A PLACE TO BE
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
THINGS NOTICED AT THE MAY 20th SPECIAL MEETING
those in charge were changing the member’s property. So why now?
Well some believe the ones who have made the decisions which got us to this point now wish to remove all accountability by being able to point to owner’s actions when this lawsuit begins to go south. Others believe that going to trial will be so costly and risky that members need to decide against it or for it.
So when this resolution is finalized, the attorney will explain details to all and probably give the same recommendation he more than hinted at during the Special Meeting. “NO TRIAL”.
One item that has many members upset is this near impossible requirement the attorney has made for the ratification process. Common sense should tell you that when most members are away you shouldn't require a quorum for a meeting, especially when that quorum number is 102 more than required for our last three Annual Meetings which was found so problematic. But the attorney did, so the question now is how will members be able to decide for or against a trial when the Meeting in which their votes will be counted has virtually no chance to be valid?
Moving on and adding to this was our attorney telling members he can’t give legal advice or disclosures that involve our insurance company because he also works for them. That had some asking when this might become a conflict of interest?
Then we learned the attorney’s firm was paid a “beginning to end” one lump sum payment to represent our insurance company and currently is being outspent over 3 to 1 by the Cowen’s unlimited coffers. So whose interests will be best served when this one lump sum begins not to cover the costs of this rather expensive 6+ year, on, off and back on again lawsuit?
I still argue the use of Article X-B of the Declarations and Article VII of the Bylaws. The attorney sees fit to require a quorum when both these Statutes don’t support such. Plus, when was the last time a Board of Directors saw fit to call for or require a Ratification Meeting using these Statutes? Short answer, NEVER! So why use these two statues that don’t fit when he could have just as easily used Article II Section 3-B of the Bylaws that says a majority of the Unit Owners' total votes shall decide any question unless otherwise provided elsewhere in our Declaration or Bylaws. Using that statute would better serve our situation because there’s no quorum necessary and there’s no 75% affirmative vote needed to decide against or for a trial.
Finally we have this little Special Meeting nugget which really got owner's shaking their heads. When questioned about quorum percentages, our attorney said he had in his hands this 2011 Bylaw amendment which reduced the quorum percentages from 50% to 40% and it had been certified that your membership ratified it, sounding as if the ratification process was easy-peasy. The only jaw dropping problem, this ratification never took place. Pat Burke made this catch fire by saying she didn't recall this ever being ratified and this seemed validated by a quick check of the Minutes. So if this amendment was never ratified, how does it affect the legitimacy of our past three Annual Meetings where the quorums were substantially less than 50%? How does it affect those elected and the different motions they passed? What kind of mess do we have here?.
At this moment our Village seems to be in dire straits and the above may only be the tip of the iceberg.
Comments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment