Big Canoe Residents

This year’s Property Owners Association (POA) Board Primary has six candidates:

• James Cornelius
• Roger Hackler
• Lynette Howard
• Bob Kelley
• Bill Thurber
• Mike Volk

Only two—James Cornelius and Roger Hackler—have visibly campaigned and shared their ideas with property owners.

The other four candidates offered little beyond a POA-controlled forum and static profiles in the Big Canoe paper. While we applaud the four candidates’s decision to run, their lack of real outreach is a disappointment.

Big Canoe property owners need Board members who make diligent efforts to inform, connect, and earn your trust. Anything less is complacency—do you want elected officials who are lazy, invisible or fail to listen and communicate?

Cornelius recently met residents and answered questions at the Lucky Hare, showing his commitment first-hand. Hackler launched an impressive website, as did Cornelius, and both have shared clear platforms, and reached beyond their inner circles. The visible efforts of both of these candidates signal dedication, transparency, and accountability—qualities we expect from those we elect.

Few would trust a doctor without a credentials website or effort to communicate. Why settle for board candidates who hide or appear indifferent? Campaigning is the job interview—if candidates won’t campaign, how can we trust their leadership?

Big Canoe deserves Board Members who work hard, listen closely, welcome engagement and put the community first. This primary, voting for James Cornelius and Roger Hackler is the clearest path to that future.

Vote Smart: Cast Only the Vote That Counts.

You may select up to four candidates on your ballet, but it’s best to vote only for the one you truly support. Casting only your top choice preserves vote strength: your candidate gains +1 per supporter while rivals don’t gain extra “free” votes.

Don’t weaken your influence by voting for candidates who haven’t earned it. Make your voice heard loud and clear.

Your vote shapes Big Canoe’s future—vote wisely and make it count.

Join the Big Canoe Property Owners & Residents Forum

Let’s ask a question: Who actually controls Smoke Signals?

Yes, it’s a nonprofit. But nonprofits are typically controlled by a board . . . and every board makes decisions that exist to serve a public or community benefit.

In the case of Smoke Signals, those decisions seem curiously aligned with the POA’s version of reality.

For a paper that calls itself “totally independent,” it consistently avoids even mentioning any subject that might put the POA in an uncomfortable light.

Sadly, there’s not even a mention of these topics in Smoke Signals:

• Rising dues and growing financial strain
• The General Manager’s qualifications and performance
• The loss of our BigCanoe.com domain
• The nearly $500,000 paid to regain partial name control from Big Canoe Realty
• Employee litigation against the POA has risen sharply under Scott Auer

These are important topics and real issues for property owners and residents, yet you won’t find a mention -let alone unbiased coverage- of these POA problems in Smoke Signals. In fact, the POA is rarely mentioned at all—except when the content comes directly from them, or when the paper recaps a one-sided version of a board meeting without context or follow-up. Sadly, only one side is presented and represented.

Why?

One possible reason is the historical overlap between Smoke Signals leadership and the POA, and POA-affiliated individuals. Former POA board members have gone on to hold positions on Smoke Signals’ board. Those relationships are the most minor of infractions compared to what the legal history and facts say.

That may be allowable—but it raises fair questions about editorial independence, especially when combined with a clear reluctance to cover the numerous POA controversies.

And while Smoke Signals operates as a 501(c)(3), that alone doesn’t ensure transparency. Nonprofits are only as independent and accountable as the people who run them.

So it’s fair to ask: Who own’s and controls the Smoke Signals non-profit now? Who funds it? And most importantly, who decides what gets published—and what doesn’t, and why?

Those are the kinds of questions a true “community news” outlet would normally ask of others. But in this case, it’s up to us—as property owners and residents—to ask them of Smoke Signals itself.

We’re not suggesting malicious intent. But what appears to be clear avoidance on issues that matter deeply to this community is hard to ignore. And it makes the claim of independence ring hollow.

Independence isn’t declared. It’s demonstrated—consistently, and publicly.

Smoke Signals can continue to highlight park openings and garden club updates on their front pages but until Smoke Signals is willing to even acknowledge serious matters and cover these issues objectively (and ask questions of our elected officials when necessary)—their claim of independence will remain difficult to believe.

That’s not just editorial preference. That’s clear avoidance of important issues for any property owner.

We hope that changes. Because Big Canoe deserves journalism that informs, questions, and holds our elected POA Board members accountable.

“The press is the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man, and improving him as a rational, moral, and social being.” — Thomas Jefferson

With Respect, A Growing Group of Concerned Property Owners & Residents

👉 Join the Big Canoe Property Owners & Residents Forum

We like Smoke Signals.

It’s a friendly, feel-good community publication. We enjoy reading it—and we’re glad it exists.

But we believe it falls short in one critical area: it does NOT function like an independent community newspaper –Smoke Signals is POA aligned.

Smoke Signals rarely asks questions, verifies claims, or holds our elected POA board officials and community management accountable —and that’s detrimental to property owners and residents.

Case in point: As property owners’ concerns continue to mount about General Manager Scott Auer’s qualifications and performance, the POA issued a glowing, FACT-FREE statement praising him.

Smoke Signals published it almost word-for-word—without context, questions, or verification.

That’s not journalism. That’s a POA press release with a Smoke Signals masthead.

If Smoke Signals were serving the Big Canoe community as a true independent community news outlet, it might have asked:

• What are Mr. Auer’s qualifications?
• Why has his resume never been shared with the community?
• What metrics are being used to evaluate his performance?
• What are the “results” the POA says he’s delivered?

Instead, the POA wrote the message, and Smoke Signals published it.

Meanwhile, above-the-fold, stories that focus on trucks that run off the road, naming an intersection, and park openings dominate the front page headlines. These are pleasant stories—and they have a place. But front page, above-the-fold?

Unfortunately, you won’t find Smoke Signals covering important issues that affect short and long-term property values.

Smoke Signals is choosing to ignore essential matters and choosing to put a roadside truck on the front page. Why? Perhaps to sell more ad space to Big Canoe Realty agents to who control OUR domain name and extort $500,000 from property owners.

Instead, Smoke Signals might want to cover important issues, ask questions, seek documentation, and give voice to dissenting perspectives.

A core responsibility of independent journalism is to report on and present multiple sides of a story—especially when decisions affect an entire community.

But with Smoke Signals, only one voice is consistently heard—and it’s rarely the community property owner or resident.

And when feel-good filler consistently takes precedence over topics that materially impact property owners and our property values, it raises a fair question:

Is Smoke Signals here to inform—or to protect the POA?

When major issues go unreported while POA narratives are repeated and go unchallenged, it’s hard to see how the label “independent” applies.

Independence in journalism is about editorial behavior—what you choose to publish, and what you choose not to.

Claim independence Smoke Signals—but your editorial decisions and actions say otherwise. That’s unfortunate—because a stronger Big Canoe starts with a better-informed community.

With Respect, A Growing Group of Concerned Property Owners & Residents

👉 Join the Big Canoe Property Owners & Residents Forum

If you live in a POA community like our beloved Big Canoe, you’ve probably seen it: someone raises a valid concern, and almost instantly, someone responds with, “Why don’t you run for the board?”

It might sound reasonable at first. But let’s be honest—this is rarely a sincere suggestion. More often, it’s a way to dismiss criticism and shut down the conversation. Here’s why that’s a problem.

Feedback Is Everyone’s Right

Imagine telling your mechanic your brakes are acting up, and he replies, “Why don’t you fix it yourself?” You’d be rightly frustrated. It’s her/his job to listen and solve the issue—just like it’s the POA board’s job to listen to the community.

You don’t have to be on the board to spot problems or offer ideas. Constructive feedback from property owners and residents is vital to improving how our community operates.

Focus on the Message, Not the Messenger

“Why don’t you run?” is a deflection. It shifts the spotlight from the issue to the person raising it. That’s not only unproductive—it’s discouraging. It tells others their input isn’t welcome unless they’re willing to run for office. That’s a dangerous precedent in any community.

We’re All in This Together

Caring about Big Canoe doesn’t require a seat on the board. It requires showing up, asking questions, and staying engaged. Dismissing concerns helps no one. Engaging with them—even when it’s uncomfortable—is how we grow stronger.

Next time someone raises a valid point, let’s not silence the messenger. Let’s hear them out and address the issue. That’s how communities get better.

With Respect, A Growing Group of Concerned Property Owners & Residents

👉 Join the Big Canoe Property Owners & Residents Forum

Recently, the POA Board sent a FACT-FREE message to property owners defending General Manager Scott Auer’s performance. In it, the Board stated that “the results achieved during [Scott Auer’s] tenure are evident.” But they offered no examples. No metrics. No supporting data or facts.

That’s concerning.

In any well-managed organization, leadership is evaluated based on clear, measurable outcomes. And when the Board asserts that our General Manager is delivering results, property owners deserve to understand what those results are—and how they’re being measured.

To date, the POA has not shared Scott Auer’s resume, his qualifications for the important role of managing our $100,000,000+ asset, or the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to assess his management. Instead, what we’ve seen are marketing statements, vague praise, and a lack of transparency.

Since our POA Board won’t present facts, allow us to share.

Here’s what has occurred under Mr. Auer’s management, based on publicly available data and reporting from one of Big Canoe’s independent community voices, Focus on Big Canoe:

• Debt has nearly tripled
• Monthly POA dues have increased over 30%
• Employee litigation against the POA has risen sharply
• Major capital projects have suffered significant cost overruns
• Top management salaries—Mr. Auer’s included—have surged
• Food & Beverage operations are posting record-level losses
• Legal expenses have increased significantly
• The community lost rights to our “Big Canoe” trademark—costing property owners nearly $500,000 and still no control of BigCanoe.com
• Water rates have increased
• Transparency is down while owner and resident frustration grows

This is not conjecture. These are documented “results” (or unfortunate outcomes of failed supervision) that raise serious questions about how performance is being defined by our Big Canoe POA Board.

We also understand that management is now actively considering additional monthly increases and a special assessment.

If Mr. Auer is truly exceeding expectations, what are those expectations—and where is the evidence? Property owners and residents deserve to know.

Real leadership welcomes accountability. Real results can stand up to scrutiny.

If our elected POA Board believes Scott Auer is doing a great job, they should back it up with clear facts, criteria, and outcomes.

It’s time for answers and transparency.

With Respect, A Growing Group of Concerned Property Owners & Residents

👉 Join the Big Canoe Property Owners & Residents Forum

The respect is rising in Big Canoe and Bullying is on the decline.

If you’ve ever tried to talk about real community issues in Big Canoe on Facebook, chances are you’ve noticed a pattern.

On groups like Neighbor to Neighbor, conversations critical of the POA are often rejected or vanish. Posts are quietly deleted. Comments disappear. And when someone tries to raise a fair question or concern, the response is rarely a thoughtful answer — more often, it’s a personal attack.

The message is clear: don’t question, just comply.

This isn’t healthy. And it’s not what a strong community like ours looks like.

Here’s what we’ve seen:

• The same 10–20 people attempting to dominate these conversations, often deflecting from issues and turning discussions into personal attacks.
• Many of them have ties to the POA — as past board members, close friends, or family. With their supporters repeating the misleading claims and labeling and attacking others.
• But here’s what’s changed — the community is watching and starting to really communicate. And more property owners and residents are noticing:
  • These “usual voices” are getting fewer likes.
  • Their mean comments are getting less traction.
  • And more residents are quietly tuning in, asking questions, and thinking for themselves.

Much has changed for the positive since our May 30th post.

We don’t need to be afraid and we need to be honest about the kind of leadership our community deserves. We should not be electing people simply because they are our neighbors or friends. We need leaders with the skills, experience, and independence to guide a community of this size and complexity. Good intentions are not enough. Big Canoe deserves qualified leadership that puts the interests of the entire community first.

It’s important to say this clearly: asking questions doesn’t mean we’re “against the community.” In fact, it’s the opposite.

We love Big Canoe. That’s why we speak up. That’s why we share ideas, raise concerns, and hold elected leaders accountable — not to divide, but to protect what makes our community special. (Let’s not forget our leadership recently lost our brand name and BigCanoe.com and our Board voted unanimously and quickly to rebrand us.)

We believe in transparency. And we believe that honest dialogue should never be silenced, censored, or ridiculed.

More and more neighbors are joining a new kind of conversation — one that welcomes diverse voices, values facts over protectionism, favoritism, and puts the good of the whole community first.

Let’s keep moving in that positive direction.

With Respect, A Growing Group of Concerned Property Owners & Residents

👉 Join the Big Canoe Property Owners & Residents Forum

An Open Response to the POA Board’s June 10th Statement

To Our Fellow Property Owners,

We are so fortunate to live in a place as safe, beautiful, and close-knit as Big Canoe. That’s exactly why we care so much about protecting it.

The POA Board’s recent statement confirmed what many of us already feel: a growing concern about leadership, transparency, and decision-making behind closed doors.

This is not about personal attacks. We join the Board in condemning any personal attacks or vitriol, and we believe that respectful, fact and issue-based dialogue is essential.

We appreciate the Board’s service and recognize the challenges of community leadership. Our goal is for collaborative work that ensures Big Canoe remains a healthy, vibrant, and transparent community.

Every property owner and resident has the right and responsibility to ask fair and reasonable questions—and to expect clear, honest answers.

What Every Property Owner Deserves to Know

1. Who’s Accountable for Community Leadership?

Transparency builds trust—so why is there so little? One of the General Manager’s key roles is to serve as the primary liaison between the board, staff, and property owners. Why does it seem that, during hard conversations, our General Manager is absent?

In an email sent yesterday, the POA Board stated that “Scott’s performance has been thoroughly evaluated on an annual basis utilizing numerous measurable metrics.” As property owners, shouldn’t we have the right to see those metrics? If the evaluations reflect strong performance, sharing them would help build confidence and clarify how our General Manager is being measured—and how well he’s doing.

2. What Happened to Our Name and Website?

Our identity—Big Canoe—was lost to private control. The POA quietly spent $500,000 of community money to try and get it back. There was no advance notice, no public vote, and BigCanoe.com is still not in POA hands. What exactly did we pay for?

According to Mike Rhodes of Big Canoe Realty, the rights to use the name “Big Canoe” in perpetuity were granted to Big Canoe. It appears that something else may have been purchased in the agreement that has not been discussed. The fact is, we simply don’t know. Why?

3. Why So Much Silence Until Now?

For a full year, our GM has mostly avoided open public dialogue. Now, as more property owners have begun to voice concerns—in part through the new uncensored Facebook group—we are given just 60 minutes of Q&A on June 11, to ask questions of him publicly.

Why wasn’t this important event recorded, streamed on the Big Canoe YouTube channel? Our guess is the Board and our GM didn’t want this Q&A recorded or aired for our community to see.

Sidebar: A Word About Journalism in Big Canoe

One of the reasons issues like these continue unchecked is the lack of independent journalism in our community. Smoke Signals, as a POA-affiliated publication, does not investigate, challenge, or report—it promotes. That matters.

Journalism exists to ask tough questions, verify facts, and hold those in power accountable. That’s the very role envisioned by the First Amendment. Without a real local press, Big Canoe lacks one of the essential checks and balances that keep communities healthy and honest. This may be one of the biggest blind spots our community faces.

The POA says criticism is harmful. But what’s actually harmful is silencing questions, spinning concerns, working to control the narrative, and asking residents to accept leadership without answers or proof.

To quote Ronald Reagan: “Trust, but verify.”

What Property Owners Want for Big Canoe

• Leadership that is qualified, visible, and accountable
• Real transparency in decisions, performance, and spending
• A community that welcomes questions—not one that shuts them down
• No personal attacks or mudslinging—let’s focus on performance, accountability, and results

This is our home.

Speaking up is not an attack—it’s how we protect what makes Big Canoe special.

Here are a few questions we posted that property owners and residents could ask if they attended this rare Q&A meeting.

With Respect, A Growing Group of Concerned Property Owners & Residents

👉 Join the Big Canoe Property Owners & Residents Forum

These were questions we suggested attendees (the meeting was NOT streamed or recorded) may want to ask at the ONLY public Q&A our POA management has held in over a year.

1. Performance Accountability (General Manager)

• While we understand that individual performance reviews may be considered confidential, why haven’t the General Manager’s annual goals, key performance indicators, or summary-level performance updates been shared with property owners?
• Given the General Manager’s central role in managing millions in POA resources, wouldn’t some level of accountability and progress reporting to the community be appropriate?
• How does the Board ensure oversight of the GM’s performance if property owners are not informed of his goals or progress?

2. Architectural Review Committee (ARC) Enforcement

• There’s growing concern that ARC enforcement under the GM’s oversight has been inconsistent—fines are being issued for minor issues like bird feeders or umbrella colors, while violations on POA-managed properties appear to go unaddressed. How do you respond to allegations of selective enforcement?
• Can you provide examples of how ARC enforcement is monitored or reviewed to ensure fairness and consistency?
• What systems exist to ensure POA managed properties are held to the same standards as property owners and what penalties exist for the GM if there is failure to comply in a timely manner?

3. Staffing and Retention

• While we recognize that retention can be a challenge for all businesses, can the GM address the high turnover in senior staff roles, including multiple chefs and administrators who have left under unclear or costly terms?
• Are exit interviews conducted, and what lessons have been learned from recent departures?
• What steps are being taken to ensure stronger leadership stability and better retention moving forward?
• What is the Board doing to support the GM in addressing these retention issues?

4. Smoke Signals News & Big Canoe POA Relationship

• Can you clarify the relationship between Smoke Signals and the Big Canoe POA? Specifically, is the publication editorially independent, or does it operate under POA oversight—and how does that impact what information is shared with the community?
• If Smoke Signals is not editorially independent, what are the guidelines for content approval?
• Has the POA instructed Smoke Signals to publish a statement explaining the trademark situation? If so, when and where can owners read it?

With Respect, A Growing Group of Concerned Property Owners & Residents

👉 Join the Big Canoe Property Owners & Residents Forum

Big Canoe Deserves Qualified, Transparent Leadership

Big Canoe is a $100 million+ asset—an extraordinary community that requires capable, experienced management.

Yet key questions remain about our General Manager, Scott Auer, and whether his background aligns with the scale and complexity of this role.

During the domain name and rebranding situation, when residents had urgent questions, the GM made no public appearances, offered no direct Q&A, and provided little to no communication.

Questions like:

• How did we lose control of our name and domain?
• Why was a $500,000 payment made to Big Canoe Brokerage? (Do you want to do business with BCB Agents?)
• Why don’t we control BigCanoe.com, even after the payment to Big Canoe Brokerage?

These remain unanswered.

Meanwhile, communication from management continues via largely one-way video meetings / thin updates and promotional messages—with little opportunity for resident input or live questioning.

For a position that involves managing significant community resources and leading on matters of long-term impact, visibility and accountability matter. Residents expect—and deserve—more open engagement and responsiveness.

Attempts to raise these questions in official POA-managed forums, including the Neighbor to Neighbor Facebook group, are frequently moderated or removed.

This isn’t about personality—it’s about performance, transparency, and trust.

If leadership won’t provide answers, it’s time for property owners to start asking questions—and to expect better.

👉 Join the Big Canoe Property Owners & Residents Forum

Behind Closed Doors: The Deal That Left Property Owners Out

On January 30th, residents learned a shocking and hard truth: Big Canoe doesn’t own its name, its logo, or even its domain name—BigCanoe.com.

Even more troubling? The POA paid $500,000 to a private real estate company, Big Canoe Brokerage, to “buy back” partial rights to use the name. That firm is owned by a non-resident, Mike Rhodes and his agents who has profited from this community for years—and still owns and controls the website that defines our online presence, BigCanoe.com.

• Property owners weren’t informed.
• We weren’t consulted.
• And we certainly were not asked for input before nearly half a million dollars of our property owner funds were spent.

We were told this was a legal dispute. But multiple trademark attorneys have made it clear: Big Canoe is a location—and under U.S. trademark law, locations can’t be trademarked. The POA, as the long-standing commercial user of the name, could’ve fought the claim. And likely won. For far less.

But they didn’t. They quietly paid. And the questions keep piling up:

• How did we lose control of our community’s identity?
• Why wasn’t it protected in the first place?
• Who made this deal—and why weren’t residents informed sooner?
• And most importantly, why does Big Canoe Brokerage still own our domain and digital brand?

This isn’t just a legal misstep. It’s a breach of community trust.

If you’re a property owner, ask yourself:
Is this the kind of company you want to support with your business?

Big Canoe Brokerage took our name, charged us $500,000 to give part of it back—and still controls what the world sees when they Google “Big Canoe” or goto BigCanoe.com.

We may not be able to change what outsiders see, but as owners and residents, we can decide who to do business with. You might want to think twice before selling or buying with BCB and it’s agents.

With Respect, A Growing Group of Concerned Property Owners & Residents

👉 Join the Big Canoe Property Owners & Residents Forum