees. Consequently, the POA probably doesn't have standing to sue the Developer on behalf of all residents.

While this may sound like I'm splitting hairs, the distinction may become important if we have another major issue arising out of the actions of the Developer. I.e., although, in such a case, we will have POA support, we will again need interested individual residents who are willing to take the initiative and devote the time and effort to stand up for all of us.

Incidentally, the fact that membership in, and financial support of, the POA is voluntary has enabled the Developer to weaken its clout by subsidizing the VHA, which the Developer clearly has in his pocket.

Actually, the distinction is quite important. Thank you kindly for correcting the record.

[Advogado]

Gracie....you have touched upon a subject that I have been reluctant to comment on for some time. It's kind of a sacred cow that has had little scrutiny and as usual, my personal assessment can be somewhat abstract in such matters.

It is seldom mentioned when the $39,800,000 settlement is bandied about by those that use it to support their position, that the actual settlement is spread out over 13 years. While the yearly sum is still remarkable, it somehow diminishes the wallop of the $39 million dollar figure. The attorney fees were negotiated and settled at $6,700,000 dollars and the original individual residents "settled" at $300,000 presumably to be shared by them.

As these sums of money are the product of a settlement, in my mind it raises haunting questions.

Why did the developer settle relatively quickly? Did he get a better deal than he had anticipated? In real dollars the settlement comes to a little over $3 million a year from the developer. Chump change for him as his antagonists frequently suggest.

What incentive did the class action filers have to hold out for a bigger award? I believe they are all good people, but, could the prospect of a $300,000 score, cloud judgement and induce a settlement when a holdout would have been more beneficial to all Villagers? As a large class of Villagers would be impacted by the settlement, did they have an opportunity to endorse or ratify the settlement? I don't know.

I didn't notice any awards for actuarial studies. A public disclosure on the finances in issue, to the rest of the "class" seems like it would be interesting and important. Maybe I missed it. Perhaps such studies were included in the $6,700,000 legal fees. I don't know.

If the developer put $6,700,000 dollars on the table for lawyer fees, could that hasten an early settlement in the developers favor. I haven't heard an argument from many here that he isn't devious or shrewd. There are 8760 +/- hours in a year. How many years would it take a $300 dollar an hour lawyer...working 7 days a week....24 hours a day....365 days a year to reach $6,700,000? That's a lot of billable hours. My point is simple....what incentive would attorneys have to hold out for say....$6 million a year instead of $3 million? I don't know.

In fairness to the litigants, they took the risk in filing and invested the time and stress of going through the process. Do you suppose the developer knew that when he offered the settlement? I don't know.

While the settlement is frequently posted and quoted in this forum and some papers, this citation from the settlement is seldom referenced:

The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' allegations or on the denials, or other defenses made by the Defendants. However, the parties entered into negotiations in connection with the alleged insufficiency of the Reserve and Replacement account and other matters and have entered into a preliminary settlement agreement.

I reiterate that I believe the litigants are all good people who took on a just and noble cause. I appreciate the success they achieved. I am concerned about a system of resolution that does not consider all those that are affected by a "settlement". It creates a cautious, skeptical distrust when those that have the power to settle, have a financial interest in negotiated outcomes. In that regard, I believe the "settlement" paradigm is flawed. I don't know?

Have a good evening in The Villages.

Cabo35,

While my knowledge of the facts surrounding the settlement is not complete, after discussions with several of the plaintiffs and reading other available documents, I am convinced that the plaintiffs sincerely felt, and still feel, that the $40,000,000-over-13-years was the very best that they were going to be able to obtain. Remember that the Developer's going-in position was zero.

You are absolutely right that the present value of $40,000,000 spread over 13 years is considerably less than $40,000,000 in current dollars, the present value depending on what discount rate you use. In my posts, I have just used $40,000,000, which is the approximate total dollar amount of the settlement and is the number generally used in discussions of the matter.

Will it be enough, you ask? A very good question, and one that greatly concerns me too. I think that the answer is, only time will tell. For example, it is my understanding that, during the negotiations, the Developer did not reveal to the plaintiffs the existence of the then-not-publicized and now-still-pending IRS investigation. There certainly is no mention of it in the Settlement Agreement or news accounts of the settlement. An unfavorable outcome of that investigation would almost certainly render the settlement totally inadequate.

