A document was recently circulated among Windermere Oaks community members addressing concerns about the conduct, transparency, and decision‑making of the ConMan and ConSpouse. The letter, sent anonymously in June 2026 by one or several residents, outlines a series of grievances related to:
inconsistent standards of transparency
selective criticism of past and current boards
handling of WOWSC and POA matters
conduct on social media
questions about board eligibility
concerns surrounding the CCN filings, litigation, and operational decisions
broader issues of fairness, accountability, and community impact
The document reflects the views of the residents who authored it and was shared publicly within the neighborhood. SpicewoodNews.com is posting this notice solely as a historical record of community communications during this period of ongoing governance disputes.
Residents who wish to read the full letter may download it here or see the pages below.
On December 7 the entire Board of Directors signed onto a letter which an AI analysis found to have a high degree of rhetorical patterns that align with narcissistic tendencies. Where’s the neighborliness?
Here’s what the AI analysis said after looking at the December 7 communication:
Key Narcissistic Characteristics in the December 7 Letter
1. Discrediting Opponents
The letter repeatedly labels dissenting voices (“Friends of Windermere” and Joe Gimenez) as spreading “blatant disinformation” and “purposeful lies.”
This framing positions the Board as the sole source of truth, while portraying critics as malicious or deceptive.
Narcissistic communication often relies on polarization: “we are right, they are wrong.”
2. Claiming Exclusive Authority
The Board emphasizes that only their mailings are legitimate: “the only mailings the WOWSC Board has sent…”
This asserts control over the narrative and delegitimizes any alternative communication channels.
Narcissistic leaders often insist they alone are the valid authority.
3. Projection & Hypocrisy Accusations
The letter accuses Joe Gimenez of hypocrisy for past discussions with Lake Travis Estates.
Projection is a common narcissistic tactic: accusing others of the very behaviors the speaker may be criticized for.
4. Catastrophizing & Fear Appeals
Infrastructure is described as “deeply alarming” with vivid imagery (e.g., “an old microwave… used as a makeshift weather cover”).
The narrative suggests dire consequences if members don’t support the Board’s preferred sale.
Narcissistic rhetoric often uses fear and urgency to push compliance.
5. Dismissal of Opposition
The letter states: “These statements are not mistakes, they are deliberate lies designed to mislead you.”
This denies the possibility of good-faith disagreement, framing opponents as intentionally harmful.
Narcissistic communication tends to invalidate dissent rather than engage with it.
6. Self-Image as Protector
The Board positions itself as the guardian of truth: “Our goal is the opposite — to provide you with facts so you can make a decision based on reality.”
This portrays them as benevolent protectors against chaos, a hallmark of narcissistic self-presentation.
Overall Patterns
Control of narrative: Only the Board’s communications are legitimate.
Vilification of critics: Opponents are framed as liars and manipulators.
Fear-based persuasion: Infrastructure failures and financial burdens are emphasized to compel agreement.
Self-aggrandizement: The Board casts itself as rational, factual, and protective.
Balanced Note
While these rhetorical strategies align with narcissistic traits, they can also appear in crisis communications where leaders feel under attack and want to rally support. The difference lies in whether the communication style is situational (defensive in a high-stakes vote) or habitual (a consistent pattern of discrediting, controlling, and self-aggrandizing).
The Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC) board has repeatedly promoted the idea that if we sell the neighborhood non-profit corporation to a for-profit private equity-backed venture, each property owner could expect a refund check in the range of $3,000–$4,600 per property.
At first glance, this sounds great, but it is misleading.
According to records highlighted by Friends of Windermere, the equity buy-in fees that determine refund eligibility vary dramatically depending on when a property was built and connected:
Prior to October 1, 2001: Equity Buy-In = $0 (no refund at all)
October 1, 2001 – July 31, 2005: Equity Buy-In = $1,000
August 1, 2005 – (exact date under review): Equity Buy-In = $4,000
Current rate: Equity Buy-In = $4,600
(The exact dates are being researched and this post will be updated accordingly)
This means that as many as half of Windermere residents and hangar owners could receive far less than the advertised payout. Those whose homes or hangars were built before 2001 would not qualify for any refund, despite being told otherwise.
