[PennBF]

It is one thing to support the Developer regardless of his/her actions. It is another to claim the $40M awarded was somehow a miscarriage of justice of the courts. The courts heard all of the evidence and ruled. To say I don't have the "Court Facts" regarding the suit but challenge the results is really a show of such bias as to defy any logic. Regarding Ms. Tutt. Whether of not she does a good job is not the question. The question is it is right to allow the Developer to appoint a person who rules everything for the Villages. Of course she can and does effect the actions of the CDD's as she has great power over them plus the influence. If you read the law governing the Condo management you will see a signifiant difference, (Fl Law 718). In that case the Developer MUST turn the operations/government of the Condo over to an independent board and cannot have ANY influence over the Condo. A majority of the residents under the influence of the Developer really have no idea regarding what is done to foster his influence and revenue. How many actually know the difference between "Project Wide" and the "Ammenity Rules". How many actually know the alleged 'abuse of these two at the disadvantage of the residents and the advantage to the Developer? All of this is not a judgement on the performance of Janet Tutt but rather openings for abuses
and the lack of control of the residents.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by PennBF

It is one thing to support the Developer regardless of his/her actions. It is another to claim the $40M awarded was somehow a miscarriage of justice of the courts. The courts heard all of the evidence and ruled. To say I don't have the "Court Facts" regarding the suit but challenge the results is really a show of such bias as to defy any logic. Regarding Ms. Tutt. Whether of not she does a good job is not the question. The question is it is right to allow the Developer to appoint a person who rules everything for the Villages. Of course she can and does effect the actions of the CDD's as she has great power over them plus the influence. If you read the law governing the Condo management you will see a signifiant difference, (Fl Law 718). In that case the Developer MUST turn the operations/government of the Condo over to an independent board and cannot have ANY influence over the Condo. A majority of the residents under the influence of the Developer really have no idea regarding what is done to foster his influence and revenue. How many actually know the difference between "Project Wide" and the "Ammenity Rules". How many actually know the alleged 'abuse of these two at the disadvantage of the residents and the advantage to the Developer? All of this is not a judgement on the performance of Janet Tutt but rather openings for abuses
and the lack of control of the residents.

The above is such a good post. Finally someone actually uses logic.

I note, the original poster started this thread and asked who Janet Tutt reports to. Asked and answered - THE DEVELOPER. Since the thread has veered off into another realm regarding the pros and cons of the developer, which has been hashed and re-hashed a gazillion times in other threads, perhaps its time this thread is closed. Moderator?

[Michigandress]

Originally Posted by mickey100

Certainly the Developer has the right to make money, and he has done a fine job of doing that. But as residents, we are foolish if we elevate his right to make money, above our right to have a wonderful retirement community. Our needs come first, and we are paying for that right with our amenity fees. Some would say the past lawsuit is not relevant because it only involved those villages north of 466. I happen to live south of 466, and in my eyes, what happened there could be a precedent. The lawsuit alleged money had been misappropriated by the Developer and funds were not available cover improvements and repairs to recreation centers, swimming pools and other facilities that make the retirement community alluring. The people who filed the lawsuit had noticed a steady decline in building maintenance and conditions and services, and calls for action were completely ignored. The lawsuit was a last resort, and lucky for us a settlement was reached. We hope that lawsuits are a thing of the past, but I see no guarantees. And now we are embroiled in this whole IRS business, thanks to the Morses business acumen. Again, the residents could suffer financial consequences as a result.

We all have our own opinions. I am a financial conservative, and I do not like being beholden to a Developer that has this dubious record with lawsuits and the IRS. It just raises a red flag with me. I don't trust them. I personally will feel much better when we escape their omnipotence, and hire qualified people, like Janet Tutt for instance, to run things and to report to the residents directly. Our needs will come first.

You are right.

But looking at the situation differently, I would like to stipulate that the Developer is a genius in planning, building, and operating a retirement community. The Villages is well run, I like living here, and I have no intention of leaving.

