A PLACE TO BE
Thursday, December 26, 2013
CRUX OF THE MATTER
This set-in-stone twice spelled-out law declares that any decision made to materially alter or substantially add things to the Common Grounds must be ratified by a majority of three fourths of owners who attend a ratification meeting instead of a majority of three fourths of the membership (768 owners). How hard is that?
The only times I hear a Director talked about ratification is when confronted and just recently when it was totally distorted as somehow being associated with the Cowen lawsuit. If Directors need a guideline in defining substantial as it relates to money spent, all they have to do is to remember their regulation that $7500 is their substantial amount requiring three bids. If they need a guideline to define substantial as to the magnitude, all they have to remember is their recently passed building code where they define substantial as being fifty percent of an existing structure.
So why don’t they get their defining heads around this, any new additions to Common Grounds needs ratification if either costs exceed $7500 or the extent is fifty percent larger than a current to no addition.
It’s time to obey LIV laws and allow concerned members of the Association their right to ratify the altering or adding decisions to our Park.
Comments
Read more...
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
RATIFICATION AMBIGUITY
To me these two Articles found in the Declaration of Covenants read totally different.
Article IV, to amend the Declaration you need the affirmative vote of polling members, casting not less than three-fourths of the total votes of LIV’s membership.
Article X, to ratify a board motion you need the affirmative vote of polling members, casting not less than three-fourths of the membership PRESENT AT A CALLED MEETING.
Both need a yes vote majority, but the big difference is that one needs three fourths of total membership while the other needs just three fourths of the membership PRESENT AT A MEETING.
I believe the sole purpose of ratifying is to give concerned owners the power to keep in check nine directors who might wish to radically change the common grounds.
Example, a fourteen day notice of a special ratification meeting to pass a Board approved motion wanting a material alteration of the Rec. Hall floor (changing the white tile to a hard wood flooring throughout). If three fourths who attend this meeting don’t cast a vote, ratification fails and the motion may not go forward. If three fourths or more who attend this meeting do vote and the majority disapproves, ratification fails and the motion may not go forward. If three fourths or more who attend this meeting do vote and the majority approves the motion, the motion is then ratified and may go forward.
This consistent disregard of Article X (Declaration) and Article VII (Bylaw that repeats Article X) has to stop.
Director Vasquez vehemently talks about enforcing all the rules, so why not begin with this one.
Comments
Read more...
THE FAILURES TO RATIFY
Altering golf course paths to concrete.
Addition of a new pool gazebo.
Removing concrete putt-putt course and replacing it with a wood putt-putt course at different common ground location.
Material alteration from carpet to tile in Owners Lounge, kitchen area, and poker rooms.
Major new construction of the Activity Center, material change of tile, walls, ceiling, and office/mail boxes, both office and mail boxes being relocated within Center.
Two sidewalks, one by laundry and one that runs from stop sign to security building.
Replacing security building with a new security building at a different common ground location.
Major construction of a large asphalt parking lot next to the tennis courts.
Construction of a new shuffle board court and horseshoe pits on common ground.
New patio and awning construction by restaurant.
Major construction of a new maintenance building on common ground.
Adding a new fence on both sides of the Swing Bridge and material alteration of pool area fence (wood to vinyl).
Material Alteration east side of Activity Center, replacing the arch windows with a wall.
COMMENTS
Read more...
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
NOVEMBER 20, 2013 REGULAR MEETING
During “Manager’s Remarks” there was a motion approved to spend $2200.00 towards our restaurant’s ceiling. We heard so far this month condo fees were $67,775 in arrears, $37762 higher than the previous month. Director Vasquez asked the GM to start including in his remarks new home construction updates.
Charles Ortiz, district engineer for the Laguna Madre Water District, gave an update on the new program of non-potable water (pink water) for our golf course and found it will be about two years before it can be completed. Because LMWD’s preliminary contract request only states 48 cents per 1000 gallons will be charged the first three years, increasing to 57 cents the second three, and 66 cents for the third three, Director Steffensen asked Ortiz to put in writing what is going to happen to the water rate after the ninth year of the contract. He agreed to do so.