The Unanswered Question: Where Would the Extra Money Go?
If not every member is entitled to the full $3,000–$4,600, then what happens to the remainder of the sale proceeds? The board has not explained how funds will be distributed or where excess money will be directed. Without transparency, residents are left wondering whether unallocated funds will be absorbed into WOWSC operations, redirected to projects, or otherwise withheld from the community.
This lack of clarity raises serious concerns about fairness and accountability. The board should provide a detailed breakdown of how much each member will receive, property by property, and explain exactly where any surplus funds will go.
Why This Matters
For many families and hangar owners, the difference between a promised $4,600 and an actual payout of $0 or $1,000 is significant. Beyond the financial impact, the issue strikes at the heart of trust between the WOWSC board and the community. When promises are made, they must be backed by facts
Call to Action
The residents of Windermere Oaks deserve straight answers. The WOWSC board should:
Publish a clear schedule of refunds showing exactly what each property owner will receive.
Explain the disposition of excess funds not distributed to members.
Stop using inflated refund promises as a selling point without acknowledging the reality of who qualifies.
Vote “NO” to hit pause on this sale. The Board should answer these questions before transferring the gem of a water company out of the hands of neighborhood control. If they are not able to answer these questions, and negotiate a great deal, the Board should step aside for another Board to do so.
Until these questions are answered, the advertised payout of $3,000–$4,600 per property remains misleading. Transparency is not optional—it is the board’s responsibility to the community it serves.
Sources: Friends of Windermere analysis of WOWSC board communications friendsofwindermere.com
The Central States Water Resources Company attempting to buy the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation is backed by private equity interests in New York. They said so at the Town Hall in October.
Private equity firms exist for one reason: to extract money to benefit them. They will be extracting money from this region, paying only a pittance of what WOWSC is really worth.
Private equity firms are increasingly being called out as bad actors in communities across the country, particularly as they go about entering unincorporated areas, like Spicewood, and building data centers, bitcoin mining, and manufacturing.
Part of Windermere’s sale to CSWR would transfer 40 acres east of Exeter to the private equity locusts. They are likely, over time, to transform that land, to a regional water and wastewater processing facility that could service Ridge Harbor, Thomas Ranch and anything that develops west of the donkey farm. There are 250 acres for sale over there. At one time those were going to be 100-200 homes on 1-acre plots. The developer Amir Hirani gave up on that plan when the home market changed in late 2022 and now is selling — to anyone, including private equity locusts.
There is nothing preventing Big-tech firms from buying that land and building data centers or bitcoin mining. They would love to buy processed water from a regional water supplier and CSWR will be happy to sell it to them. Here is what CSWR or any buyer of WOWSC could do with that land, to build the infrastructure needed to supply those firms with water:
If you need more background on how private equity firms are ruining other communities, please look at videos posted below. It’s happening all over. It can happen here. Our WOWSC Board is supporting the potential decimation of your home values if it happens.
All the Board would have to do is put a restriction on what can be done with that land as a condition of sale. They haven’t, but they should. And that is a reason to vote “NO” until they do.
These videos document how profit‑driven investment often leaves long‑term costs for local residents.
Videos about Private Equity, Data Centers, Bitcoin Miners and Water
Across these industries, the playbook is the same:
Acquire local assets using outside capital.
Build infrastructure quickly and with disregard for community concerns.
Leave communities with environmental damage, lost jobs, or weakened infrastructure.
For Spicewood, where our water supply is already threatened by evermore “straws” in Lake Travis, the risks are clear. If firms like Central States Water Resources (CSWR) enter the picture, we could face large-scale, quick build-out with little input, affecting our home values.
