Even if you think the CA Board incumbents failed at maintaining control over a rogue President, wouldn’t you want the replacements to at least acknowledge that what Lakey was doing was problematic in the first place? Would you say that people who defend what she did would actually be even more harmful than the incumbents, who did not act quickly enough to stop it?

I am the Author of this piece. Until last September, I was the President of Progressive Democrats of Howard County, and am now Vice President of Our Revolution Howard County, another progressive grassroots group that formed out of the Bernie Sanders campaign, and is dedicated to getting corporate money out of politics. How is this culture war propaganda? I want racial Justice and equity in this County, not people who say they care about it but then act against it. That is unfortunately what Lakey Boyd was doing…

What was biased/not objective about this piece?

What are you talking about? What issue did I not know what I was talking about? The Lake Elkhorn issue? What did I not know about that?

I’m sorry, Allan, but pushing out a CA President who would’ve cost the organization millions, and maybe even their tax-exempt status, is NOT a waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars! In fact, it was Lakey’s decisions which cost the CA millions, as described in the piece

Yes. And a new lease which is $1 million+ cheaper than the previous one. An explanation is needed for such a drastic change

The previous tenant’s lease was active from 2013-2021, and the lease for the new tenant was signed in December 2021. Both tenants were in the same industry, using the same open space for the same reasons. So it is a good comparison

Your point about the pandemic is a good one, but keep in mind that the terms of Lakey’s 2021 contract can still be in place as late as 2032, well after the effects of COVID have subsided. I addressed the point you’re making in the blog. I’ve copied and pasted that part below, to show that residential tenants were certainly not extended this same courtesy:

“Defenders of former CA President Boyd may argue that the terms of the December 2021 lease contract awarded to the new Howard Hughes Corporation tenant (The Collective 13) was signed during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the lower monthly rent rate and no annual inflation adjustments were justified due to “pandemic hardship”.

It is true that many businesses were struggling financially during the pandemic and that the previous tenant did not renew their lease potentially because they were unable to afford the monthly rent rates they were being charged under their contract established in 2013.

In a case such as this one, would a rent reduction for a future tenant be justified?

Let’s address that question with a few other questions:

How many Howard Hughes Corporation residential tenants were either evicted or did not renew their leases during COVID due to financial hardship?

Did the future tenants who moved in after the prior tenants were forced out due to hardship also receive a 50%+ decrease in monthly rent?

It is highly doubtful that this occurred. Even if the extremely low rental rates in this 2021 CA contract were set using COVID hardship as justification, the contract spans 2021 to 2027 and could even be extended through 2032, well after the effects of COVID are no longer a significant justification for hardship.

Beyond that, even if a rent reduction was justified, how was this drastic of a reduction calculated? Why was inflation adjustment not included? Answers to these questions are exactly the kind that the CA Board of Directors and the public deserve. These types of contracts and leases should be getting appraised for fair market value, rather than picking some arbitrarily low number.

It was incumbent upon Lakey Boyd as CA President to fulfill her fiduciary duty to CA residents and prove that a valid methodology was used to establish these seemingly low monthly rent rates as the true market value for the CA-owned open space that she leased out to a tenant of the private developer Howard Hughes Corporation. Otherwise, the CA would be at risk of violating IRS Rev. Rul. 72-102, potentially putting the CA’s tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) non-profit service corporation in serious jeopardy.”

Sadly, a cult of personality was invented around Lakey, so some DO care about her personally!

But even for those who just cared about her professional performance, how could folks properly evaluate that without these facts? Without these facts, people had a much more positive idea of Lakey’s performance than was due, and so many viewed the CA Board pushing her out as irresponsible, rather than responsible. Many people may vote in April based on that faulty logic. That, to me, is why this story was still important to get out there

The Board was moving to fire her, and people like you wrote biased blog pieces to intimidate them into not doing that (I assume you’re Michael Gollibersuch). The only conspiracy theories came from you and the buddy-of-rapists Jeremy Dommu’s blog https://www.parentsformeganslaw.org/wrestlers-accused-of-hogtying-and-sodomy-cops-say-boys-took-hazing-riutals-too-far/

I appreciate the feedback. I feel strongly about the issue, hence the strong and unsubtle language. Maybe if you knew everything I knew about the situation, you’d feel just as strongly. Regardless, I encourage you to tune in to the follow up pieces to see if you think my level of outrage is justified.

None of the things I’ve posted come from any sort of confidential information, and is instead all available upon request through the MD HOA Act.

You say no one cares about Lakey or the CA Board. Perhaps you don’t, but many do care about this conflict a lot. And it’s hard to determine who’s doing a good job if the public has only been exposed to a one-sided, false and manipulated narrative

I did have a few folks read after I wrote, and suggest edits, many of which were incorporated. But let’s face it: it’s a 22 page piece, so even an editor can only do so much to change the original tone. I do appreciate the feedback, though

No, it’s verifiably true that if the terms of the previous lease were kept, it would have resulted in over $1 million in additional revenue for the CA. Whether that is justified or not is speculation, I suppose, but until I’m given a convincing justification (which we have not been given), I’m led to believe this was a sweetheart deal.

?

