Note: There has been a correction made in the security article. I wish to thank the person who brought it to my attention through the comment sector. My apologies for the 14 words pasted twice in this article and any confusion it may have created.


SECURITY

This article is being renewed for a second time. It will use the board minutes as reference to the actions taken. They will be colored in red, highlighted, and will not be altered for corrections in grammar. This hopes to show the path that was followed in obtain the current security department contract.
Board giving our G.M.’s position the power.
Minutes
LONG ISLAND VILLAGE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Regular Board Meeting
March 26, 2003
Management Responsibility I Micro-management Dodson made a proposalto shift to management everything that is management like facilities! security!and building codes and then hold them accountable for. Hold Fletcher accountable and then he in turn hold his employees accountable. The Board to meet once every quarter and discuss any concerns! complaints and/or compliments with General Manager and Regional Manager. Still will have certain committees that will still be run by volunteers. Cain asked how would the process be handled. She wanted specification on how the process would be
different if Armando did it as opposed to the Board. Dodson said she would expect the Facility Supervisor, Armando Zamora, would be responsible for interpreting the building codes and if he had questions having to do with variances or the building codes then he must bring it up to the board! plus check building construction! issue building permits. There would no longer be a
Building Committee! which has done a great job but would like to turn over to made a motion that ARAMARK be awarded the contract for gate attendants and patrol. Board would then hold Armando responsible through Fletcher.
Call for a vote. All in favor except for Halbach who abstained. Motion approved.

Larry DeMalade was introduced on August 25th, 2004 as our new G.M. replacing Dave Fletcher. Four months later he wanted our board to have Aramark run our security.
At that time Business articles were being published talking about a new Texas franchise tax bill.

This new bill is design to correct all dissimilar and unfair practices that most of the out of state Services Corporations like Aramark, use to avoid paying most if not all Texas franchise taxes. It would seem plausible that every Aramark pencil pusher had their eye on this new bill because of the tremendous tax effect it would have for every Aramark business subsidiary doing business in Texas.

Securitas gets the boot.
APPROVED MINUTES
Long Island Village
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 26, 2005
9 AM-Recreation Hall

MOTION: Mulch made a motion to proceed to give 90 days notice to Securitas and Cain
seconded the motion. Short discussion took place. Larry proposed having an in-house Security
force and how it will save money and be better having them under our supervision. Not all
security guards will be hired by us. All in favor. Motion unanimously carried.

The following four months our general manager was thought to be acquiring a Texas security license.

.

Securitas gets un-booted.
MINUTES
Long Island Village
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
MAY 25, 2005
9 AM-Arts/Crafts Room

Security Contract - last week signed a new one-year contract with Securitas. Had wanted in-house security but ARAMARK would not take security because the State of Texas has outrageous liability. This contract has 6 month probation and Security must perform to our rules. I cut cost around $30,000.00 a year since they don't supervise their people. (Twice in 8 months). Making changes in some of their personnel. Gave instructions that only bi-lingual security guards are needed.


It took four months for Aramark to figure out that Texas had an outrageous liability and to say we’re not interested. I’ll have to look a little closer at this $30,000 cost cutting at a later time.

.

For the next sixteen months there seemed to be nary a word about in house security. During this interlude the new Texas franchise tax bill had passed. The news article below gives a brief explanation of this new tax bill.

.
Texas / South Central News
Texas Business Tax Winners and Losers
May 8, 2006
The Texas Legislature has approved a bill that would enact a new, broader-based tax on businesses while granting businesses and homeowners some relief from school property taxes.
Industries that are expected to see their taxes reduced in 2008 include: - Mining, including oil and gas production, by 12.1 percent. - Finance, insurance and real estate, by 9.8 percent. - Wholesale and retail trade, by 3.8 percent. - Utilities and transportation, which includes the state's three big airlines, 2.5 percent.
Those that are expected to pay higher taxes: - Construction, up 25.7 percent; firms get little help from property-tax relief. - Services, up 19.7 percent; most now avoid the franchise tax. -Information, up 13.6 percent. - Manufacturing, up 8.3 percent.
House Bill 3, sent to Gov. Rick Perry this week, would replace the 4.5 percent franchise tax with a tax of 1 percent on a company's gross receipts minus either its cost of producing goods or payroll expenses (including wages and benefits).

Starting in 2008, Aramark being a professional services company will now have to pay its fair share of franchise taxes in the State of Texas.

.

Let try this again, Securitas gets the boot again.
MINUTES
Long Island Village
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
August 23, 2006
9 AM - Arts/Crafts Room

In-house Security-Larry Since we have been moved to Business and Industry we got approval by Senior Vice-President to pursue getting Security in-house. Brought in proposal which is less than we are paying now with current Security plus also give increase to security employees. Need memo in writing to approve it. Better costing, $187,660 and now paying $190,000+, increase goes to employees. Guerra asked that this item be tabled to the next workshop. The
other board members said that they were present or had heard the discussions on getting in-house Security last year. The previous board had agreed to it but ARAMARK at the time was not able to accommodate them.
MOTION: Guerra made a motion to go ahead and approve getting Security in-house and to issue a 30 day notice in writing as required to current Security firm terminating their services. Burke seconded the made motion that ARAMARK be awarded the contract for gate attendants and patrol. All in favor except for Young who abstained. Motion passed.
MOTION: Burke made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Martin seconded the motion. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 AM.1
Minutes Taken By
APPROVED
Virginia Martin, Secretary
Board of Directors

Did our general manager, Aramark, and the board forget the reason why Aramark declined doing this the first time? Did the State of Texas all of a sudden change having outrageous liability?

