It was fitting that Joe Stowers, the 49th person to buy a home in Reston back in 1965, perfectly described the give-and-take of the proposed governing documents over the past four months.
"You have really responded to everything that everyone has said," said Stowers, who while addressing the board, acknowledged its willingness to integrate comments from the community. In what seems like a 49th version, the proposed documents may have turned a corner.
At a special board meeting Monday night, residents along with people who routinely voice problems with the proposed documents, praised the latest version. For the first time at a meeting like this, residents almost universally supported the latest version, most recently reworked by RA president Jennifer Blackwell and RA General Counsel Ken Chadwick.
"They’re very good documents. They do what needs to be done," said Suzi Jones, a former board member who helped draft the existing documents 21 years ago. "The 1984 documents are not perfect — that's why we’re here."
FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS, the RA board has struggled through a process of revising the governing documents, which codify the rules and regulations that govern the association. In the summer of 2004, the board looked for help and hired Bob Diamond, an attorney with Reed Smith LLC.
Since September, Diamond has been cut off from the process, and, relying instead on internal guidance from Chadwick, RA has made revisions and changes in accordance with comments from residents.
And now even regular critics have good things to say. "I thought [the latest version] was a great improvement," said Kenneth Andersen, who has regularly attended past meetings to criticize certain changes in the proposed documents. While Andersen still has concerns, the list is shrinking.
A few weeks ago, the board waded through strong opposition to the documents. Several people suggested putting the schedule on hold indefinitely.
But at Monday’s meeting, residents suggested it was time for RA to shift gears and begin focusing on outreach to help the passage of the governing documents referendum. To pass, the referendum requires 40 percent voter turnout and two-thirds support.
MOST BOARD MEMBERS have refused to interpret setbacks as anything other than setbacks. Instead, the tendency of the board, with Blackwell’s leadership, has been to push forward to consensus.
"I’d like to compliment the board for the patience it’s shown," said Lee Rau, adding that the board has done a good job of balancing a "diversity of opinion in the community."
Rau said the board members have been able keep the big picture in mind. "In the end, we have to step back and reflect on what’s best for the community and then make some compromises," said Rau.
It was a recurring theme. Jones also praised the steadfast board.
"I have never seen a board respond and listen to the community like this board has done," said Jones.
Stowers said the latest version, which was released Oct. 27, made "great" progress in clarity. "The move toward plain English is very helpful to me," said Stowers. One of the persistent criticisms of the proposed documents was that they were too complex and filled with legalese.
THE BOARD CONTINUES to respond to community concerns. At Monday’s meeting, they reviewed several policy decisions that have continued to elicit concern.
At a previous meeting with cluster officials, someone questioned why the proposed documents list a specific dollar amount of $1 million for liability insurance, arguing that the amount would soon be obsolete.
After some discussion Monday, the board decided to keep the $1 million requirement, rather than mandate a "reasonable" amount.
The board also deleted a provision that mandated clusters to directors and officers insurance. Blackwell said she had heard that this has been another example where people claim RA is acting like "Big Brother" to clusters.
Director Barbara Aaron (Hunters Woods/Dogwood) argued that cluster members would probably want to have the say-so to decide for themselves. "But I do think we should make clusters aware that they should have this kind of insurance," said Aaron.
The board also reconsidered a change they made months ago to remove the requirement for residents to get signatures from "affected parties" when requesting a change to their homes through the Design Review Board. The directors had previously agreed that the associations could take over this notification duty.
Director Joe Leighton argued successfully that putting the onus on RA could be too costly.
The board eliminated the cause for the last remaining criticism of the resale fee. Several people criticized the resale fee, which charges $250 to every person who buys a home in Reston, because it would also charge this fee to RA members moving within Reston.
To alleviate this concern, the board agreed to allow members in this situation to receive a rebate that would be credited to the next year’s assessment. To work, Blackwell said, it would be the owner’s responsibility to request the rebate.
Lastly, the board returned the referendum requirements for terminating the association to what is required in the existing documents, which require 50 percent turnout and two-thirds support.