RFP Chaos, Missteps, & Management Company Fallout – May 12 Working Session Recap
During the May 12 working session, it became undeniably clear that Ahn Jung overstepped her authority by issuing Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to property management companies without board approval. Not only did she singlehandedly draft an inadequate RFP, she also unilaterally decided which companies to contact. Transparency? Collaboration? Apparently not on the menu. (Violation of ARS §33-1804(A), PRCA Board Code of Ethics)
What Happened:
Ahn Jung sent out 7 RFPs, of which 4 companies declined to respond. (Violation of ARS §33-1804(A); PRCA Governance Procedures requiring board authorization for vendor engagement)
The rest of the board received no prior information until handed a neatly wrapped binder with 3 proposals—already selected. (Violation of ARS §33-1804(A); PRCA Board Code of Ethics – failure to act transparently and collaboratively)
Several directors objected and proposed stopping the meeting, citing a lack of time to review the material. Ahn declined and bulldozed ahead with her agenda. (Violation of ARS §33-1813(A) – exceeding officer authority; PRCA Board Code of Ethics – failure to collaborate and respect board process)
It gets better (or worse): Based on feedback from one respondent, CCMC, it's highly likely that other reputable firms are steering clear of our board entirely—our reputation, it seems, precedes us. (Consequence of prior violations – board dysfunction and lack of transparency undermining community standing)
The Bid Matrix + Financial Fiction:
Ahn briefly referenced fixed pricing and “fixed cost +” structures during a discussion that begins around the 43-minute mark in the meeting video.
She claimed we pay CCMC $1.2M regardless of staffing
Fact check: FALSE
(Violation of PRCA Board Code of Ethics – misleading statements in an official setting)
Our financials show otherwise:
2023 On-site Services: $78,139.83 under budget
2024 On-site Services: $148,895.84 under budget
2025 Q1 On-site Services: $31,567.24 under budget
Clearly, these costs do fluctuate based on staffing—something a board member pushing a management change should know.
(Evidence contradicting false public claim; Board members have a duty to be informed – PRCA Code of Ethics; ARS §10-3830 – fiduciary duty to act in good faith and with due diligence)
What About CCMC?
Despite the debate about trying to get CCMC to submit a bid, let’s be blunt: They don’t want us. And why would they? Our board has been labeled "toxic," and it's not just idle gossip:
Our former legal counsel dropped us.
CCMC declined to bid.
Other firms are likely doing their due diligence—and running in the opposite direction.
Ken, Ahn, and Katharine may genuinely not see it, or they’re practicing Olympic-level denial. Either way, the board’s behavior is having real-world consequences. — (Failure to fulfill duty of care and board accountability – ARS §10-3830)
Why It Matters:
This isn’t just about one board member going rogue with some emails and spreadsheets. It’s about governance, credibility, and whether we can function like a professional HOA board—or whether we keep self-sabotaging in public view. Missteps like this degrade trust, scare off quality partners, and waste everyone’s time (and yes, money).
Management companies talk. Legal teams talk. The HOA industry is smaller than it looks. If we want competent partners and long-term stability, the board has to act like a team — not a circus.
Content Deficiencies (Inadequate for Power Ranch)
Power Ranch is a master-planned community of over 4,300 homes, 12 neighborhoods, 2 lakes, 26 miles of paths, and 18+ amenities sites across 2 square miles—yet this RFP is written like it's for 500 home community.
Staffing Expectations:
Only references a single "Community Manager"
→ Fails to mention the current staff of 14 (reception, lifestyle, landscape, maintenance, admin, etc.)
→ No staffing ratios, minimum headcounts, or onsite presence requirements listed
Scope of Services:
No specifics about onsite maintenance, lifestyle coordination, or community patrol
Mentions “responding to residents” but omits volume expectations (Power Ranch has 12,000+ residents)
"Software Solutions" and "Resident Engagement" are mentioned vaguely, without performance expectations
Budget & Financial Oversight:
Mentions financial reporting and payment portals, but omits:
Annual reserve studies
Asset lifecycle management
Capital improvement oversight
Audit support
→ No metrics, SLA, or performance indicators provided for budget adherence
Maintenance Oversight:
Uses general language like “inspect amenities,” “manage repairs”
→ No mention of detailed asset inventory, vendor SLAs, or multi-vendor contract coordination
→ Ignores Power Ranch’s extensive landscape contracts, lake management, irrigation systems, and more
Additional Oversights and Red Flags
Fails to require proposals to account for scale-specific qualifications
→ No requirement for experience with HOAs of 4,300+ homes, master-planned communities, or mixed-use zoning
→ Could allow unqualified or boutique firms to submit, wasting everyone’s time
Does not define desired response format or scoring criteria
→ Undermines transparency and sets no standard for objective evaluation
Fails to request transition planning for multi-department handoffs or staff onboarding
→ Critical given the operational disruption a management change could cause
Makes no mention of the current HOA tech stack (e.g., payment platforms, reservation tools, communication apps)
→ Major oversight for vendor continuity and system compatibility
What This RFP Says About Leadership
This RFP is not just incomplete—it is irresponsible. Issued without board authority and lacking the basic scope needed for a community of this scale, it demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of HOA governance, vendor engagement, and the operational complexity of Power Ranch.
It fails to protect residents, vendors, or the community’s multi-million-dollar assets—and instead, reveals the dangerous incompetence of Ahn Jung and her allies (Ken and Katharine) in their current roles.