During the Minutes approval, Director Gunderson indicated a problem about recording what is being said and politely asked that everyone use the microphones and speak clearly. Director Vasquez blamed the recorder. Minutes were approved after Director McBride corrections. Director Gunderson also stated that it would help immensely if the Minutes were available prior to the Workshop so corrections could be done then. Director Vasquez who replaced Director Gunderson as Secretary appeared upset, claiming Director Gunderson never gave him instructions at doing it that way until today. Director Gunderson calmly said that doing it that way was in the folder given to you when you first started. That seemed to upset Director Vasquez even more who fired back saying Director Gunderson never gave him these instructions, then claimed she was nitpicker of the Minutes. Director Gunderson calmly replied that it was in the folder but more importantly my corrections to the Minutes was never intended to be” nitpicking” but instead to reflect accurate accounting as to what transpires in a meeting.
Director Steffensen said the Village was able to complete most of the major improvement projects this year and went on to mention the infrastructure account balance was $159,270. We heard confusion about rules to whether one could remove soil from LIV. The Board wishes to increase building permits to cover the increased construction dump volume and will be addressed in the upcoming building code revision meeting.
Activities are as follows, Nov. 28 Thanksgiving pot luck feast, Dec. 2 golf cart parade with chili dump afterward, Dec.7 trash and treasure, Dec.13 employee Christmas party, Dec. 15 Christmas choir, Dec 18 judging on who has the best lighted lot, and Dec. 31 the New Year’s Eve party.
It was said swim ban revenues are going to be used to improve the gazebo’s serving counter, the straightening of the fence pillars and light fixtures above. The outdoor pool needs drain work in order to be regulation compliant.
None of the replacement board candidates were at the meeting so it looks like December’s meeting will determine who’s appointed. Next month there should be a motion to buy a new computer register for the restaurant and pictures of the remodeled restaurant will be taken to put on LIV’s website. Most of the exercise equipment repairs have been done.
Director Vasquez wanted any volunteers for the election committee to report to him. Director Vasquez led a motion that was approved if the expenditure is reasonable for security golf carts to have LIV labels.
New American flags have been purchased. As a way to increase LIV revenues Director Steffensen brought up the idea to farm out the rental’s cleaning personnel to owners who wish to have cleaning services.
Read more...
Sunday, November 17, 2013
COFFEE WITH THE DIRECTORS
Lot 638 owner got up and expressed to the audience not to panic and each director one by one regurgitated the same.
The lone suggestion in the suggestion box came from Lot 427 who wants action towards owners who don’t obey stop signs.
Lot 768 added saying the Village’s non enforcement of running these stop signs might come back to bite us.
Lot 617 asked permission review LIV’s insurance contract to see if there might be any legal jargon about coverage on owners pertaining to this Cowen lawsuit. VP Pelletier said to put that in writing and submit it.
Lot 627 thanked the board for Saturday’s meeting and asked if LIV’s lawyer implied at Saturday’s meeting free gratis consultation? VP Pelletier laughingly said no and added this lawyer was uninvited.
Lot 712 asked then why was this attorney allowed to even attend the meeting and VP Pelletier stated that it was out of courtesy.
Lot 638 asked why the Association is spending money remodeling a restaurant that keeps losing money each year and VP Pelletier’s answer, to keep it upgraded in the hopes that people will use it more. We later heard the Grill will have a reduced menu and a new register system is still being reviewed, both in hopes towards saving money.
Lot 288 was pleasingly surprised on how happy and excited the new restaurant manager was.
Lot 617 talked about Judy Voss’s memorial service.
Security supervisor Lopez told the board she just received the info they requested for a new system that integrates office/security visitor information.
VP Pelletier poked distasteful fun towards some old owner about his driving skills and others laughed and piled on. It should be noted that this poor guy is in the process of selling and moving to a homecare facility.
SC 42 said there are still vehicles dangerously sticking out into the street when parked. Lot 228 asked for the update on this forever ongoing illegal curb issue and VP Pelletier said the survey was taken followed by a letter being sent out giving the owner who put in the curb a number of days to remove it.
An owner lot not stated wanted an update on the Laguna Madre Water District’s “pink water “for LIV’s golf course. Director Ramirez who’s been on top of this said the board is waiting for the acceptance of conditions and or any optional proposals, plus LMWD is receiving contractor bids for getting the water to us. Director Ramirez added it’s going forward very quickly and should save our Park near sixty percent in golf course water expense.