However, there is an old saying to the effect that if you are dealing with either an idiot or a genius, you had better be careful and watch what is going on. That adage applies here, and the the Developer's actions underlying such situations as the class-action lawsuit and the IRS investigation prove it. But, I think that if Villagers keep an eye on the situation and if the Developer is unsuccessful in his efforts to undermine the only real check on his actions that residents have--the POA, I think everything will probably turn out just fine for everybody-- including the Developer.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by mickey100

Non one is saying she is not acting in our interests, but we need to look at the whole picture here. Who pays her salary? The VCDD i.e. The Developer? If she answers directly to the Developer then she may try to act in our interests, but when push comes to shove, she'll always side with the Developer. And I'm not saying the Developer doesn't act in our interests, before the Developer lovers jump all over me. But, as others have stated, he is an astute businessman, and his interests are always going to come before ours. Hopefully our joint interests will be the same, but that doesn't always happen, to wit the $40 million lawsuit. My point wasn't that Janet Tutt doesn't do a good job, it was that I would feel better if the person in Tutt's position , i.e. Tutt or any other person, answered to the residents. I just don't like a setup where the Developer is omnipotent. A system of checks and balances would make me more comfortable. Obviously, those that are supporters of k the Developer and have complete trust, feel differently.

mickey 100: you are spot on. I have had dealings with Janet Tutt. she does appear to be a capable person but the position she is in leaves little room for creativity. The Developer as the IRS has learned is quite clever in that he claims an arms length distance when it comes to the bond issue but then has the ability to shape the villages to his economic advantage. Its all about timing and the manner in which business is transacted. Keep in mind that we are separated as CDD's but that controlling are the VCCDD and SLCCD much of what the Developer controls and has the assistance of 5 county commissioners under the heading Sumter One. It may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing or it may just be? You choose

To me its all about expectations and those expectations were derived from a resident's understanding of what he/she bought into. Did you believe you were buying into a retirement community or a vacation destination? Did you believe that this was a gated community? Did you believe that the town squares and champions course were mainly for residents and family? Did you understand that although they call this a town it is not a town because it is simply comprised of villages? Did you approach buying into this development with rose colored glasses (ie. Disneyworld for Adults)?etc. etc. etc . I do not find fault here but lay the base for why such things as Janet Tutt's position and performance may mean different things to different people. And I wish her well and have always thrown my support behind her

[Lady L_Commissioner_Ward4]

I have in the past, and will defend Janet, I have known here for years, have had many business dealings with her, she is straightforward, extremely knowledgable, and doubt if there is another person that could do the job she does, with so much on her plate.
Just my opinion as an elected official in the municipality of Lady Lake.




John 8:7 (KJV)

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Amen

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by PennBF

It is one thing to support the Developer regardless of his/her actions. It is another to claim the $40M awarded was somehow a miscarriage of justice of the courts. The courts heard all of the evidence and ruled. To say I don't have the "Court Facts" regarding the suit but challenge the results is really a show of such bias as to defy any logic. Regarding Ms. Tutt. Whether of not she does a good job is not the question. The question is it is right to allow the Developer to appoint a person who rules everything for the Villages. Of course she can and does effect the actions of the CDD's as she has great power over them plus the influence. If you read the law governing the Condo management you will see a signifiant difference, (Fl Law 718). In that case the Developer MUST turn the operations/government of the Condo over to an independent board and cannot have ANY influence over the Condo. A majority of the residents under the influence of the Developer really have no idea regarding what is done to foster his influence and revenue. How many actually know the difference between "Project Wide" and the "Ammenity Rules". How many actually know the alleged 'abuse of these two at the disadvantage of the residents and the advantage to the Developer? All of this is not a judgement on the performance of Janet Tutt but rather openings for abuses
and the lack of control of the residents.

I think that you'll find that when we all signed all of those papers when we we're buying our homes here, we agreed to allow the developer to appoint someone who rule everything for The Villages.
The Villages, by the way, is not a condominium.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Lady L_Commissioner_Ward4

I have in the past, and will defend Janet, I have known here for years, have had many business dealings with her, she is straightforward, extremely knowledgable, and doubt if there is another person that could do the job she does, with so much on her plate.
Just my opinion as an elected official in the municipality ...

Thank you for your post. I'd like to point out, however, there is no need to defend her. I really don't know where this is all coming from, but no posts say Janet is not doing a good job. In fact, just the opposite. There seems to be universal approval of her job performance.

