Our Village

At July’s Regular Meeting I was the only one who signed up for the owners speaking on agenda items. I was allowed three minutes to read the following statement about the Board’s Executive Session.
To paraphrase, the Executive Meeting is again under the guise of Personnel and Legal issues. May I read a few questions and get a response? After being told you have three minutes, I continued.
First, are these legal issues addressing pending litigation? If not, wouldn’t they conflict with the state statute 82.108 of the Condominium Act?
Second, as I read this statute, it allows just six discussion categories during Executive Meetings and broad-based legal issues are not among them, only pending litigation. It also demands an announcement in open session of the general nature of business on the topics within each allowable category and I don’t see this happening?
Finally I wish to point out that although the Board is permitted to consider actions during an Executive Session, they’re not allowed to take action."
President Guerra's response was we’ll take that into "consideration.
At the end of the regular meeting the Board continued to do as they have done before. With apparent impunity they went into this scheduled Executive Meeting without disclosing to we the owners the general nature of business that was to be discussed.
Over an hour later they resumed the Regular meeting and announced that they had discussed two items under legal issues and passed motions on both. The first was to reallocate $120,000 from the infrastructure fund at IBC bank to purchase a CD at Lone Star bank in order to act as collateral for an Appeals Fund. The second  was to secure $120,000 from LIV’s investment in the Edward Jones account and deposit $100,000 of that at Lone Star bank to purchase a CD and transfer $20,000 into LIV’s Operative Fund. 
This seemed totally out of order and made me understand what kind of consideration this Board had towards me and the owners of LIV. The picture above will describe it.
Comments 
Read more...

Too bad this Island Breeze article didn’t pan out in 2008. That being said, last Monday’s Bridge Board Meeting was short, sweet, and very interesting. I have to tip my hat to those members on the Bridge Board for doing such a great job. They have for months been obtaining a plethora of accurate information for either replacing or repairing our dilapidated barge that’s essential to our bridge.
I think their best remedy has been to repair the structure for around half a million dollars. This is accomplished by doing minimal structural repairs while filling the barge with closed cell floatation foam.
It’s determined that this fix should last in the neighborhood of about thirty years or more, just about the same life expectancy of a replacement barge, but at about one fourth the costs. There’s also more upside with doing this because unlike a new barge, if a vessel hits a foam filled barge, it will not sink plus we won’t have to close the bridge to install the foam.
The Board is looking to see if there is any state or federal grants available that could save our Village money so these guys are really on the ball.
One might want to attend the August 18th meeting to hear the updates. Good job guys.
This site will give you some insight on foam applications.
http://www.sprayfoam.com/npps/story.cfm?nppage=1521

Read more...

We’ve been witnessing a record number of highly lengthy Executive Meetings in which by rule owners may not attend. Why so many? Consistently each month we have personnel and legal issues as the nature of business being discussed even though Statute 82.108 of the Condominium Act does not list one of these issues as being allowed a discussion. 
Items allowed discussion behind closed doors are personnel, pending litigation, contract negotiations, enforcement actions, matters involving the invasion of privacy of individual unit owners, or matters that is to remain confidential by request of the affected parties and agreement of the board.
I don’t read legal issues in that mix? Pending litigation yes, but this speaks of something specific and current while legal issues can be an array of subjects that’s not pending or litigation. Statute 82.108 of the Condominium Act also states that while in an open meeting prior to going into the Executive Meeting, the Board must give the general nature of any business to be considered. To me this means that each topic within a category and that is definitely not being done.
Is this just simple oversight or deliberate abuse? Who knows? We do know that each meeting in the last six months has lasted from forty-five minutes to two hours. The Board at different times tried to do business behind closed doors (i.e. decision that no owners were allowed to witness the Annual Meeting’s appointment of officers and a ruling that no owners were allowed to attend Workshop meetings).
So is it time to address this issue with our Board? “You betcha!”
Comments?


Read more...

Read more...

Read more...

An owner strolled up at the last Coffee Meeting, turn and ask the audience who knew the Association lost the lawsuit to Maurice O. Berry. The Directors looked surprised and apparently nobody knew. VP Pelletier put Ex-President Chapa on the spot to comment and he reluctantly said the jury decided in Berry’s favor but he didn’t want to get into details because there is still some rulings yet to be made by the Judge.
Here are some details I understand to be true. Few owners knew this was a two part lawsuit. Pat Burke in her capacity as Board Member was individually sued for Defamation and ten jury members on February 10th deemed her innocent. Our Association lost on February 10th to the same jury who concluded that our Association shall pay Mr. Berry for damages to his physical property, the decrease in his property values, and the loss of enjoying his property, his distress and his mental anguish to the tune of $147,000. It may be more after these last few details wrapped up.
The Activity Center parking lot will cost somewhere near a quarter of a million dollars.
At our Annual Meeting our GM was asked what the approximant dredging assessment would be. I’m not sure why Director Steffensen started waving her arms frantically but the GM didn’t see her and said the cost should be somewhere close to $1000.00 per owner. He also made it clear the intercostal area and Canal H which feeds to the back canals will not be dredged.
Owners should appreciate that whether its good news or bad news, our GM always gives us straight answers when asked, something we lacked from his predecessor. I don’t know what else will be involved with the upcoming assessment, but just the above makes it a tidy sum.
Read more...

This year the Owners were scratching their heads over the election process. A surprise that switched into concern was the  pick to have Reta Priest and Leroy Mulch as Election Committee co-chairs. In 2008 these two demonstrated just how far they were willing to circumvent the electorate by pushing their influence upon six directors they just happened to disagree with. They sued them, a Board majority, in order to squelch their power to legislate and it cost our Association thousands of dollars in the process. 
Owners were clearly amazed to learn they could no longer ask a Candidate a question in front of the “Meet the Candidates” audience. Owners were allowed to do this in the past or given the opportunity to submit a written question in order to vet a candidate on the subject that concerned the owner the most. Instead owners sit and labor through softball questions the Election Committee decided were in our best interests. 
Owners said no-way when hearing the Election Committee had to pay people for the first time to work the election. In the past acquiring volunteers never was a problem so owners should ask what on earth necessitated this and does this expenditure have to be approved by our Board in an open forum?
Owners were then stunned for not being informed that this Election Committee decided to forgo years of Annual Meeting protocol by no longer allowing owners the right to nominate a candidate from the floor or be given any opportunity to write in a candidate of their choice on the ballot. 
What seem to put the icing on this proverbial election cake was Secretary Vasquez demanding a closed meeting to hold the selection of Board officers. Once again this has never been done before but after pressure Secretary Vasquez eventually relented. Why the Village Attorney who was clearly foreign to the selection process had to then be involved in the selection was anybody’s guess.
Those Elected and Terms.
Dr. Wilma Jo Smetter (3 yrs.), Richard Ramirez (3 yrs.), Ken Waller (3 yrs.), and Robert Champion (1yr.). 
Our Directors and Positions.
Joe Guerra (President), Don Pelletier (Vice President), Raul Vasquez (Secretary), Robert Champion (Asst. Secretary), Mary Steffensen (Treasurer), Dr. Wilma Jo Smetter (Asst. Treasurer) Flora Gunderson (Dir.), Richard Ramirez (Dir.), Ken Waller (Dir.).
Read more...

In my twelve years living here nary a Director found it fitting to have owners ratify a Board decision on material alterations or substantial additions. Why is that? Our Declaration of Covenants demands it. Our Restated Bylaws demands it. Instead of ignoring it, why don’t Directors demand it?
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...