Lot 53 announced that any owner who wishes to sing Christmas carols sign up because practice starts soon.
Lot 617 reminded everyone about the employee Christmas donations.
Read more...
Monday, November 11, 2013
COWEN LAWSUIT TIDBIT
LIVOA’s insurance attorney said during Saturday’s meeting that board members get free representation and Bylaw Article XII backs that up with saying the Corporation shall indemnify every Director against all loss, cost and expenses incurred in connection with any action, suit or proceeding to which said Director may be a party.
Does it seem right that directors involved going back to 2008 may be financially immune to this lawsuit while the rest of the membership who had no say in the issue are left paying an unknown amount to defend themselves?
At Saturday’s meeting the insurance lawyer said the primary reason innocent Villagers are being targeted is due to them holding a 1024th common element interest in Sea Shell Blvd. along with having to vote for or against Cowen’s use of this common element.
How true is that?
While it’s true Article II of the Declaration does say members have this 1024th interest, it’s also true that Article II doesn’t say a member has the input as to the usage of those interests.
Bylaw Article IV, Section 10, subsection D does make it very clear the Board has that power over common element usage. It describes the directors as having the power to make and amend regulations respecting the operation and "USE" of the Common Elements. To me that means the Board has the power and not the members to decide Cowen usage of Sea Shell Blvd.
In Saturday’s meeting the Insurance lawyer also added that three fourths of the membership has to vote on amending our declaration towards the “Cowen’s usage” of Sea Shell Blvd. due to it being a material alteration, but didn't the board president previously state it’s due to being a substantial addition. Which is it? It’s neither and saying so is just plain balderdash?
Ratification of substantial additions and material alterations to common elements are found in Article X of our Declaration and in Article XII of our Bylaws. This is what both these guys are talking about and neither address the number of people who shall have access to our Park’s common elements like restrooms, pools, golf course, restaurant, tennis court, or roadways. What does address this deed are policy rules passed by the board.
Article X and Article VII in essence speaks toward substantial (material) additions and or (material) alterations to our common grounds and here's an example. If the board approves the substantial addition to expand Sea Shell Blvd. into four lanes, it needs to be voted on (ratified) by three fourths of the members who are present at a called ratification meeting. However any rules on the usage of these four lanes such as speed limits, stop signs, size/weight of vehicles, and or the number of people who may be allowed to drive on it is decided by the board through policy. Usage of Sea Shell Blvd. is a board policy issue.
To me it is clearly unfair that Villagers have to bear this possible unknown legal burden while board members who are making the decisions get off scot-free. It's only right that board members pass a motion covering a member automatically by the LIVOA’s insurance attorney if individually sued by Cowen. By doing so this should also create the ownership solidarity the board feels is necessary to defeat Cowen's lawsuit.
TIBIT EXTRA
Is the insurance attorney and the board's interpretation about ratification correct? The way I read it, ratification doesn’t need the approval by three fourths of the total membership. Ratification for substantial additions or material alterations need only the majority of three fourths of the members who are "PRESENT" at a called ratification meeting. Article X of the Declaration and Article VII of the bylaws stand alone using the phrase “three fourths of the total members "PRESENT" at a called meeting” while voting for amending the Declaration and or any Bylaw uses the phrase “three fourths of the "TOTAL" membership”.
Opinion?
Read more...
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Coffee with the Directors
On “Director’s speaking”, Director Ramirez touched on the never ending problem with children driving golf carts. Director Gunderson first spoke about the Dec. 7th Trash and Treasure noting that the proceeds will go towards common ground beautification that needs input from owners and later said there was a meet and greet party May 25th. Director McBride said the Hurricane Manual is done but needs Board approval. Director Vasquez wanted verification of meetings during the holiday months of Nov. and Dec. Director Steffensen wanted it recognized that security caught five vehicles trying to enter the Park with invalid passes. “Comments from the audience” started with lot 828 asking when will the Village website be finished and the best answer was next week. Lot 356 talked of problems with people posting signs. “The Workshop” being now an open forum started with a warning to owners not to say a word. Agenda items started with Director Ramirez wanting the children driving golf carts topic. Director Gunderson had three topics, approval of Trash and Treasure dates and time, discuss approval for a presentation of a computerized system for the Grill, and fund approval for a license renewal. Director McBride topics are replace stop signs down the main drag with speed bumps, add letter lot street speed bumps, and get approval for the revised hurricane manual. Director Guerra subjects are weekend security reports, security cameras, and issues with Rentals. Director Vasquez wants to discuss getting a price proposal on leasing security cameras. Director Steffensen agenda items are the Village website, more clarification on wrist ban price polices, change Welcome Center exemption policy for car passes and processing fees.
