Community Comments on RA’s Reactions

Here is a comment from one of the posts on the Restonian blog, that I felt deserved it’s own blog post. Thanks Michael R:

Robin,

I have spoken to you both directly and in front of the RA and RCC boards. I have also spoken to Leila and Milton. I focus on facts and try to minimize emotion and suspicion. I must take total exception to some of your and Milton’s comments, specifically:

1. “Monday’s meeting was held in a small room and many, many people stood outside in the hallway. Reston Association CEO Milton Matthews was among the many, many people who stood outside in the hallway. By his own words, Mr. Matthews engaged in several conversations covering many topics. “I never mentioned that I did not want to go inside the room, nor did I state that RA was looking for ways to avoid a referendum,” Matthews said.”

I saw Milton leaning against the wall in the hallway and in NO way was he engaging anyone. I approached Milton and said to him, “Hi, quite a turn out! Milton, when I spoke to you last time I advised you that this issue would be a hot subject. Can you hear them in there? They are angry and feel betrayed. Milton responded to me, “I cannot hear anything. I am in the hallway and I do not intend to go into the room.” I looked at him in such a way [as in you got to be kidding!] he obviously became more uncomfortable. Tell me this: How could the CEO of the RA not want to be in the room and hear what was being said by the people who live in this community of ours?? Milton, you cannot hide from what you said. I heard it clearly.

2. “In fact, RA’s General Counsel has been investigating whether a referendum would be required and as of Monday’s meeting, he had not released an official ruling. If one is required and IF we get to the point of moving ahead with an indoor recreational facility, the Reston Association would certainly welcome additional community input.”

WHY on earth would you NOT want to have a referendum to hear the voice of all Reston and instead utilize some sort of legal loophole? Are you concerned about having the voice of the membership heard? I would be, if I were in your shoes right now! You are in a very indefensible position and this type of maneuver is just making things worse.

3. “We want to hear from the entire community – not just the small, vocal faction that boasts it says no to just about every forward thinking idea.”

You ARE hearing from the community and your statement is insulting at best. Speaking of insulting your little quips about who is opposing this whole concept is “you and your neighbors” is so out of touch. This opposition movement is Reston-wide. Robin, maybe you need to rethink your being on the RA board. You personally have alienated more folks than both RCC and RA combined.

4. “Reston Association is in no way trying to circumvent any process that leads to garnering public opinion. This includes, but is not limited to holding a referendum.”

If this is true why the closed session meetings with your legal counsel to look at not having to do a referendum?? You can no longer deny this as you have confirmed it now in your own blog info (item #7) and one of the other RA board members has confirmed it as well.

5. “By examining the language of the Restonian, one quickly realizes there are only suppositions, opinions and hearsay presented as facts. There are many references to “someone” and “someone was told by an eye witness.” But those are not facts. Facts rely on data and first-hand accounts that are attributable to a person with a name. Facts are what we have presented here.”

Again, let’s alienate more folks. Most of the facts that support the opposition to the this project are coming from RCC and RA. Your own “studies” provide a wealth of info with which to criticize this project. Also, there are RA & RCC board members who are not in alignment with your positions on this matter. Please stop the arrogant and condescending comments. Again, you are only making matters worse.

6. “No decision has been made with regard to the building of an indoor recreational facility in the Reston community.”

Oh please! There is no formal RCC/RA board vote to finalize a decision but the center has already been named (Robert E. Simon Center) by RCC/RA, you spent $92,000 on a flawed “needs study” (Why flawed?? Well for starters your focus groups/stakeholders used in the study were 100% tennis/swimming/athletic groups with NOT ONE HOMEOWNER or HOA or CA representative) to justify the rec center and you all have already been discussing specific fees for the facility use. You have a personal agenda and you intend to keep it.

And to Leila Gordon…to quote you

“The data assertion regarding use of a proposed indoor recreation facility is based on an error in the draft report from the consultant presented for discussion in December that inadvertently reversed the
ratio of Reston/non-Reston use in one section of it. Had readers followed the report draft all the way through to the possible financial pro-formas they would have seen the cost and recovery data that is based on 70+% use by Reston, with the remainder of revenue derived from non-Reston users. This will be discussed in the presentation on June 1.”

I assure you we (including several attorneys) looked over the draft “needs” document. Now you are saying you all released a draft that is flawed and you spent $92,000 of our money on a document containing errors. Oh, please! The study in question did not support this project (financials in particular and the majority of the users not being from Reston) so now it was ‘flawed information’ and it will be changed. You must really be out of touch with your community and certainly someone in RCC should be held accountable for allowing a $92,000 study to be released with errors (not tiny, little typos but BIG errors!)

“The larger room, our Jo Ann Rose Gallery, was committed to the
monthly meeting of the Sierra Club. We tried to reach them to discuss switching rooms so more people could be comfortably accommodated, and we were unfortunately unsuccessful.”

There were 20 chairs set up in the room and an hour and a half prior to the Sierra Club meeting you saw that the small room could not hold the crowds gathering. YOU did have a choice! You had a responsibility to the community to move the meeting to the larger room. And just to let you know the Fire Marshall rating for the small room capacity (as posted on the wall) is 49 and yet you/RCC allowed over 200 people to cram into the room is clear violation of the Fire Marshall standards. I assume you realize the legal ramifications that you personally and the RCC as an organization posed yourselves to.

I will continue to respond to blogs/posts/etc. like yours, Robin and Leila,. that continue to obfuscate the issues and mislead the Reston Association membership.

Michael

Thanks Michael for speaking out and providing some very relevant FACTS.  We are hoping to turn GoReston.com into a community blog with a lot of voices.  If anyone is interested in becoming part of GoReton as a blogger (with facts or opinions) we would he happy to have you.  Simply register using the link on the right hand side of the blog and then email us (email link at the top of the page) and let us know that you wish to become a contributor and we will increase your membership status.

We look forward to hearing many more voices and opinions!

GoReston!