Valley Voice & Gate Access:
Facts and Responses.
A statement attributed to Gary Clukey, shared in DVCC Real Talk, challenges my position on Valley Voice postage and CAST's gate-access work. Here is my response, the dated correspondence behind it, and the questions that still need answers.
My position, plainly stated
- Yes, I support eliminating Valley Voice. I believe we should evaluate more effective ways to communicate with residents.
- Homeowners deserve a complete postage accounting. That means the governing agreement, payment records, and the approvals relied upon.
- There is a dated record of RFP communication. It includes Board President Jim Payne's correspondence and a management update reporting that the RFP had been sent to vendors.
The screenshots show that commenting was turned off on the shared post. My response is available here so residents can read it without joining Facebook.
Show the agreement. Show the approvals.
The statement calls my postage concerns false or misleading, cites an intended agreement dating to 2019 and annual budgets, and reports a 2025 postage cost of $6,700.
My concern comes from reviewing the written agreement and the limited 2020 postage authorization. My prior article identified the July 26, 2013 agreement and the following provisions. [1]
Services are to be provided “at Contractor's sole cost.”
Distribution is described as “the sole responsibility of the Contractor,” including postal delivery at the contractor's discretion.
The article identifies advertising revenue as the contractor's compensation, with the contractor bearing the risk that expenses exceed that revenue.
The article quotes a requirement for changes to be documented in another written agreement executed and approved in the same manner.
The April 2020 motion described in my article covered postage for the remaining three quarterly publications in 2020, with a $5,000 cap. My question is what records establish the basis for payments after that limited authorization. [1]
What about the claimed 2019 agreement and annual budgets?
Gary's statement says an updated clause had not been signed after 2019 and points to a verbal understanding and later budgets. Those are specific points that should be addressed with the agreement, correspondence, Board actions, and payment approvals actually relied upon. Homeowners should be able to examine that history alongside the written contract.
A budget line helps identify planned spending. My request also asks for the underlying contractual and approval records. If additional records explain the payments, I want them included in the review.
The amount deserves an accounting
Gary reports $6,700 for 2025 and emphasizes that it is a small share of DVOA's operating budget. My concern covers multiple years. I am now asking for an itemized accounting to verify reports that the total exceeded $32,000. The earlier approximately $30,000 estimate and any updated amount should be reconciled against the actual payment ledger. A small percentage of a large budget still deserves a clear explanation.
Yes, I favor eliminating Valley Voice.
I will be clear about my position: I support eliminating Valley Voice. Our community should evaluate how effectively we communicate, what residents actually use, and what value homeowners receive for the cost.
Gary cites a survey as support for continuing paper and digital publication. Resident preferences deserve consideration. That discussion should include participation, readership, accessibility, cost, and available communication options.
Whether to keep the publication and how past postage payments were authorized are separate questions. Supporting or opposing Valley Voice does not answer the request for an accounting.
Management and Board contacts are in the record.
The statement alleges no General Manager or Finance and Budget Committee participation, a lack of information about the RFP's objective, and failures to follow procurement procedures.
The suggestion that CAST's RFP work took place without communication with management or Board leadership leaves out relevant correspondence. Here are dated examples:
Board President Jim Payne responded to an access-control vendor discussion and asked to be kept informed as the work moved forward. [2]
Correspondence about a one-page RFP authorization request for the Board packet copied Jim Payne and reported that CMC would receive the RFP electronically because of its size. [3]
Scott Singleton's Board-packet submission reported written approval from all five CAST voting members and requested inclusion in the next Board packet. That documents a committee submission; it is not, by itself, a Board approval. [3]
Assistant Manager Zach Moskowitz's management update reported that the gate RFP had been sent to recommended vendors. General Manager Tracy Plazyk and William Knowles were copied, and Terry Jones was among the recipients. [4]
“The RFP for the gates has been send out to the recommended vendors.”
These records establish communication with Board leadership and management, including management's own report about distribution. Receiving an email, participating in a discussion, and approving an action are different things.
They do not, by themselves, establish Finance and Budget Committee participation or resolve every objection about procurement procedure. If a particular resolution or approval is disputed, identify the requirement and compare it with the actual authorization record. That is a more useful review than a broad suggestion that the work happened out of sight.
Residents deserve clear choices and a clear plan.
Gary states that both key fobs and RFID remain capabilities at all eight gates. My concern is whether residents received accurate information about existing clickers and fobs, what needed to be replaced, and which options could continue to work together. That question should be answered with the equipment documentation and the communications residents received.
His statement also describes an intent to reduce attendants to one or two staffed gates. I oppose removing our gates or eliminating gate security personnel. Staffing proposals should be evaluated openly against coverage, response times, service, cost, and residents' expectations.
I have asked for the records.
On October 14, 2026, I sent a formal request for Valley Voice financial, contractual, and approval records. The request seeks the payment history, the governing agreement and amendments, and the Board actions relied upon. [5]
On October 15, Tracy Plazyk acknowledged the request and directed me to the Association's formal request process. Jim Payne also acknowledged it and said CMC would coordinate the records portion. Those acknowledgments are part of the record, too.
My position remains straightforward: provide the agreement, provide the approvals, and provide the accounting. Additional records should be evaluated on their merits, and any necessary corrections should be made openly.
Supporting record notes
“Who Has Been Paying to Mail the Valley Voice—and Why?” identifies the July 26, 2013 agreement, the provisions summarized above, and the April 2020 three-issue authorization. My revised article was submitted on August 12.
