Your Questions, Answered.
Here is a collection of questions people have asked me either in person, on social media, or via email. I will update this page as more questions come in.
Have question? Email me at jcfortheboard@gmail.com.
Prefer to talk? Book a time with me.
I’d like to ask what you think went right and what you think went wrong with how the current POA Board handled the rebranding issue, if you are willing to comment.
This has been one of the more emotionally charged issues our community has faced. I believe the Board acted in good faith and genuinely tried to serve the best interests of Big Canoe. That said, I also believe the decision to pay $400,000—plus substantial legal fees—for the logo and related trademarks was a misstep. Especially considering the bigcanoe.com domain name wasn’t included.
Big Canoe is a geographic place, and under trademark law, place names are generally not eligible for trademark protection. I understand there’s some disagreement about this. My perspective comes not as an attorney, but as someone who has successfully settled a significant corporate trademark dispute. In my view, the logo, domain name, and any related intellectual property could have been acquired for far less.
To be clear: I was not part of the negotiations. There may be details or legal constraints that make the final outcome more reasonable than it appears from the outside. I remain open to that possibility. But based on the information available, my opinion is unchanged.
Where I believe the Board and Management fell short was in communication. This was a time-sensitive issue that clearly affected the entire community. There was ample opportunity to keep Property Owners informed early and consistently. Instead, the lack of transparency allowed confusion and speculation to take root—something that could have been avoided with clear, timely updates.
I’d also like to know your views on either transforming Big Canoe into a resort style community or keeping it relatively the same (a protected natural environment)?
For many, Big Canoe already is a resort-style community. We’re surrounded by natural beauty and enjoy access to 27 holes of golf, a racquet club, wellness center, pools, beaches, boating, and over 20 miles of hiking trails. That’s more than many professionally managed resort properties.
If the question is about adding things like a hotel, water park, or roller coasters inside the gates—I’m not in favor. Our approach should be shaped by the vision outlined in the Covenants and other governing documents, balanced with the evolving needs and preferences of the people who live here.
What is your experience with 501 organizations?
I’ve served on nonprofit boards, including organizations responsible for strategic planning, governance, and fundraising. I understand how fiduciary responsibility works in a nonprofit setting and the importance of separating oversight from operations.
Do you have any specific, definite, exact actions that you recommend? We don’t want to hear platitudes about “I’m running for change, or “I’m running for transparency,” or “gee there are ‘things’ that are not perfect. Exactly, specifically what can you personally do better?
Specific, definite, exact actions I would recommend:
- Create a public-facing decision log for the Board—what was decided, when, and why—to build trust and eliminate ambiguity.
- Overhaul the POA website to make important information easier to find and understand (budgets, minutes, covenants, etc.).
- Add structured listening sessions with owners—ideally monthly and in small groups—to get direct feedback outside the format of large town halls.
- Improve contract oversight with better vendor accountability and review processes, especially in Food & Beverage.
- Build a long-range capital plan that ties infrastructure priorities to realistic funding mechanisms, so we aren’t constantly reacting to crises.
What do you know about environmentals–water, infrastructure, life safety?
I don’t have direct experience in these areas, but I believe the role of a board member isn’t to act as a subject matter expert in every area—it’s to ensure we consult the right experts, ask informed questions, and weigh the options thoughtfully before making recommendations.
What do you know about working with a developer?
While I don’t have personal experience in land development, I approach these matters the same way: seek input from professionals with relevant expertise, consider the implications for the community, and make decisions grounded in facts—not assumptions or pressure.
What do you know about interfacing with a county government?
I’ve worked with local governments in roles connected to both the City of Atlanta and the City of Jasper, and I’ve completed training through the Carl Vinson Institute of Government—experience that gives me a solid foundation in how to navigate relationships with public entities.
What financial background do you have? Strategic planning? Communications? HR?
- Finance: I’ve managed multi-million-dollar P&Ls in private business and understand budgeting, forecasting, and return on investment.
- Strategic Planning: This has been core to my career—leading initiatives from ideation through implementation across departments and stakeholders.
- Communications: I’ve built and led communications teams and am comfortable in both public-facing and internal roles. I believe communication should be frequent, clear, and two-way.
- HR: I’ve led hiring and personnel development for growing teams and believe in accountability, clarity, and fair treatment of staff.