Bottom line: Private equity’s track record shows a consistent disregard for community well‑being. Windermere Oaks must learn from these examples and guard against similar exploitation here at home.
VOTE NO TO PAUSE THE SALE TO DISCUSS THESE MATTERS FURTHER!
As a member of the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC), I recently filed two formal complaints with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC). These filings are about protecting the integrity of how our water company is managed and ensuring compliance with state law.
The First Complaint: Record Retention Failures
WOWSC has a duty to maintain corporate records in accordance with its own policies and state requirements. When records are not properly retained, members lose transparency into decisions that affect rates, governance, and the future of our utility. My first filing highlights instances where WOWSC failed to follow its Record Retention Policy, raising concerns about accountability and compliance. You can download the filing here.
The Second Complaint: Improper Disclosure of Customer Information
Texas Utilities Code §182.052 prohibits utilities from disclosing customer personal information, including email addresses. Despite this clear law, WOWSC communications have been sent from personal email accounts rather than through the corporation’s secure, contracted system. This practice risks exposing member data outside authorized channels and undermines trust in official communications. My complaint asks the Commission to require WOWSC to use only secure, auditable systems for member outreach. You can download the filing here.
Why This Matters
These issues go to the heart of how a public utility should operate:
Transparency: Members deserve confidence that records are preserved and accessible.
Security: Customer information must be safeguarded, not exported to personal accounts.
Integrity: Official communications should come from corporate-controlled systems, not private inboxes.
When these standards are ignored, the risk is eroding member trust and weakening oversight of a system that provides essential services to our community.
My Request to the PUC
Through these filings, I am asking the Commission to:
Enforce compliance with record retention policies.
Prohibit the use of personal email accounts for member communications.
Require WOWSC to certify that customer information is stored and used only within secure systems.
Investigate whether customer data has been improperly disclosed.
Looking Ahead
Our water system is facing serious challenges, from infrastructure needs to regulatory oversight. Integrity in administration is the foundation for solving those challenges. By filing these complaints, my goal is simple: to ensure WOWSC operates with transparency, accountability, and respect for the law—so that members can trust the decisions being made on their behalf.
Several Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC) members have reported that they have not received their ballots for the upcoming vote. The meeting is December 13 but you must mail your ballot in so that is received no later than the 11th or 12th!!!
This is a serious concern, as participation in this election directly impacts the future of our water system.
What To Do If You Haven’t Received Your Ballot
Call WOWSC immediately and request that a ballot be sent to you. (512) 568-6148
Publicly Document that you did not receive a ballot. Make a public record of the fact that you did not receive a ballot. Share it with neighbors, post it on community forums, and send a written note to the Board.
You must mail the ballot as soon as possible. Allow for mail delivery time!
Make noise. Transparency matters. The more members speak up, the harder it will be for these issues to be ignored. If the WOWSC did not do its job of mailing ballots correctly, then it should be documented. Other water companies might want to buy WOWSC.
Deadline Reminder
Ballots must be received on or before December 12. After that date, it will be too late to participate — unless you come to the DECEMBER 13 meeting and file in-person.
This is not just about one vote—it’s about ensuring fair process and accountability in how our member‑owned water company operates. If you haven’t received your ballot, act now and encourage others to do the same.
The Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corp (WOWSC) Board of Directors is pushing a deal that would hand over our community’s water system—and 40 acres of valuable land—to a company backed by private equity.
This is a dangerous gamble with your home’s value and the rural feeling of this entire region.
We all bought into Windermere Oaks because it offered the rare gift of country living—quiet roads, open skies, and a rural character that set it apart from the sprawl.
In the Board’s current deal Central States Water Resources, there is nothing preventing them from clearing all that land and erecting a regional water plant into the heart of that landscape.