We had a new supervisor from Securitas who ended the Workshop with her presentation on security protocol.
Read more...
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Friday, May 3, 2013
April 2013 Regular Meeting
President Chapa said the “Workshop” needs to go into Executive Session and Director Gunderson said no, that is not correct. Director Gunderson said if you yourself President Chapa moved it from the column that I placed it in and put it in the Executive Session, then you need to explain your power to do that, because I believe you don’t have that kind of power and in fact we held this discussion before Mr. Chapa. I am quite upset. You are the president and not the supreme ruler of this board and when a Board member asks for something to be on the Agenda it needs to be on the Agenda. You could have called me and discussed why you feel this item should have belonged in Executive Session. I feel you could not have changed my mind, but you chose not to do that so I do not accept this Agenda.
Director Gunderson made a motion to have both items be put on the Agenda. President Chapa tried to argue but was advised that a motion was on the table and Director McBride seconded it.
President Chapa moved for discussion of the motion.
Director McBride started by saying that after Director Gunderson left the Workshop, the filling of Patti Anne’s (Director) position was discussed. We (the Board) even discussed where to put it on the agenda, so saying you didn’t know if it should be on there is not true. Everybody knew that Director Gunderson asked for that to be put on the Agenda. Everybody heard the term she used and we all heard this. There was some discussion and some modification of the way she asked (the filling of the Director’s position), but nobody said anything about taking it off (the Agenda).
Director Gunderson began her discussion saying this (placement of agenda items) is important to me, but even more important than taking this away from me, you are taking it away from all those who voted for me that I represent. You would be saying that they don’t count and I don’t believe I am wrong with saying that.
Directors Guerra said I looked at the agenda the other day and saw what was moved and to me it was just being moved into other areas, so I didn’t see anything really wrong with it. I still think when you walked out and said you wanted that placed on the Agenda, I don’t recall it was going to be placed on the Agenda. I thought it was going to be placed in Executive Session as we did in the other instance, so I don’t see a problem with that.
Director Vasquez requested since she conceded the second item that Director Gunderson revise her motion to only include the first agenda item (Open Workshop). She agreed and it was seconded. Director Pelletier jumped in with a comment that he had five candidates to fill the vacant Director’s spot and these need to be discussed in Executive Session. Once again Director Gunderson said this item shouldn’t be in Executive Session but conceded to it.
Director Vasquez restated Director Gunther’s revised motion and said discussions have been made, if the President so deserves that the discussion shall end, we will now vote.
Director Pelletier weighed in saying he felt the Workshop should be open to the owners and Director Guerra agreed only with the stipulation that the general population’s voice not be heard while the Workshop is in session.
Director Steffensen added that the closed Workshops have been most productive but saw no problem with them being open to owners just so long as there are no interruptions and then mentioned when the Workshops first began, the Directors only listed their agenda items without discussion which led to many of them at the Regular Meeting being tabled for the next month’s meeting.
Director Ramirez was in favor of closed Workshops.
Director Vasquez said I have said this before, a Workshop is not a meeting, and it is a Workshop for the Board. Number two, even if we were to have this open, I want you to listen to this very carefully, if we were to have it open and at any time any of the audience says a word, the President has the right to say this meeting is now adjourned and move it upstairs. All he has to hear is an “ah” and that’s it. I want you to understand that because the Workshop is for the Board. If any of you have special training then you can come up to the President and say I want to train the Board on a certain activity. I see some of you nodding your heads but a Workshop is not a meeting. If you find somewhere that a Workshop is a meeting, bring it to my attention.
