Our Village

Out of the “suggestion box” was lot 279 wanting to know if there was “automatic bill pay” available for monthly fees. Lot 409 complained the laundry facility was dirty. SC14 thought our park needed a water commissioner as an added Aramark employee. Lot 345 brought up rental activity is still being done by unlicensed people. Lot 558 wanted the restaurant’s full menu to be publicly posted. Lot 229 complained of flags not being flown on weekends. Lot 747 thought a closed “Workshop” was wrong. Lot 638 had a lengthy letter about closed “Workshop” meetings.
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...

Are board members allowed to assemble outside the presence of unit owners in order to bring up association matters?
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...

It’s apparent our Board has drastically changed with the resignations of Directors Montalvo, Gagan, Kelmis and now Sandberg. It seems Director Sandberg finally relented after the majority on the board would not allow her the few over the phone meeting allowances she received in prior years. Why wouldn’t they? Was it due to her bulldog questioning of the Park’s financials and of Aramark? 
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...

I find it a little confusing that after our Board decided to pay the big bucks to install this saline pool/spa system they now want to shop for bids on pool chemicals. Why?
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...