That would shatter the very reason people chose to live here, replacing pastoral views with industrial infrastructure and eroding both the sense of place and property values. There is nothing in the current deal preventing CSWR from doing so. They want to make money, pure and simple, and they are establishing a foothold to do so.
What’s at Stake
40 Acres of Land: The property east of Exeter as we drive in to our homes is stretch that makes Windermere feel like we are living out in the country. If sold, it could be replaced by a monstrous regional water and wastewater facility, an eyesore for residents every time we drive into our neighborhood, with cyclone fences and razor wire.
Loss of Local Control: Selling to a private equity-backed company means decisions about our water supply will be made by investors whose primary concern is profit—not the well-being of our community.
Unrestricted Water Sales: Nothing would prevent this company from selling water to industrial users like bitcoin mining operations or data centers. There is significant land available west of the airport and donkey farm that is for sale, all without restrictions. Imagine massive facilities west of the airport and donkey farm, consuming huge amounts of water and generating relentless noise. Please investigate what communities in Granbury and Rockwall are experiencing with data centers and bitcoin miners — noise and water consumption.
Private Equity: Locusts on Communities
Private equity firms have been criticized across the country for behaving like locusts—descending on communities, extracting value, and leaving behind long-term damage. They are not accountable to residents, only to their investors. When profit margins tighten, community needs are the first to be sacrificed.
They prioritize short-term gains over long-term interests of neighbors.
They often raise rates while cutting corners on service.
They treat essential resources like water as just another commodity.
Do we really want our water—our most vital resource—controlled by outsiders with no stake in our community’s future?
A Better Path Forward
Instead of selling this land to private equity, the Board of Directors should sell it to the Property Owners Association (POA). That way, control of the land remains in the hands of the community, preserving the rural character of Windermere Oaks and ensuring that decisions about its use reflect the values of the people who actually live here. The POA could lease the land at reasonable price to Central States Water Resources.
Voting NO Now Just means a Pause
Let’s talk about this major issue as a community. There’s no reason we can’t come up with a solution to protect Windermere Oaks.
Call to Action
WOWSC members: Vote NO on the proposed sale. Protect our land, our water, and our community from the potention outcome consumed by private equity interests. Once we lose control, we will never get it back.
If you’ve read the recent letter from the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation (WOWSC) Board, you might have walked away thinking our water system is on the brink of collapse. Words like “violations” and “mandated upgrades” can sound scary, especially when they’re presented without context. Our current Board leadership is particularly good at alarmist exaggerations.
To check on Windermere Oaks, you would simply enter “Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation” into the search bar. The portal will then display any compliance or enforcement actions recorded by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), including notices of violation, enforcement orders, or penalties. This makes it easy for members to see the official history of violations and confirm whether issues are minor (like paperwork errors) or more serious.
What You Will See
Here is graphic of what you will see. In sum, 1 complaint about low water pressure in 2020. Resolved. One notice of violation in 2022. Another notice of violation in 2024.
When people hear the word “violation,” it’s easy to imagine the worst — unsafe water, health risks, or a system in crisis. But not all violations carry the same weight. In fact, TCEQ Category B Violations sit right in the middle of the severity scale.
Category B violations are intermediate issues. They’re more serious than simple paperwork mistakes, but they don’t rise to the level of immediate health threats. Think of them as warning lights on your car dashboard: they don’t mean the engine is about to explode, but they do mean something needs attention. Common examples are a utility failing to maintain required treatment equipment; Improper operation of wastewater facilities; or repeated monitoring or reporting failures.
These are operational or compliance gaps — important to fix, but not the kind of problems that make your water unsafe overnight.
When TCEQ identifies a Category B violation, the utility usually receives a Notice of Violation (NOV) as you will see in the graphic. This is essentially a formal reminder: “Here’s what went wrong, and here’s the timeframe to correct it.” Utilities are expected to respond quickly, document their fixes, and prevent the issue from recurring.
For consumers, Category B violations are worth noting but not panicking over. They don’t usually pose an immediate health risk, but if ignored, they can snowball into bigger compliance problems. The real danger comes when utilities fail to correct them, allowing small issues to become systemic.
The main takeaway — these were RESOLVED!!!
Why the Alarmist Tone?
SO WHY IS THE BOARD SO ALARMIST AND MISLEADING!!!!
The Board’s letter paints a dire picture, but the facts don’t match the drama. Yes, every utility has maintenance needs. Yes, upgrades cost money. But implying that our community is drowning in dangerous violations simply isn’t accurate.
It’s important to distinguish between real risks and regulatory housekeeping. Otherwise, members are left worrying unnecessarily.
Transparency is good. Accountability is good. But alarmism helps no one especially when we are considering a major sale of our local water utility, knowing that a for-profit company, backed by private equity investors, is going to squeeze our system and us ratepayers at every possible opportunity.
As members, we deserve clear information — not exaggerated claims. The record shows our water system has been safe, with only minor administrative hiccups in the last ten years.
So the next time you see “TCEQ violation” in a headline or letter from our Narcissistic Board, remember: context matters.
In case the mysterious person who mailed this out last week did not get your address correct, the images below are the questions which the WOWSC Board won’t answer regarding the sale of our neighborhood water company.
The water Board is enraged that members would dare ask questions about the sale of the neighborhood water company in a No-Bid, no appraisal, no advertisement manner. (By the way, all of these are attributes which the same people — the ConCouple — lodged against the 2015-16 Board, starting the decade-long legal feud they propagate.)
But back to the main topic. The Board came out Sunday and yesterday with letters to the membership about the people asking the questions, without addressing the questions.
So I decided to run the Board’s letter through an AI analysis, asking whether it demonstrates narcissistic traits, especially since it is so enraged.
Here’s what the AI analysis said. Enjoy!:
Key Narcissistic Traits in the Letter
1. Self-Promotion & Grandiosity
The Board repeatedly emphasizes that only they have brought “transparency, accountability, and professionalism” to the utility.
Statements like “This Board is the first to confront these issues head-on” elevate their role as uniquely heroic, positioning themselves as saviors of the community.
The phrase “The facts and evidence speak for themselves” implies infallibility and discourages dissent.
2. Blame-Shifting & Villainizing Others
The former president is portrayed as deceptive, irresponsible, and the root of all problems.
Past leadership is described as “inconsistent,” “diverting money,” “financial mismanagement,” and “undisclosed violations.”
This repeated scapegoating creates a narrative where the current Board is flawless and all failures belong to predecessors.
3. Control of Narrative
The letter frames dissenting voices as “misleading statements” or illegitimate tactics.
By labeling alternative perspectives as false or harmful, the Board positions itself as the sole source of truth.
The insistence on “100% transparency” while simultaneously dismissing member concerns about CSWR reviews suggests selective transparency.
4. Dismissal of Criticism
Concerns about CSWR’s reputation are minimized by comparing them to negative reviews of hospitals, banks, and airlines—implying critics are unreasonable.
This rhetorical move invalidates member worries rather than engaging with them substantively.
5. Moral Superiority
The Board frames its actions as not just practical but morally correct: “Why would any board hide information like TCEQ violations… one must ponder that question.”
This rhetorical question implies that only dishonest or corrupt leaders would act differently, reinforcing their moral high ground.
6. Appeals to Loyalty & Validation
The closing thanks members who expressed “strong, positive support,” reinforcing an in-group dynamic where agreement equals virtue.
This creates pressure for members to align with the Board’s narrative to be seen as supportive and community-minded.
Overall Assessment
The letter shows narcissistic tendencies:
High self-praise and scapegoating of predecessors
Dismissal of dissent and moral superiority framing
Validation-seeking through appeals to supportive members
But it also contains legitimate organizational communication aimed at persuasion and transparency. The narcissistic qualities emerge mainly in tone and framing.