Director Gunderson’s motion to have an Open Workshop as an agenda item passed. It will be brought up as new business later.
President Chapa passed his President position over to VP Pelletier in order to make a motion that the attorney who is coming in at 10:30 gives her orientation to the Board in an open session and from there the Board will move into Executive Session for additional matters. Motion was approved.
Roll Call had all Board members present.
The President’s remarks gave an update on Dick Lothe’s health, which we found out was good and that the Park invested $105 for 100 sympathy cards.
Manager’s Report had 89 work orders, a new treadmill on its way, and one of the two bicycles has been repaired. The rest was miscellaneous except the dredging update which we learn the application is out to the public, we are still waiting on the letter from Mr. Freeland, we are in the process obtaining a liability rider through our insurance company, and we will have a stick depth redo of the canals.
The Minutes were approved.
The Treasury Report seemed normal. Director Vasquez asked is it not a normal procedure that the insurance agent addresses the Board as to why things are changing. LIV’s insurance has increased $14,679 this year. I think the answer was yes. Your own bank may do an automatic bill pay using your lot number instead of an account number.
Committees
D and E (Gunderson) talked about the summer and winter events too numerous to list.
Pool (Steffensen) said pool bands will be available May 14 and with a motion that passed the renters and guest will now pay $5 for each band. There was also a liability concern with serving alcohol in the pool area and a motion was tabled to hire an outside pool monitor instead of paying for extra security.
Safety (McBride) said the hurricane manual will be updated having new contact names and he is waiting for the new website to be finish in order to have the correct internet procedures.
Not much ado with the Building, Financial, Golf committees or the Bridge Board.
The Village attorney gave her presentation covering four frequent topics of condominium governance issues. They were the misunderstanding of laws governing condominium associations, the importance of meetings and following rules for meetings, rolls/powers of members vs. board vs. members of the board, and legal issues and attorney client privilege.
Recess to the Executive meeting.
I didn’t stay but found out later that a motion was passed to now have open Workshops and no one will fill the vacant director’s spot.
Comments
Read more...
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Coffee with the Directors
From the Directors we heard Director Gunderson agreeing with the owner of lot 638 in that “Workshops” should be open to the owners. Director Vasquez said people are confusing this issue, and then gave his reasons why “Workshops” are not a meeting at all opened to owners. Directors McBride and Pelletier seemed to agree with Director Gunderson while Directors Steffensen, Guerra, Chapa, and Ramirez seem to side with Vasquez.
From the owners in the audience the first owner Lot was not stated but said a dictatorship is the most efficient way to rule but we don’t have that here and you on the board should not be so afraid of owners by keeping your comments behind closed doors. This owner continued by saying the owners want your thinking on issues in order to decide whether to re-elect you or not, so show some backbone. Lot 768 first gave everyone a meeting history lesson and then said Workshops technically are not a meeting. She continued saying the open meeting act does not apply to our Association and that meetings would be longer without a Workshop. Lot 828 spoke about the restaurant financial report numbers being very questionable citing one thing after another. Director Vasquez did as he did the previous month when an owner had multiple financial questions, to leave him these questions and he will address them during the Regular meeting. Lot 145 on the Workshop issue said there is one word for this, transparency. Lot 806 said lots on East Oyster seem to be in violation of the water restriction and our Village rental office seems in violation of the real estate laws by not going through a Broker. She continued with concerns that Aramark was not following budget approved by the Board and questioned a yearend zero budget. Director Vasquez became unglued after thinking this owner came about information on the rental violation from an executive meeting. He said this is a violation if a member of the Board disclosed such info. After telling this owner she is no longer part of the Board, Director Vasquez saluted her on her service with the Board. Lot 356 asked if the Board has come to any ruling on a curb encroachment issue brought up two months ago. After some confusion the Board said it will be an agenda item for the next meeting.
Comments
Read more...
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Are Workshops open to owners?
Yes!
And these gatherings are considered planning sessions commonly referred to as “workshops.” Our Board’s Workshop is supposed to be the same planning session where members are to decide what agenda items will be discussed and voted upon at the upcoming Regular Board Meeting. The open meetings provisions of the statutes which govern our association apply only if our board is “conducting board business.” This conducting of board business is viewed as being able to vote so board members cannot vote on matters at a workshop.
