This blog entry contains a link to emails forwarded to the Defendants by the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG) for the above complainant. These documents were provided by the OAG to comply with the Defendants’ discovery request.
Here is the link to Sandy Snodgrass’ email file: Sandy Snodgrass Emails
Unlike the situation for the first two complainants, Ms. Snodgrass is a current and longtime owner. She and her husband, David Finnegan, lease their unit most of the year but maintain an active interest in The Harbours. Snodgrass was one of the more engaged complainants with the OAG during their investigation. Her individual emails have been condensed down to the ten email threads in the file linked above. With one exception (discussed below), she did not send much in the way of file attachments to the OAG. Most of her emails simply passed along other emails to which she was a party.
The Character of Sandra Snodgrass
Email 005 in the link above is perhaps an enlightening and entertaining thread that starts with an incident at a Harbours Board meeting in July 2010. The meeting was held in closed session, and Ms. Snodgrass entered the meeting without permission and was recorded on video. A brief segment of that video is linked below, and a transcript of the dialogue follows in case the audio track is difficult to understand. Sorry for the poor quality of the video which was recorded on a handheld digital camera.
This video file is shown in the original email in the 005 thread as “Not Once, But Twice”. The filename is a reference to the number of times in the video that Snodgrass denied sending the OAG complaints against Harbours Board members and management. This video was recorded in late July 2010. Her OAG complaints were dated in July 2009 and March 2010, and they were against, respectively, six individual Directors and the “Harbours management and Board of Directors”.
In the ensuing 005 emails, she goes to great effort trying to justify the complaints while sidestepping the issue entirely of whether she lied to the Board during that meeting and in the video. Her explanation eventually is that she didn’t lie because she didn’t individually name every Board member in her complaints, mentioning one Director–Tom Pike–as someone she excluded. (Pike also submitted a prior complaint against the “Harbours Condominium Association” which he acknowledges in the video.) In essence, Snodgrass’ analysis is that since she didn’t submit a complaint against every Board member, she didn’t submit a complaint against any of them.
Whether a person tells the truth should be relevant to whether his or her testimony in an investigation is valid especially if the subject matter is the same.
Transcript from the video file:
[Zipperle is the voice off camera, Snodgrass is standing in front of the camera with an open binder in her arms, and Pike is sitting next to her. The video starts with background comments…]
Zipperle: This lady… Hey, for those of you who don’t pay attention, this lady has filed an AG complaint with each one of you.
Snodgrass: (Looking up and avoiding eye contact…) That is not true.
Zipperle: She’s filed an AG complaint with each one of you.
Snodgrass: That is not true. And isn’t that the…
Zipperle: (Zipperle gesturing at Tom Pike…) Now, this guy has filed an AG complaint with each one of you.
Pike: (Nods…) You’re correct.
Zipperle: If you don’t have any…
Harbours Lawsuit 
Sandra Snodgrass Emails to the OAG
My back and forth comments with Snodgrass/Finnegan proved futile, at best. I finally realized that neither understood/acknowledged that allegations meant nothing, until proven. Their position, unfortunately is accepted by all Complainants, hence a worthless 3 year lawsuit began.
LikeLike
WT, weren’t you able to establish that David was NOT a CPA, while one or both of them claimed he was? I had forgotten about that. Was it in connection with an unsuccessful campaign for a Board seat by one of them?
LikeLike
After reading bios of Sandra Snodgrass & David Finnegan from prior election bids for the Board, I became skeptical of his credentials. Ms. Snodgrass touted her husband’s accomplishments as a CPA and the positive influence he could bring to the Association, if she were elected. She lost. Mr. Finnegan, in his bios, boasted of a vast background in the financial field but never referred to himself as a CPA. I began searching for the truth and verified that Mr. Finnegan was never a CPA. Mr. Finnegan was often referred to as a CPA but he never bothered to correct the mistake. After confronting him through a string of emails, he finally admitted that he was never a CPA. The irony of this particular story is that “election fraud” was committed by both and each had the audacity to list “election fraud” with the OAG as one of their bogus charges against three innocent Defendants.
These two Complainants and their partners (other Complainants) sold the OAG a bill of goods (allegations), none of which could be proven. After three years the OAG cleared the 3 Defendants of ALL charges.
LikeLike
The video was shot before a “closed” Board meeting in my condo. Board member, Thom Pike, suddenly burst through my front door leading about 8-10 of his friends. We politely asked the uninvited intruders to leave so we could begin the meeting. A few departed but most left only after the police were called. Sandra Snodgrass was the last to leave.
For security reasons it became necessary to discontinue open Board meetings. Actions of the troublemakers were so unruly that it was impossible to conduct an orderly meeting. In addition, hiring security personnel to attend open meetings, while effective, was becoming expensive. Reluctantly, we closed our meetings.
LikeLike
I’m skeptical that the OAG did any due diligence re. the backgrounds of the complainants. The OAG was simply returning favors, they didn’t care, and/or they wanted to talk to people who told them what they wanted to hear. Any of those is a bad look for them, and they obviously paid the price, at least one with her job.
It’s one reason I’m providing a little background information from other places on the people involved as they are discussed. You don’t get the whole picture by putting blinders on.
LikeLike
______________________________ALL LIES MATTER—————————————————–
Re: A) Little White Lies compared to Z) Evil Lies.
Are there degrees of severity when breaking-down the meaning of lies? I believe lies range from A to Z; less severe to most severe. According to the dictionary A) relates to trivial matters often used to spare someone’s feelings. Z) Evil is defined as morally bad or wrong, injurious, threatening, wicked, causing pain, or harm and misery.
Lies promoted to cause harm and misery coincides with the OAG lawsuit. The OAG found no wrongdoing by three Defendants despite 39 allegations filed by Complainants. Quickly the charges were reduced to nothing more than blatant lies meant to tarnish or destroy reputations. These lies were malicious with no regard or feelings for victims. In short, the intent was to wreck innocent lives.
Reference the “Consent Judgment” and also examine a list of Complainant names and charges by clicking on: Index to Site. Remember, this was a Civil Lawsuit although many alleged charges bordered on criminal accusations. As noted throughout this site, the OAG could have moved to settle the case in a few months but chose instead to delay a decision to 3 years as they searched for evidence/facts that never existed. The ultimate goal of the OAG was to deliver a so-called “landmark case”. It never happened and the rest is history.
LikeLike
David did pass all the tests to become a CPA. So in my opinion he had the credentials. He never formally applied for the designation, as his job did not require it. We have the documentation if you need it.
Thanks for videotaping when you wouldn’t allow others to do it. I still believe I was correct in my answer as I didn’t make an A.G. re: the entire BOD, as Thom Pike was excluded. No need for me to complain about Thom Pike as he had inside information on the behaviors and actions of the BOD and how they managed. He was fighting the good fight to make things right for all homeowners. Interesting how you guys can twist others words but you have a great time defending all your actions.
The reason the group of us came to these HOA meetings, is because we were tired of being excluded — we had a right to know what was going on with the BOD. All those closed BOD meetings made the HOA feel left out and uninformed. Finally the HOA meetings are open after many years of protest.
The best thing to happen at the Harbours is the hiring of a Property Management Co., KMC, who is doing a great job of managing the Harbours. Weekly communications of what’s happening. Daily walking of the Property. Fewer fulltime employees. Fairness in treatment of all owners. Better maintenance and timely repairs. AND our HOA fees have come down. I suggested this several different times, but it was always turned down, mainly I feel because the BOD wanted the control. Makes you wonder why, doesn’t it?
Your comments about the different managers, etc., and blaming the A.G. complainers is interesting in that both of the previous 2 Property Managers have lawsuits against by the BOD for unfair treatment. Our view is that the secretive and manipulative BOD caused these changeovers, not homeowners wanting more involvement and fairness.
This Self Published Word Press document is interesting in that it only gives the author, K. Zipperle, and his supporters his view of the problems, history, outcomes etc. at The Harbours. The Attorney General would not have investigated without evidence. I guess this BLOG gives KZ something to do since he isn’t allowed on the BOD at the Harbours, per the Attorney General.
LikeLike
To: Sandy Snodgrass
Thank you for your comments. To my knowledge you are the first Complainant of the OAG lawsuit to post on this website. All Complainants and homeowners are encouraged to generalize, editorialize, or ask questions about the lawsuit.
Hard facts and overwhelming evidence led the OAG to settle the case, finding “No Wrongdoing” on the part of 3 Defendants. I believe that this site has done an outstanding job developing the critical information necessary and presenting it to the reader in an orderly fashion.
Thanks again for coming forward.
LikeLike
Let’s take a closer look at the posting above by Sandra Snodgrass. She admits that David Finnegan does not have a CPA certificate, but makes no apology for placing that misinformation on her bio. After finally pinning David to the truth, he confessed that he is not a CPA. Again, no apology.
Voters expect and deserve the truth. The truth is that it was done to embellish the bio in order to get votes.
Another glaring comment deserving more scrutiny is that the OAG filed suit because of the evidence they had. I wonder why they did not produce this so-called evidence during the 3 year litigation. Remember, the OAG could find “NO EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING” and that is the reason they decided to settle the case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, Ms, Snodgrass has a curious definition of “truth”… She acknowledges submitting AG complaints against a majority of Board members but claims she didn’t submit a complaint against the Board.
And that’s because she didn’t file a complaint against Board member Tom Pike, her sister’s boyfriend at the time. Not too hard to figure that one out. In that regard, she’s a pretty good representative of the Complainant group.
“I don’t lie, I just don’t exactly tell the truth…” 😉
LikeLike
I expect we have seen the last post from Sandra Snodgrass. Websites offering dialog and rebuttal are not
kind to OAG Complainants. The truth sends them packing.
LikeLike