But There are questions regarding the way her position is aligned with the Developer that raise concern. This has nothing to do with Ms. Tutt, but rather the way she reports to the Developer and ultimately is required to act in the Developer's interest, rather than the interests of the residents. As mentioned before, those interests generally coincide, but when they don't, the residents could get the short end of the stick.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by rubicon

mickey 100: you are spot on. I have had dealings with Janet Tutt. she does appear to be a capable person but the position she is in leaves little room for creativity. The Developer as the IRS has learned is quite clever in that he claims an arms length distance when it comes to the bond issue but then has the ability to shape the villages to his economic advantage. Its all about timing and the manner in which business is transacted. Keep in mind that we are separated as CDD's but that controlling are the VCCDD and SLCCD much of what the Developer controls and has the assistance of 5 county commissioners under the heading Sumter One. It may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing or it may just be? You choose

To me its all about expectations and those expectations were derived from a resident's understanding of what he/she bought into. Did you believe you were buying into a retirement community or a vacation destination? Did you believe that this was a gated community? Did you believe that the town squares and champions course were mainly for residents and family? Did you understand that although they call this a town it is not a town because it is simply comprised of villages? Did you approach buying into this development with rose colored glasses (ie. Disneyworld for Adults)?etc. etc. etc . I do not find fault here but lay the base for why such things as Janet Tutt's position and performance may mean different things to different people. And I wish her well and have always thrown my support behind her

Spot on.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by mickey100

Thank you for your post. I'd like to point out, however, there is no need to defend her. I really don't know where this is all coming from, but no posts say Janet is not doing a good job. In fact, just the opposite. There seems to be universal approval of her job performance.

But There are questions regarding the way her position is aligned with the Developer that raise concern. This has nothing to do with Ms. Tutt, but rather the way she reports to the Developer and ultimately is required to act in the Developer's interest, rather than the interests of the residents. As mentioned before, those interests generally coincide, but when they don't, the residents could get the short end of the stick.

This is the statement that keeps raising the issue of condeming Mrs. Tutt.
Your implication that she will act in the Developer's interest is what posters are challenging. You say she will....................

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

This is the statement that keeps raising the issue of condeming Mrs. Tutt.
Your implication that she will act in the Developer's interest is what posters are challenging. You say she will....................

Acting in the Developer's interest is not an implication that she doesn't do a good job. That is a misinterpretation on someone's part.

No one is condemning her or implying anything negative regarding her work skills. As mentioned numerous times, she is doing a good job given the framework she has to work within.

But, for the last time - the point of my post, is that I would prefer to have a manager that is not tied to the Developer. The Developer pays her salary. When the interests of the Developer and residents coincide, all will be well. When they don't, Ms. Tutt can make a recommendation in the residents' favor, but the Developer can and will and override it if it is not in his business interests. She will be forced to go along with the Developer i.e. act in his interests, or she will lose her job. That is reality.

[Bogie Shooter]

I'm gone on this one..........................

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

I'm gone on this one..........................

I'm out too.


One last thing.


If it ain't broke, please don't fix it. And if you have the need to fix something, please go somewhere else and fix it. This place is doing fine and if the developer messes up, there will be 100,000 mean old people all over him.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by dillywho

Not meaning to stir the pot nor argue, but could you please explain some of your statements?

1) Putting his right to make money over our needs to have a wonderful retirement community? Is that not what we have now? If not, why not?

2) Did you know about any of this or do any research before moving here? If not, why not? If you did, why didn't you have problems with the 'history' then and the way things are run now?

3) Since the Developer pays her check, why wouldn't she consider him over what every Tom, Dick, and Harry here wants to change?

4) The IRS issue has a long history with TV and has either lost or backed off in the past. If it had the substance that many think it has, don't you think it would have been resolved years ago. They (IRS) already have some issues themselves, so.....

5) Did you not read my post about how it is here north of 466 with the AAC? I believe I also said, "Be careful what you wish for..."