Not sure, but that doesn’t address the question of how was this huge monthly rent rate decrease arrived at? What was Lakey Boyd’s methodology of reaching these low rates? Was a fair market evaluation appraisal conducted, as it should have? You may be right that perhaps a rent reduction was justified to find a new tenant. But what she have been justified in renting it out at $1/month at that point? There needs to be a reasonable formula/methodology of arriving at these numbers, rather than choosing them arbitrarily, which would be a betrayal of her fiduciary duties to CA residents. I’m not sure the details of how this rate was calculated, and until we know, all we can do is speculate. But without knowing more, this did not seem even close to up to snuff.

Great question, and I address that point towards the end of this piece:

“Defenders of former CA President Boyd may argue that the terms of the December 2021 lease contract awarded to the new Howard Hughes Corporation tenant (The Collective 13) was signed during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the lower monthly rent rate and no annual inflation adjustments were justified due to “pandemic hardship”.

It is true that many businesses were struggling financially during the pandemic and that the previous tenant did not renew their lease potentially because they were unable to afford the monthly rent rates they were being charged under their contract established in 2013.

In a case such as this one, would a rent reduction for a future tenant be justified?

Let’s address that question with a few other questions:

How many Howard Hughes Corporation residential tenants were either evicted or did not renew their leases during COVID due to financial hardship?

Did the future tenants who moved in after the prior tenants were forced out due to hardship also receive a 50%+ decrease in monthly rent?

It is highly doubtful that this occurred. Even if the extremely low rental rates in this 2021 CA contract were set using COVID hardship as justification, the contract spans 2021 to 2027 and could even be extended through 2032, well after the effects of COVID are no longer a significant justification for hardship.

Beyond that, even if a rent reduction was justified, how was this drastic of a reduction calculated? Why was inflation adjustment not included? Answers to these questions are exactly the kind that the CA Board of Directors and the public deserve. These types of contracts and leases should be getting appraised for fair market value, rather than picking some arbitrarily low number.

It was incumbent upon Lakey Boyd as CA President to fulfill her fiduciary duty to CA residents and prove that a valid methodology was used to establish these seemingly low monthly rent rates as the true market value for the CA-owned open space that she leased out to a tenant of the private developer Howard Hughes Corporation. Otherwise, the CA would be at risk of violating IRS Rev. Rul. 72-102, potentially putting the CA’s tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) non-profit service corporation in serious jeopardy.”

If you are still skeptical and not convinced yet, then be on the lookout for Part 3!

Steven Keller did not write this post, I did, he merely allowed it to be posted on his blog. Could you please point to what is inaccurate/obscured in this blog post?

I am currently the Vice Chair of a grassroots progressive organization dedicated to getting money out of politics, called Our Revolution HoCo. Until last September, I was President of the Progressive Democrats of Howard County. The only agenda I have is to support accountable and transparent local government, and to shine a light on corporate influence and money in politics. Which is exactly what was going on with Lakey Boyd

I encourage you to read with an open mind before jumping to any reactionary conclusions.

Yep! That will all be exposed in Part 4 of the blog! Let’s just hope it’s not too late to get the truth out there, and CA residents will see through the lies before the elections in April!

Great point, and I do address that point at the end of the piece, quoted below. Nonetheless, I understand being skeptical, and am confident you will be convinced after reading the next parts of the blog, which will be published in the next few weeks. Then, you’ll see that this is not just about this one contract (a bad contract which may have cost the CA $1 million+ in potential revenue), and it is not “making a mountain out of a mole hill”. Also, the Board was not able to discuss those things publicly, because it is a personnel matter subject to employee-employer confidentiality. This was knowingly and cynically taken advantage of by Lakey and her Allies to push a false narrative and smear campaign that they knew the CA Board was unable to counter publicly, which is why the CA Board was having so many closed meetings this past year

“Defenders of former CA President Boyd may argue that the terms of the December 2021 lease contract awarded to the new Howard Hughes Corporation tenant (The Collective 13) was signed during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the lower monthly rent rate and no annual inflation adjustments were justified due to “pandemic hardship”.

It is true that many businesses were struggling financially during the pandemic and that the previous tenant did not renew their lease potentially because they were unable to afford the monthly rent rates they were being charged under their contract established in 2013.

In a case such as this one, would a rent reduction for a future tenant be justified?

Let’s address that question with a few other questions:

How many Howard Hughes Corporation residential tenants were either evicted or did not renew their leases during COVID due to financial hardship?

Did the future tenants who moved in after the prior tenants were forced out due to hardship also receive a 50%+ decrease in monthly rent?

It is highly doubtful that this occurred. Even if the extremely low rental rates in this 2021 CA contract were set using COVID hardship as justification, the contract spans 2021 to 2027 and could even be extended through 2032, well after the effects of COVID are no longer a significant justification for hardship.

Beyond that, even if a rent reduction was justified, how was this drastic of a reduction calculated? Why was inflation adjustment not included? Answers to these questions are exactly the kind that the CA Board of Directors and the public deserve. These types of contracts and leases should be getting appraised for fair market value, rather than picking some arbitrarily low number.

It was incumbent upon Lakey Boyd as CA President to fulfill her fiduciary duty to CA residents and prove that a valid methodology was used to establish these seemingly low monthly rent rates as the true market value for the CA-owned open space that she leased out to a tenant of the private developer Howard Hughes Corporation. Otherwise, the CA would be at risk of violating IRS Rev. Rul. 72-102, potentially putting the CA’s tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) non-profit service corporation in serious jeopardy.”