Since votes can only be taken at a called board meeting I would think this is the reason why Director Vasquez had surmised that Workshops are non-meetings and thus can be done within a closed session. After researching this I believe he is actually correct but only if the Workshop protocol is followed by our Board.
This protocol is that Workshops need to be carefully used as planning sessions and not a substitute for a discussion because board discussions belong in a called board meeting, so this is where the rub is. Our board president gloated that Directors spent two hours at last month’s Workshop going back and forth at each other arguing over agenda issues which as I see it disqualifies this as only a Workshop planning session.
The Board needs to be mindful of the political ramifications of holding these types of chinwag workshops because these technically become a meeting that should be open to owners. One might easily mischaracterize those who argue business within a closed assembly. They then might inaccurately assume that something nefarious is taking place behind those closed doors.
Comments
Read more...
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Another Director bites the dust
With that said it will now be interesting to see if Gene Rutland will be appointed to replace her. By his resume alone he is as equal if not more qualified than those serving on the Board today and this year he did received as many votes as the recently appointed Richard Ramirez.
Rutland’s appointment would be the proper thing for the Board to do but I wouldn’t hold your breath. The majority on this Board will probably view him as another persistent bulldog questioner they would not care to debate with even though owners voted for him so as to get his opposing views. Many in this Park believe these debates are a healthy thing for our Association. I would only hope that the Board looks at the substance he brings instead of his shorts.
At tomorrow’s Coffee it will be interesting to see if once again the Board makes the Workshop a closed session. You might recall newly elected Director Vasquez stunned owners with saying this is not your meeting and as noted in a previous article that this was apparently wrong to do so we will see if he gets it right this time.
Comments
Read more...
Friday, April 5, 2013
Confused
About 90% of the chemical expense was for these three inch chlorine tabs that they no longer need due to the new system. The chemical expense now is just a few bags of salt per year and beyond that they’ll need an insignificant amount of chemicals to balance the water. So why is this bid stuff even an issue?
Am I missing something here?
Comments
Read more...
Thursday, March 28, 2013
March 27, 2013 Regular Board Meeting
The lot 145 owner was limited to three minutes in talking his disapproval about last week’s Workshop being closed to the public. He received no initial response from the Board. Director Gunderson did bring this up at the end of the meeting citing on the side of the owner.
The President seemed to indicate that dredging may be near.
The normal stuff was express by Management on their jobs for the month. Condo fee arrears for this month were $28,325, a $16,254 improvement from the previous month. Director Vasquez made it clear that owners who do not pay their assessment should be punished severely.
There were motions approved on the Organizational and February’s Minutes. This was the first time in over a year that the month of the Minutes was recognized.
In the Treasurer Report we heard that the pool chemicals are out for bids. $31K leftover from last year will now go into a separate bank fund towards our infrastructure needs. The first quarter update seemed to indicate our Village has not spent enough money ($32625) which later ($30500) was spent on five approved motions for three golf carts, tennis court fence repair, a new fence to hide letter lot eye sores, security gate lift masters, and a new Green Master to cut the golf course greens.
The Directors recently assigned to committees were Directors Gunderson to D and E, Steffensen to Pool, McBride to Safety, Pelletier to Building, Vasquez/Steffensen to Finances, and McBride to Golf. The Bridge Board Reported their Annual meeting will be April 6th at 9am. Two motions approved the same two people to fill the Bridge Board position vacancies.
In New Business the Board approved our GM to try to get from the Water District a lower water rate and a variance on when to water the Golf Course. They also passed a motion to spend $1999 on a treadmill. A motion was approved on a twelve month Board Meeting schedule, after which VP Pelletier questioned a one month reprieve (August). The consensus with Director Vasquez expressing most adamantly that this Board was elected to serve twelve months Director Vasquez’s sympathy card for deceased owners was tabled until a true cost could be ascertained.
On “Other” items, there was a push by Director Gunderson to replace the Village Newsletter by posting its info onto the new LIV website. Her reasoning was that the info would come sooner to the owners.
The Board went into an Executive Meeting to cover nine items. Attorney orientation, employees using amenities, Manager’s office, Security expectations, Security passes, Obama-care healthcare letter to Aramark, Manager’s job description, Manager’s evaluation/time period, and Manager’s usage of credit card.