6) "The lawsuit alleged" you said and could set a precedent. As for residents being totally ignored, no. In the case of the cart paths, they wanted newer and wider ones. Patches to existing ones were all that was going to still be available. The suit was settled rather than fight because it was deemed by the defendants to "be in the best interest of the Villagers". The terms are also sealed and cannot be discussed by either side. Why live in the "what if" this happens/that happens?

7) Last, and most importantly, what of your needs are not being met by Ms. Tutt and the Developer; and if things are so bad, why do you stay? With that question I am not suggesting that you don't need to be here. Everyone is welcome. I just know that I do not settle for things that I have a major problem with or are not acceptable. Just ask my ex.

Hi dillywho: Let me preface my remarks by explaining that to me to suggest that if someone doesn't like it they should move is not a cogent argument, its an emotional reaction. Secondly, I am perplex by people who seem to defend the reputation of the Developer. Now going down your list:

1) do we have a retirement community or has it turned into a vacation destination?

2) As to its history you would have to apply the "What did they know"and "when did they know it". so it depends on when someone moved here and what transpired before they arrived?

3) you don't see a problem with the Developer paying the check for the one person who has the responsibility for protecting our interest? I mean you don't see this as a "conflict of interests"?

4) I strongly suggest that you read the Notice of Proposed Issue #1, #2, #3 filed by the IRS .

5) The ACC was a result of the Amenity settlement that was suppose to give residents freedom to decide on how to spend amenities. Janet Tutt and others aligned with the developer sit on that council. I am not saying it is right or wrong, in fact I believe some of the decision coming from the ACC are not well thought out. But I won't manage from beneath because I do not know what they are dealing with

6) This lawsuit was settled but why was it sealed and why didn't the residents north of 466 have an opportunity to hear the proposals before they settled. It was styled a class action and residents were told the suit was going to be settled and if they want to opt out they had to file on their own behalf. Did the plaintiff lawyers settle this suit too quickly? Ask yourself why would the developer make an offer only after 15 months? As to precedent how can we ever have one because the settlement was settled for that reason among others. Had the plaintiffs in this case made it more difficult for the POA or residents in the future t bring suit against the Developer? We simply don't know

7) You know my feeling about telling people to move. What are we not getting. I suggest residents begin with understanding the financial statements and follow through with daily transactions. I mean we don't know what we don't know.

I have a good feeling about Janet Tutt but business is business and far too many residents ignore the business goings on here


Personal Best Regards

[PennBF]

If anyone is interested in knowing how a community, whether it be a Condo or HOA/Villages, etc. should be controlled they should familiarize themselves with Florida Law 718 which is the law Condo's and Condo Boards must follow and the limitations of the Developer. It controls the Developer from continuing to rule the community once the homes/condos have been built and places very tough laws for the Boards to follow. It is amazing the difference in the way the developer is controlled and the prevention of "Developer Abuses". In addition there is pretty a long schedule of fines for violating the rules. Somehow it has been possible for a group to convince the Florida State Reps. to allow almost unlimited abuses by the Developer when they call it an HOA? It is clear that under 718 there would not be an IRS abuse as is the case with The Villages. It would be checked at the very start of the practice! Boards are not only held accountable to the residents but the Government and both fines and criminal charges can be brought forward if there are certain violations. There is no accountability to the "Board" in The Villages as the "Psedo"Board" is the Developer. Checks and balances do not exist. The developer is a business and too many want to give a business a "soul". A business is a "profit making organization" and does not have a soul no matter how many want to pretend it does.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by mickey100

Acting in the Developer's interest is not an implication that she doesn't do a good job. That is a misinterpretation on someone's part.

No one is condemning her or implying anything negative regarding her work skills. As mentioned numerous times, she is doing a good job given the framework she has to work within.

But, for the last time - the point of my post, is that I would prefer to have a manager that is not tied to the Developer. The Developer pays her salary. When the interests of the Developer and residents coincide, all will be well. When they don't, Ms. Tutt can make a recommendation in the residents' favor, but the Developer can and will and override it if it is not in his business interests. She will be forced to go along with the Developer i.e. act in his interests, or she will lose her job. That is reality.

I hesitate to weigh in here, but isn't the point of a manager to work for the owner and keep his "company" well oiled and running smoothly? Take over the day-to-day ops and free him up to work on bigger things?