The contract discussion on this page is drawn from that article. The complete governing agreement, later amendments, payment history, and approval records are among the documents sought in my records request. This page does not present an audited expenditure total or a final legal finding.
Subject: “Re: FW: Conversation This Morning.” The reply addressed the access-control vendor discussion and a possible RFP response.
“Keep me looped in as you move forward.”
This establishes communication and a request for updates. It is not presented as a Board vote authorizing the RFP.
The May 13 message was titled “Fourth and final letter for board packet: the one page RFP authorization request.” It copied Jim Payne and discussed electronic delivery through CMC.
The May 19 “For inclusion in the board packet” message reported written committee-member approvals and requested Board-packet inclusion. These are records of the committee's submission process.
Zach Moskowitz, Assistant Manager & Communications, sent the update to CAST recipients and Terry Jones, copying William Knowles and General Manager Tracy Plazyk. Item 6, “RFP for Gates,” contains the excerpt reproduced above.
The excerpt reports vendor distribution. It does not establish who individually approved each procurement step.
My October 14 email was titled “Formal Records Request and Demand for Accounting – Valley Voice Postage Expenditures.” Tracy Plazyk's October 15 reply acknowledged receipt and requested use of the established form/process. Jim Payne's October 15 reply acknowledged receipt and said CMC would coordinate the records portion.
The original statement
The screenshots supplied on October 18 show a statement signed by Gary Clukey and shared by Yoli MontMart in DVCC Real Talk. The original statement is separate from my response above.
Read the complete statement as text
Board Candidate Misleading Statements
I am Gary Clukey, the DVOA Finance and Budget Committee Chair and wanted to correct some of the false claims being made by Board Candidates. I was the DVOA Board President for six years and have served as Chair of the Finance and Budget Committee for a total of seven years (split membership before and after serving on the Board). When Management of the Owner's Association transferred from Toll Brothers to Homeowner Control, I served as a member of the successful DVOA Transition Team.
My intent of this posting is to clarify two areas addressed by Board Candidates.
1. Agreement between the DVOA and Valley Voice Publisher?
The DVOA has an agreement with the Valley Voice Publisher that any advertising proceeds will be retained by the Publisher and used to pay for the editing, printing, and publication of the magazine. Advertisers are solicited by the Publisher. Articles, other written materials, and photos are provided by the Association. There is no DVOA fee for these services. The only thing the Association pays for is the postage each quarter for mailing the magazine to Dominion Valley Residents. This expense in 2025 was $6,700 for the year which is less than 1% of DVOA's $7 million operating budget. Homeowners pay about 23 cents per month for the Valley Voice. The Valley Voice is an incredible bargain for DV Residents. It would be a shame to lose this outstanding magazine/newsletter that has served the DV Community well for 20+ years.
Board Candidate's Claim Regarding Valley Voice Postage Exposure.
A Board-directed survey (at the request of Residents) was conducted earlier this year and confirmed DV Residents' preference that the Valley Voice newsletter/publication be continued in both paper and digital format. A DVOA Resident (now a board candidate) submitted an article in the last issue of the Valley Voice falsely claiming/implying that there was no contract in place with the Valley Voice Publisher requiring the Association to pay for quarterly mailing expenses. While the written contract with an updated clause had not been signed after 2019 there was clearly the intent of the Board to pay the quarterly postage starting that year. In Virginia there is a contract in place where two parties reach an agreement for services whether it is verbal or written. The annual DVOA operating budget approved by the Board each year since 2019 has included postage expenses for the Valley Voice. In conclusion, the Board candidate's implied claim of exposing $30,000 in unauthorized postage spending is false/misleading.
2. Key Fob and RFID Tag gate access
Key Fob and RFID Tag gate access for DVOA Residents remains a capability at all eight access gates. The current access system used for vehicle control (not security) was cutover in 2022 to replace a 20-year-old system that was obsolete and had reached its capacity limits. Additional network connectivity improvements were made to eliminate/prevent data bottlenecks in 2023-2024. Residents also have the option of issuing GateHouse Visitor Passes to family, friends, and contractors or service personnel. With this technology the intent of the Access Control Task Force was to gradually reduce the number of gate attendants (currently costing Residents over $1 million per year) to one to two staffed gates that could respond to calls for assistance by Residents or Visitors when necessary.
It is my understanding that the CAST Committee has issued Request for Proposals for access control technology. There has been no participation by the General Manager and Finance and Budget Committee, no Task Force in place, or other information distributed by CAST regarding the objective of the RFP. Talk about a lack of transparency and potential misuse of DVOA funds. The Association has Resolutions (part of its Governing Documents) in place for Procurements and Capital Improvement Projects, both of which are not being followed. Key stakeholders should have been involved from the beginning and established/proven processes for large and potentially costly procurements followed. This action demonstrates a lack of open communications and shows disregard for following the Association's established procurement procedures and guidelines for the potential use of capital funds.
Sincerely,
Gary Clukey
DVOA Finance and Budget Committee Chair
Transcribed from the supplied screenshots. Paragraph breaks and heading formatting have been adjusted for readability; the screenshots below remain the visual reference.
View the four original screenshots
Questions deserve a documented answer.
I welcome specific corrections and additional records. My goal is for homeowners to understand the decisions made on their behalf and the money spent in their name.