However, if subsequent developments or actions by the Developer render the settlement amount inadequate, I suspect that, despite the release that was given as part of the settlement, we residents will be able to institute a new class action suit to ensure that we get what the Developer promised us-- the amenities.

[Pturner]

Gracie....you have touched upon a subject that I have been reluctant to comment on for some time. It's kind of a sacred cow that has had little scrutiny and as usual, my personal assessment can be somewhat abstract in such matters.

It is seldom mentioned when the $39,800,000 settlement is bandied about by those that use it to support their position, that the actual settlement is spread out over 13 years. While the yearly sum is still remarkable, it somehow diminishes the wallop of the $39 million dollar figure. The attorney fees were negotiated and settled at $6,700,000 dollars and the original individual residents "settled" at $300,000 presumably to be shared by them.

As these sums of money are the product of a settlement, in my mind it raises haunting questions.

Why did the developer settle relatively quickly? Did he get a better deal than he had anticipated? In real dollars the settlement comes to a little over $3 million a year from the developer. Chump change for him as his antagonists frequently suggest.

What incentive did the class action filers have to hold out for a bigger award? I believe they are all good people, but, could the prospect of a $300,000 score, cloud judgement and induce a settlement when a holdout would have been more beneficial to all Villagers? As a large class of Villagers would be impacted by the settlement, did they have an opportunity to endorse or ratify the settlement? I don't know.

I didn't notice any awards for actuarial studies. A public disclosure on the finances in issue, to the rest of the "class" seems like it would be interesting and important. Maybe I missed it. Perhaps such studies were included in the $6,700,000 legal fees. I don't know.

If the developer put $6,700,000 dollars on the table for lawyer fees, could that hasten an early settlement in the developers favor. I haven't heard an argument from many here that he isn't devious or shrewd. There are 8760 +/- hours in a year. How many years would it take a $300 dollar an hour lawyer...working 7 days a week....24 hours a day....365 days a year to reach $6,700,000? That's a lot of billable hours. My point is simple....what incentive would attorneys have to hold out for say....$6 million a year instead of $3 million? I don't know.

In fairness to the litigants, they took the risk in filing and invested the time and stress of going through the process. Do you suppose the developer knew that when he offered the settlement? I don't know.

While the settlement is frequently posted and quoted in this forum and some papers, this citation from the settlement is seldom referenced:

The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' allegations or on the denials, or other defenses made by the Defendants. However, the parties entered into negotiations in connection with the alleged insufficiency of the Reserve and Replacement account and other matters and have entered into a preliminary settlement agreement.

I reiterate that I believe the litigants are all good people who took on a just and noble cause. I appreciate the success they achieved. I am concerned about a system of resolution that does not consider all those that are affected by a "settlement". It creates a cautious, skeptical distrust when those that have the power to settle, have a financial interest in negotiated outcomes. In that regard, I believe the "settlement" paradigm is flawed. I don't know?

Have a good evening in The Villages.

Would the five individual plaintiffs risked having to bear the entire expense for the attorneys', accountants' and experts' fees and expenses, plus court costs, had they not settled? If so, it's hard to fault with them for settling.

If they risked their personal money while all other north-side Villagers risked nothing, how could it possibly be fair for the other Villagers to decide whether the individual plaintiff's settled or whether these individuals continued to risk a fortune of their own money on the possibility of endless delays and filings and pleadings and appeals? I must be misunderstanding this. Could someone enlighten me?

As for the offer of $6.7 million in attorneys fees to settle, that does seem outrageous. It's no wonder if the attorney recommended settlement! It almost sounds like an offer by the defendants to buy off the plaintiff's attorney. What am I misunderstanding?

[Advogado]

Would the five individual plaintiffs risked having to bear the entire expense for the attorneys', accountants' and experts' fees and expenses, plus court costs, had they not settled? If so, it's hard to fault with them for settling.

If they risked their personal money while all other north-side Villagers risked nothing, how could it possibly be fair for the other Villagers to decide whether the individual plaintiff's settled or whether these individuals continued to risk a fortune of their own money on the possibility of endless delays and filings and pleadings and appeals? I must be misunderstanding this. Could someone enlighten me?

