A PLACE TO BE
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
THE 4 MONTH RUSH FOR ONE, ULTIMATUM 4 THE OTHER
Currently
First problem is the debatable need for an improbable quorum when most are away.
Second problem is the dubious way Article X-B of the Declaration is being manipulated.
Third problem is this “go to trial” consequence that occurs if either the membership fails to acquire a quorum or fails to get a 75% affirmative vote at resolving the lawsuit.
These three problems stand out like a sore thumb, but the biggest one is seemingly under the radar. The membership apparently will not be picking between the two issues. Discussions up to now reveal our membership will, in a very improbable way, only be allowed to make an up or down vote for the resolution while the trial issue merely defaults.
So one has to ask is it right for our Board to put improbable requirements on the resolution vote, then impose without a vote that we go to trial due to requirement failure? Is it right for members to receive ultimatums on a ballot, like if you don’t get a quorum for the resolution issue we will pass this trial issue, or if 75% of your quorum doesn’t approve the Board’s resolution decision, we will impose the trial issue.
The Board has the power to decide this without the membership but have chosen to involve them, sorta. So how can the Board improve on this?
Suggestions
First, use Bylaw Article II section 3-b instead of the Article X-B of the Declaration.
Second, do away with the up or down vote on the resolution and replace it with a resolution or trial ballot. First, use Bylaw Article II section 3-b instead of the Article X-B of the Declaration.
Third, have the Board's decision prevail if there's less than 513 valid return ballots.
Fourth, the question of whether to resolve this lawsuit or go to trial will be decided by the majority vote if there's 513 or more valid return ballots.
COMMENTS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have been told that Freeman told Cowen they could but a road though his property for a fee of $1.000.000 so why don't we say 4 Million that's a good ultimatum so far all I hear is they want to take from us . Because lets face it our so called Lawyer is not that great If we are going to lose in court lets try and get something for our little pace of heaven. This is just a idea floating around on a stormy night in Iowa.
The attorney for the BOD is also a member of the law for the board's officer & liability coverage which seems to be a conflict of interest to begin with. Now it appears he has put together a way to at least deter suits against the board for mishandling this situation from the beginning. A referendum that has no chance of getting a 75% quorum(never in the the history of LIV has that been done), but that seem a way to defend a law suit by saying the owners had a chance to disapprove, but failed to do so therefore the board acted accordingly-just a thought........
Ok so is there anything we can do ? with this mess maybe the so called BOD could go into one of there Private Executive meetings and could come with something ,It looks like they think it well just go away or its more important to worry about speed bumps . This place is one mess after another . Its a stormy day in Iowa
Post a Comment