A PLACE TO BE
Sunday, March 18, 2012
TIDBIT
As the poll to the left indicates, 87% interprets the verbiage found in the Declaration of Covenants on ratification as being the voting percentage of those owners PRESENT at a called meeting. To be clear, RATIFICATION is only subject within our Declaration and Bylaws that hail the words “owners present”.
I need to remind the absentees who are concerned about substantial additions or material alterations of the Park; this is a called (every owner notified) meeting for ratification and proxy eligible, so your presence and vote can be arranged no matter what time of the year. As I see it there are only two reasons why our ratification regulation is not being enforced, directors aren’t knowledgeable or feel it’s too much work. Let’s start enforcing this regulations then work on the rest.
To review these regulations, look to the left and click on March 2005 Restated Declaration of Covenants (Art. X section B) or March 2005 Restated Bylaws (Art. VII) Comment?
2 comments:
That's sad when 20 people attending a meeting can decide the fate of 1000 +
The more I read about ratification the more upset I get. You say that's sad when 20 people attending a meeting can decide the fate of 1000 but say nothing when a measly 5 on the board can. I may be wrong but isn’t this ratification stuff supposed to give a voice to those concerned no matter if it’s 20 or 220. No one knows the “who cares number” because it seems to have never been tried. I read this as a regulation for owners present or present by proxy when reading our proxy rules and agree that it’s sad, sad that previous boards have never wanted owners consent.
Post a Comment