As for the offer of $6.7 million in attorneys fees to settle, that does seem outrageous. It's no wonder if the attorney recommended settlement! It almost sounds like an offer by the defendants to buy off the plaintiff's attorney. What am I misunderstanding?

Based on what I know about the case, I don't find the $6.7 million outrageous, considering the complexity of the case, the amount of the recovery, and the uncertainty of any recovery whatsoever. In fact, the plaintiffs had a terrible time finding any lawyers who would even touch the case. If you think that the facts surrounding the case weren't complex and didn't take a tremendous amount of work, try plowing through the IRS documents analyzing the dealings between the Developer and the Villages Center Community Development District regarding the pricing and sale of the amenity facilities-- the same set of facts that underlay the class-action lawsuit. Then, think about how hard it would be to develop and analyze those facts if you didn't have the powers and resources of the IRS.

In any event, I think that our real concern ought not to be the amount of the attorney fees or the amount of the award to the individual plaintiffs. Those issues are really of no practical importance at this point. Instead, the our real concern: Will the $40,000,000-over-13-years be enough to keep the amenities system going? See my earlier post for my take on that question.

[Pturner]

Based on what I know about the case, I don't find the $6.7 million outrageous, considering the complexity of the case, the amount of the recovery, and the uncertainty of any recovery whatsoever. In fact, the plaintiffs had a terrible time finding any lawyers who would even touch the case. If you think that the facts surrounding the case weren't complex and didn't take a tremendous amount of work, try plowing through the IRS documents analyzing the dealings between the Developer and the Villages Center Community Development District regarding the pricing and sale of the amenity facilities-- the same set of facts that underlay the class-action lawsuit. Then, think about how hard it would be to develop and analyze those facts if you didn't have the powers and resources of the IRS.

In any event, I think that our real concern ought not to be the amount of the attorney fees or the amount of the award to the individual plaintiffs. Those issues are really of no practical importance at this point. Instead, the our real concern: Will the $40,000,000-over-13-years be enough to keep the amenities system going? See my earlier post for my take on that question.

Agreed. The attorneys fees could well have been that much or more had the case moved forward through all the courts to conclusion. It just struck me as excessive considering a quick settlement. I don't question the wisdom of settling though. It's easy to for folks to plead, "go for broke" when it's other people's money on the line.

[same]

Do I understand this correctly? ...The lawyers got $6.7 million NOW. The POA board members got $300,000 NOW. ...We get $40 million dollars in 13 years. ...Who approved this "settlement"?

[Pturner]

Do I understand this correctly? ...The lawyers got $6.7 million NOW. The POA board members got $300,000 NOW. ...We get $40 million dollars in 13 years. ...Who approved this "settlement"?

Same, if I understand it correctly, the people who filed the lawsuit (the plaintiffs), along with the defendants, settled the lawsuit. Is this correct?

[graciegirl]

Do I understand this correctly? ...The lawyers got $6.7 million NOW. The POA board members got $300,000 NOW. ...We get $40 million dollars in 13 years. ...Who approved this "settlement"?

My opinion is, and I am not educated in the law of the land and I haven't ever been sued or have never sued anybody...

It appears that these five people, although I think Joe Gorman was the president of the POA at the time were not acting on the behalf of the POA but brought suit on their own, and as a result they did personally financially benefit. If they had lost the suit, would they have lost money? Do some lawyers take suits that say they won't be paid at all unless they win?

I believe that financial benefit wasn't the reason for the suit, 50K isn't that much money and I am NOT trying to be facetious.

Were any of those people who brought suit lawyers themselves? It seems very risky to do what they had done.

The POA is a very good watchdog and I do so like the language of the publication MUCH better now that there is a new editor. It sounds much more like a journalist is writing it rather than a p**sed off person.

I read the current POA newsletter the other day and found myself enjoying the read and looked up the address to send a check to join. I like what I am reading and I am comfortable with the goals. The new president sounds like a winner and I read that they are getting a lot of new members which to me is not surprising.

This place gets better all of the time.

We wouldn't know any of this stuff without TOTV.

[ceejay]

This place gets better all of the time.

We wouldn't know any of this stuff without TOTV.


Thank God we have this particular venue to educate all of us! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Gracie...do you ever sleep?

[Avista]

I've changed my avatar for today in honor of all you have endured. I lost my Mom to breast cancer in January. As you can see we both have a special buddy to help us through the hard times.