The motion to give Securitas only a 30 day notice would seem to indicate that our management could obtain this security license quickly. Au contraire, after ten months our general manager was still handing out his list of security license excuses to the board. Our Village began paying Aramark during this interim to run our security until they got around to getting a license.

Posted in our June 2007 newsletter was, “Our long awaited license to operate a security unit in the State of Texas is close to arriving at LIV, says general manager Larry DeMalade.”
The license never came. Neither did an answer as to why.

.

As a result of the consistant pressure from the Concerned Citizens of Long Island Village, the general manager requested time in the following board meeting to explain his side of this security debacle. At this meeting he addressed each divergence separately. He paraded a real show and tell. His orchestration ended with him saying it’s not that management wasn’t able to get a security license but it is Aramark who chose not to obtain it. He explained the State wants to charge Aramark a $20,000 out of state fee. He finished by saying this was the State’s way to keep all out of state security companies from taking away contracts from Texas based security companies.

Read between the lines on this one.
MINUTES
Long Island Village
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
June 27, 2007
9 AM - Arts/Crafts Room
Security/Patrol: Discussion about present security issues. Larry DeMalade shared that Aramark legal department is working on clarification with Austin. There was discussion about bids to outsource this service or keep it in house and the level/types of security. Board will discuss and define what services we want to provide in the area of security. Larry will seek bids from security companies within 70 miles to present at the August Coffee. Don Nixon will work with· Larry to attain bids and information. Additional information will be in next newsletter.

Does it seem just a bit odd that after 10 months of struggling to try acquiring a security license, that Aramark legal department is now working hard on getting clarification towards operating an unlicensed security?

A security info flier was inserted in the next LIV newsletter as promised. Many owners have said they thought the flier information was somewhat bias in wanting an unlicensed company. In addition to the way the insert read, the director who wrote it had previously seconded the made motion that ARAMARK be awarded the contract for gate attendants and patrol.

Disappointedly, our Village security concern has evolved from looking for the best apple in the barrel to now looking at apples and oranges.

.

An orange is picked
MINUTES
Long Island Village
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
August 29, 2007
9 AM - Arts/Crafts Room

Les' Report
Security -Still doing our own Security through ARAMARK. We are currently taking bids from out source companies. Currently have 2 bids.

Security Bids - DeMalade
Larry reported that he has received 3 bids - 2 licensed and 1 is not. South West Texas Security - no overtime, basic service such as check gate, issue passes, contact owners, call Sheriff Department and patrol every 2 hours for $215/000. Fort Knox Security-same services for $250/000. ARAMARK with no license only for $187/000-same services including additional duties of pool monitoring, setup/work after hours.
MOTION: Mulch made a motion that ARAMARK be awarded the contract for gate attendants and patrol because of cost savings and the fact that we get more services. Also, another factor to consider is that this way, we have direct control of these people and Halbach seconded
the motion. Discussion took place with owners allowed to participate in discussion. Steffensen reported that 71 Security surveys were received of which 36 owners in favor of ARAMARK and 33 in favor of outside security and 2 letting BOD decide. Burke asked for a roll call vote:Halbach-yes; Martin -yes; Mulch-yes; Pelletier-yes; Steffensen-yes; and Young-no. Motion carried.


So there you have it.
Our previous board gave Aramark a in-house unlicensed gatekeeper contract for the following reasons.
1. To save a diminutive amount of money. An amount that appears less than our Village paid to truck our poop out for a couple of weeks during the sewer fiasco.
2. Our general manager said our gatekeepers would do more. Owners have told me the only more they have seen is more of the same.
3. Management will have direct control of the gatekeepers. This they appear to basically already have.
4. This may not be a reason because it’s hard for me to believe the board could be swayed by just 36 yes email votes wanting Aramark, especially when there was only questionable flier information to draw from.

Recently, on May 21, 2008, our general manager had reiterated that a $20,000 fee was Aramark’s reason for not acquiring a security license. When asked to clarify what that fee was; this license fee turned into a franchise tax. I’m not sure of all the revenues Aramark receives from our Village or which subsidiaries apply in total scheme of franchise taxable revenues, but I’m pretty confident that a one percent franchise tax on our current $187,660 gross security revenues is $1876.60, and not $20,000. Since the franchise tax rationale wouldn’t fly after such an elucidation, the general manager came up with a new reason. In the letter he received from Aramarke were now two reasons. The second reason was the Aramark person in charge of this did not want to be personally liable or be held responsible for signing the security license contract.

.

Imagine that!

.

Over two and a half years of Aramark and management wanting to run our Village’s security. Over fourteen months having our general manager saying they’re trying to get a Texas Security License. The many hours of deliberation and promises to the board and owners of LIV, and it unbelievably comes down to someone not wanting to sign a simple security license agreement?

.

The more I review these events, the more incredulous my thinking has become.It has me ask myself; has our general manager been giving forthwith accurate answers? Has our management and Aramark been serious towards the acquisition of this security license? ... Or is this all a Potemkin village?

.

I leave it to your own discretions on what to make of all this. What do you think?