Bringing It All Together: No single board member should be expected to have deep expertise in every area. That’s why we have a board—a team designed to bring diverse experiences together—and why we rely on committees, consultants, staff, and volunteers who specialize in areas like finance, infrastructure, planning, and governance.
A strong board listens carefully to expert input, weighs community priorities, and gives clear, balanced guidance to Management. Execution is Management’s responsibility. The board’s job is to ensure decisions are thoughtful, transparent, and in the long-term best interest of Big Canoe.
I briefly interacted with you when you helped set up the new Facebook page. You were ADAMANT that it be public. You eventually did the right thing, surveyed the users and turned it private. Can you explain why you were so insistent on the public release of the goings on of a very private community?
Thanks for the thoughtful question—and for being open to hearing more about my reasoning.
When the new Facebook group was created, we were intentional about making it public and uncensored (with the exception of personal attacks, which are removed). That decision came from a recurring concerns we’ve heard from many residents: that posts critical of the POA, Management, or certain amenities were being deleted from other community groups. In fact, I personally experienced this censorship—some of my own posts were removed, and I remain banned from one prominent group without explanation, despite reaching out to the admins for an explaination of why.
At the time, the trademark issue had just come to light, and again, multiple people claimed that their posts about it were being taken down. One Facebook group even received a letter from Mr. Rhodes’s attorney instructing the group not to delete any posts. That context reinforced my belief that we needed a space where community members could speak freely and stay informed—especially about issues that affect everyone.
The public setting was part of that transparency. It gave people confidence that posts wouldn’t be quietly removed behind the scenes. It also encouraged better behavior—when people know they’re being heard in public, they’re more likely to keep their tone civil. And more importantly, it supported a core belief I hold: sunlight is the best disinfectant. When information is open and accessible, accountability follows.
That said, once the group gained traction many of its members requested the group be made private. In the interest of getting the entire group’s opinoin, I created a poll asking whether to keep it public or make it private. The majority chose to make it private, so I honored that immediately. That’s how democracy works—we listen to the will of the people and adjust course accordingly.
You asked about my decision-making approach, and that’s a fair question. I believe good leadership combines core values—like transparency, fairness, and accountability—with the humility to listen and the flexibility to adapt. If elected, that’s how I’d serve: by putting the community’s best interest first, even if it means changing my mind when the facts or the majority opinion changes.
Will you find a way to open up discussions with board members? Town hall meetings are only good for certain things. It would be nice to be able to reach out to board members to share concerns or ask for help.
This is a fantastic idea, and one I’ve already pitched to the current board members. In my other mentorship and advisory roles, I created “Office Hours”, a specific and regualr block of time where people could book time with me to disucss whatever is on their minds.
In fact, I’m doing that now during my candidacy and I encourage all current board members, the GM and department heads to do the same.
Can you advocate to put term limits for accounting and legal services?
Yes, I can. In fact, regularly rotating legal and accounting firms is considered a sound governance practice in many organizations I’ve worked with. It promotes transparency, accountability, and fresh thinking. New advisors bring updated knowledge of laws, compliance standards, and nonprofit best practices—and may spot issues that long-standing firms, due to familiarity or habit, might overlook. Rotation also helps prevent conflicts of interest and reduces the risk of advisors becoming too embedded in internal dynamics.
Another effective model is to engage multiple firms for different functions—such as separating general legal counsel from specialized legal matters, or having one firm manage bookkeeping while another handles audits or tax filings. When structured thoughtfully, this introduces healthy checks and balances. Cross-review between firms can enhance oversight and reduce the likelihood of error or misconduct slipping through unnoticed.
That said, transitions should be approached with care. New professionals need time to learn the organization’s operations, which can cause short-term inefficiencies or higher costs. Longtime advisors often carry institutional knowledge that, if not well documented or transferred, can be lost. In some cases, it may make more sense to retain existing counsel but engage an outside expert to periodically review their work. That way, the organization benefits from independent oversight without sacrificing continuity.
Do you have time?
Some say serving on the Board takes 20–40 hours a week. It shouldn’t.
Boards are meant to govern, not manage day-to-day operations. They provide oversight, make policy decisions, and ensure accountability. Contract negotiations, appeals, and operations should be handled by staff and the General Manager.
If Board members are consumed with operational tasks, that’s a management problem, not a Board responsibility. I’d help refocus the Board on what it’s actually meant to do: advise, direct, and hold management accountable.