Xavier

We sure DO have that special buddy, don't we?

[Avista]

"My disappointment with Moffitt is that an oncologist will not be on staff there. At least that's what I have been told."

One thought on this: Moffitt has so many oncologists--and they are all specialized. For instance, I had a certain type of Breast Cancer. My oncologist was not only specialized in Breast Cancer, but my particular type of Breast Cancer.

[rubicon]

Cabo31,PTurnerAdvogado,Graciegirl If you will recall the 3/18/08 POA meeting was called in haste because many POA members demanded information concerning the settlement after they learned of the individual settlements and the large attorney fee. Neither the Daily Sun, Village Voice or POA Bulletin disclosed any information about those settlements. The decision to hide those setlements from the membership was not a wise one. Secondly $6.7 million for 15 months work is nice work if you can get it but the reasons cited in a previous post were the same cited by a celebrated plaintiff attorney from Jacksonville hired by the Developer to justify the settlement and accompaning fees. Can you imagine one attorney vouching for the work of another attorney. We will never know what the true recovery could have been because those making the decision apparently took the first and only offer. Secondly the case was not complex as it was my understanding that it was the garden variety breach of contract case. Finally the chances of recovery were good because you had a David v Goliath case and juries love to reward the little people. Even a neophyte like me understands the lure people have for the underdog. Its the American way.

If the individual plaintiffs, who were all on the POA Board believed they were taking all the risks they should have had a meeting before settling to explain the situation and get feed back from the membership and asked if they wanted to contribute to the cause. Irrespective of wha was done in the past the membership should have been give a last chance to have input on a lawsuit that would have a lasting effect on their financial situations. It would have been viewed as a good faith effort by the POA leadership It may be that this was not a class action suit but the POA characterized it that way to the membership. And we have to ask why then if it wasn't a class action did the Daily Sun Village voice and POA Bulletin place a notice to residents north of 466 that if they wanted to opt out they had x number of days to file a claim? The mere fact that this was done has meaning and its action misleading to many. Beside which the POA consistently remind the membership that the lawsuit was done on their behalf

I had always suspected that the Developer had some pressing reason for settling and with news of the IRS Bond issue that question was answered for me. I am surprised that an attorney worth $6.7 million didn't pick up on the fact that something in the background was causing the Developer to suddently want to settle this case. Put another way many attorneys would have suspected they had the defense on the run and picked at the situation a bit before settling. I mean isn't that what attorneys do?

We don't know what was contained in the confidentiality agreement? But common sense tells us that the Developer and his band of legal minds would have made an attempt to add a covenant not to sue clause so that never again could he be sued by the POA. I say this because all you have to do is take a look around this vast complex called The Villages and it doesn't take much imagination to see the number of contracts made hundreds and hundreds of times over to protect the Developer's interests. Perhaps I am wrong here but again it would have been prudent for the POA leadership to have been more open about this settlement proposal and the potential benefits and costs and thus protect their backs.

The fact that the people involved in the lawsuit and the people who had the interests of the membership of the POA were its leaders placed them in a very bad light. It was the attorney's duty to alert these plaintiffs of that fact and that is why disclosure before settling was so important and needed.
The questioning was predictable because once again the 3/18/08 meeting was held to explain those individual settlements which by the way was never really addressed. The POA attorney response was "some very nice attorneys from the Developer came to see us....."

Perhaps the POA may have missed a golden opportunity with this lawsuit. We will never know? And that is the point. I do appreciate what the POA was attempting to do and I do not desire to second guess but the fact remains that the manner in which the settlement took place and the fact that disclosure of the individuals settlements was not made but revealed by at least two outside sources did not bode well for many people. And like so many other issues the POA could have and should have acted bolder and at the time of settlement been more open. In otherwords perhaps a meeting like the one held 3/18/08 should have been conducted before the documenta were signed and finalized?

Because most of us never have or never will see any of the settlement documents we can only go by what we experienced. But the failure to disclose individual settlements was factual and that I believe is what mostly created the uproar

[graciegirl]

Guess not.

[rubicon]

In reviewing my previous post I note that I made mention that "The decision to hide.....was not a wise one." That is an assumption and hence may not be correct. what I meant to say was that the unintentional failure to disclose individual settlements created the need to publicly address the issue.
We don't know what we don't know and we willnever know???