End
Comments
Read more...
A Tidbit
This now should be a strong focus at the next Coffee Meeting and I might add kudos to Director Gunderson as being the only Director who seemed to have the knowledge and guts to take the side of owner from lot 145.
Comments
Read more...
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Wrong!
I believe all on the Board who allowed the close Workshop meeting to occur should apologize to the owners at Wednesday’s upcoming Regular Meeting.
Comments
Read more...
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Coffee is your meeting, the Workshop is ours?
After the Pledge of Allegiance V.P. Pelletier read comments from the box that covered putting white rocks in the outdoor pool island, pleas to fix a treadmill, praise for cleaning a shower, complaints about piling fill rock on the basketball court and finished with having too loud of music in our pool area.
V.P. Pelletier went around the table to get the Director concerns. Only Directors Gunderson (pool furniture) and McBride (security admittance issue) spoke while the other Directors opted to voice their issues at the Workshop which follows the Coffee.
It was the owners turn to speak. Lot 638 had numerous questions about the costs in Aramark’s financial pages handed out at the Annual Meeting. After the Directors could not properly address these concerns Director Vasquez asked the owner to put these questions in writing and he would have it as an agenda item and answer them at next week’s Regular Meeting.
There were the usual complaints about security, and then the owners in the audience were told there would be a ten minute break before the Workshop.
To the twenty or so owners who stayed when the Board reconvened, they were surprised when told they would not be privy to the Workshop. When an owner asked why, Director Vasquez said the Coffee is your meeting and the Workshop is ours. Director Gunderson who appeared as surprised as anyone wanted it on the record that she was not in favor of this closed to the owner’s action. There will be a follow up to this.
Comments
Read more...
Friday, January 25, 2013
BATH HOUSE ISSUE
Many on the Board wish to discontinue using bath houses one and three. Doing so would save our Village over $40,000 this year and tens of thousands each year thereafter. The major objection seems about having a close place for renters and construction workers to use a bathroom and of course there were the usual threats of lawsuits.
To my knowledge previous Boards have never ratified any substantial addition or a material alteration to a common element but now it seems appropriate. Why?
Though the Board's intention seems pure I believe their decision on the USE of a common element doesn’t merit ratification and here's why.
Article X in our Declaration makes no mention towards the USE of common elements, just that “there shall be no material alterations or substantial additions to the Common Elements” unless approved by the board and ratified by the owners.
It is mentioned in DIRECTORS POWERS AND DUTIES, Article IV, Section 10 of the Bylaws which state “such powers shall specifically include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Section D “To make and amend regulations respecting the operation and USE of the Common Elements.” Therefore one is left to believe the elected Board have exclusive power to change the USE of these bathhouses without ratification from owners. However when the Board decides to materially alter the bath houses, such as tear them down or remodel into other than a bath house, then they would need to seek ratification.
My suggestion is to close only bath house number one since it is a short distance from the Rec. Center bathrooms and would save the bulk of the cost savings the Board desires. Later if it feels right, do bath house three in the same fashion.
Comments
Read more...
To my knowledge previous Boards have never ratified any substantial addition or a material alteration to a common element but now it seems appropriate. Why?
Though the Board's intention seems pure I believe their decision on the USE of a common element doesn’t merit ratification and here's why.
Article X in our Declaration makes no mention towards the USE of common elements, just that “there shall be no material alterations or substantial additions to the Common Elements” unless approved by the board and ratified by the owners.
It is mentioned in DIRECTORS POWERS AND DUTIES, Article IV, Section 10 of the Bylaws which state “such powers shall specifically include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Section D “To make and amend regulations respecting the operation and USE of the Common Elements.” Therefore one is left to believe the elected Board have exclusive power to change the USE of these bathhouses without ratification from owners. However when the Board decides to materially alter the bath houses, such as tear them down or remodel into other than a bath house, then they would need to seek ratification.
My suggestion is to close only bath house number one since it is a short distance from the Rec. Center bathrooms and would save the bulk of the cost savings the Board desires. Later if it feels right, do bath house three in the same fashion.
Comments
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)