Have you taken Leadership Big Canoe?
No, I have not. While LBC is recommended as a wonderful way to learn more about the history of Big Canoe and “how things work around here”, it is not a prerequisite for holding a board seat.
I have completed several leadership training programs, including Advanced training from the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at UGA.
Understanding how things have been done is helpful. But understanding how things should be done is essential. Institutional knowledge should support good governance, not override it.
If LBC is such a valuable source of information, why not make it more available to the community? That would make it easier to access for all of us, including me.
Also see: The Most Dangerous Phrase In Business: We’ve Always Done It This Way
Are you familiar with the Board’s responsibilities?
Yes. The Board’s role (as with any board) is to govern, advise, and hold management accountable.
At the Board Information Meeting on June 2nd, I asked the current Board what major issues they expect facing in the next three years. Their answer was: “We need to get better at planning and communication.”
I’ve met with each continuing Board member one-on-one to discuss these issues and gather their insights:
- Rich McLeod: June 25
- Sandy Pullara: June 27
- Craig Price: June 27
- Jim Conneely: June 27
- Mike Zeigler: June 30
We already have a Strategic Plan and a Long Range Plan in place, but management isn’t being held accountable for following them. These are strong tools that can guide our progress. What’s needed now is the discipline to follow them and the leadership to ensure they’re used effectively.
Clear and consistent communication is critical. We already have a communications team that’s being paid almost $400,000 a year. The board needs to hold management accountable to deliver clear, consistent messaging that keeps the community informed and engaged.
My goal is to bring calm, capable leadership that reinforces what’s already working, addresses what’s not, and helps the Board operate with greater clarity and purpose.
What will you do if elected?
My focus will be on: 1. Open dialogue with the community — across multiple channels and in plain language. 2. Real accountability for leadership — ensuring management operates with professionalism, integrity, transparency, and fiscal discipline.
What about Conflict of Interest?
This was the first question I raised out of respect for the process and our community. More on that here.
Competition with the Clubhouse
Lucky Hare and Night Train Pizza serve a different purpose. They offer fresh, made-from-scratch food and a different dining experience.
Before Lucky Hare opened we had the Clubhouse, Home Restaurant (owned by your Big Canoe neighbor), Fuego, and Huddle House. Name another thriving 4,000 member community that’s being served by just three restaurants and a diner. When the Clubhouse closed for renovations the options were even more limited.
The lack of dining and entertainment options is part of why our property values haven’t kept pace with the broader market. The goal with those restaurants is to complement and serve the community — not compete with POA amenities. We’re not restaurateurs, we’re your neighbors trying to fill a need.
The real question is: Is the Clubhouse a community amenity or a commercial business?
If it’s truly a community-supported amenity, and property owners are willingly subsidizing the costs, there’s no issue. But if it operates like a business, we should ask: Why is it allowed to remain chronically unprofitable and lose so much money year after year—especially when those losses are borne by property owners?
Who’s competing with who? If the Clubhouse is competing with private businesses, how is it fair that the Clubhouse can lose $800,000 or more each year, be supported buy a $375,000 communications team, and not be held to the same basic business economics as a private business? There’s no way a private restaurant could survive losing that kind of money each year.
Even if the Clubhouse were commercial, Big Canoe and the Marble Hill area is large enough to support multiple restaurants. We should be collaborating to make the community better — not framing our neighbors as competitors.
Are you concerned about this being a fair election?
I believe the members of the Election Committee are honest people acting with integrity. My concern isn’t about their intentions, but rather about how the process affects the voters’ ability to make an informed decision.
The outcome of the election is ultimately determined by the community, and I’m not sure voters have had enough opportunity to fully understand what each candidate stands for. Right now, there are very few ways for candidates to speak directly with residents—or for residents to ask questions and engage in meaningful dialogue. This is largely because the POA controls all campaign communications and restricts candidates from using common channels like social media to connect with the community.
A fair election requires not just fair oversight, but also open communication and informed participation. More on that here.
Thank you for reading my platform. I hope you found it informative and helpful in understanding my vision for our community.
Have a question or something to say? Send me an email: jcfortheboard@gmail.comPrefer to talk? Book a time with me.
—
J Cornelius — Candidate for the POA Board
jcornelius.com/poa
—
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. – Margaret Mead