Our Village

At our last Regular Meeting we had Directors Gunderson, Pelletier, and Steffensen vote “YES” on a motion to correct the misuse of Executive Meetings. While the motion was in discussion, President Guerra freely admitted that there were inappropriate discussions during Executive Sessions and yet he voted “NO” with Directors Smetter, Vasquez, and Waller on rules that would correct this misuse. One Director even said if this passed it would tie our hands.
Using the Regular Meeting Minutes I did some research that owners might find interesting. In an eight year summary from March 2002 thru April 2011, the Executive Meeting average was one out of every three Regular meetings. Then on May 30, 2011, the Texas State Legislature revised Property Codes of the Texas Uniform Condominium Act Chapter 82 which led to retroactively adding on January 1, 2012 thirteen new provisional laws to the Condominium Act Chapter 81.
Since our Declaration of Covenants states that Chapter 81 shall be in full force, one of the retroactive Provisions that improve owner rights is what I believe Directors Gunderson, Pelletier, and Steffensen wanted our Directors to now obey.
That Provision is 82.108 section “B” which states, “meetings of the association and board must be open to unit owners, subject to the right of the board to adjourn a meeting of the board and reconvene in closed executive session to consider actions involving personnel, pending litigation, contract negotiations, enforcement actions, matters involving the invasion of privacy of individual unit owners, or matters that are to remain confidential by request of the affected parties and agreement of the board. The general nature of any business to be considered in executive session must first be announced at the open meeting.”
Am I wrong to believe our Board has neglected the Provision’s entirety? For example, before retreating into Executive Session, does this Provision’s last sentence towards what’s being discussed just ask a board to disclose the general nature of business like pending litigation or the general nature of “any” business which would need to be each lawsuit that’s in pending litigation? To this day our Board has been doing the former. A second example, while a Board is in Executive Session, does this Provision state a board may discuss pending litigation or any subject that can remotely touch on a legal matter, past, present, or future? To this day our Board has been doing the latter.
One might also be surprised to learn there’s been an Executive Meeting in each and every Regular Meeting since May of 2011. Yes, each and every meeting, a 300% increase from the previous eight years. In addition, it’s odd that since February 2013, the Minutes have not recorded what the Board was to discuss in their Executive Sessions? Technically that means either these Minutes are incorrect or our Board is not complying with Statue 82.108 section “B”.
In September’s meeting we heard certain Directors argued for examples of what issues they may have discussed other than pending litigation and personnel. So let’s go there.
First off, are these directors wanting owners to believe that while they were in their last 18 Executive Sessions that totaled 1145 minutes, they only talked about three pending lawsuits or about someone who works here? Really! Especially when there’s been little happening in these lawsuits the last 18 months and no one seems to have been reprimanded or fired in personnel.
Secondly, do these directors wanting examples need any more proof than their own Board President freely admitting he let inappropriate discussions take place? What, did he somehow misspeak in the last meeting?
If more than this is needed, we have what was recorded in the Minutes on what the Directors described as discussion topics or the Motions they immediately passed after each Executive Session......
Absences, resignations and vacancies of Directors.....Ramona’s orientation.....Security expectations on issuing passes.....Sending of a Healthcare Letter to Aramark.....The employees use of amenities.....Changing the manager’s office.....Review of manger’s credit card usage.....Seeking of new legal services specializing in real estate and litigation capabilities.....Getting a second legal opinion concerning the contract with Mr. Freeland.....Adding of “LIV manage rental property only” to a motion regarding visitors viewing rental property.....The sending of letters to the owners of lots 671 and 384 requesting that they appear before the board.....Sending letters to an individual and to Aramark because certain procedures are not being followed.....The sending of a “request for qualifications” to law firms that handle real estate and litigations......The asking of attorney Garcia to set up a town hall meeting......To award $800 net to LIV’s business manager.
Want more? OK.
President Guerra announced a Management Contract Committee and a Management Evaluation Committee had been formed while in Executive Session.
Apparent discussions to hold a future dredging meeting with Freeland.
To hire a certified peace officer.
To reallocate $120,000 from the infrastructure fund towards the purchase of a new CD and secure $120,000 from the Edward Jones account in order purchase a new $100,000 CD and transfer $20,000 into LIV’s Operative Fund.
There’s a lot more but I feel the points been made.
Comments
Read more...

There seems to be a course correction on our swing bridge assessment. LIV board members not on the Bridge Board pushed and apparently received legal backing that the September 2ND Bridge Board’s motion to assess each of the 1024 LIV owners and 27 outside property owners $300 was not valid, so the Bridge Board on September 15th rescinded their motion. It is now pending further review.
Read more...

 


Read more...

During a special September 2nd meeting, the Bridge Board voted unanimously to accept the swing bridge foam bid from Brazos Urethane of Texas City at the cost of $387,317 plus tax, thus making the total $419,270.65. Prior to the vote there were these questions and statements. Director Vasquez asked if this would have an affect the on the bridge insurance and the Board President said he didn’t see how it could since it was an improvement.
Director Steffensen was in the audience and later asked since it appears an improvement, might it not be wise to inquire if may lower the bridge’s insurance costs and the response was we will find out.
Pat Burke asked if the added weight of the foam will affect either the performance or the level of the bridge. The Board's response was by adding 90,000 pounds of foam, the level of the barge will lower approximately 5 inches and the performance should be nil, but it might influence cable wear. Ms. Burke asked how long will the foam additions last and the response, "indefinitely".
The President said work is expected to start in January or February after the assessments are collected at the end of this year and while Brazos Urethane uses two weeks to fill each of the barge’s sixteen internal compartments, the bridge will not be closed. The worse that may happen is that one lane on the bridge might be closed.
It was asked how much a new bridge would cost and the best answers were  twenty-five years ago it was one million and nineteen years ago it was five million.
The Bridge Board voted unanimously to assess each Island owner $300 (total $315,300) and the remaining $103,970.65 will be paid out of the Bridge Board’s emergency fund. Prior to the vote there were these questions and statements.
It was disclosed that there were 1051 property owners on Long Island, twenty-seven of which who own property outside of LIV. Ms. Burke said that the Declaration and Bylaws state that all assessments are to be done using tax appraised values of the properties. To note after looking through the Declaration and the Bylaws I found tax appraised values are to be used towards voting power, but nothing pointed towards assessments.
Below are the sites of the contractor who will do the foam procedure.
http://brazosurethane.com/contact.html
http://www.brazosurethane.com/

Read more...

Let me make a few things very clear. One , there has been specific Executive Meetings rules being consistently ignored by our Board. Second, I am in no way saying that the Directors have knowingly seek to break these rules, but
documentation has shown that the Board has discussed various issues under the guise of legal matters while a Condominium Act Statute, a Texas law, clearly states that only pending litigations are allowed discussions.
The Board seems oblivious to the fact that
the same Condominium Act Statute demands they must announce the general nature of business of what they will be discussing within their Executive Session. These Executive Meetings procedures are found in the Declaration, the Bylaws, and in the Statues of the Texas Condominium Act. They are quite unambiguous.
So let's go right down the line. First off, LIV’s DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, ARTICLE XIII Section L states that the Condominium Act of the State of Texas shall be in full force and effect.
Second, Statue 82.108 Section (b) of the Condominium Act specifically explains the six categories that are allowed discussion within an Executive Meeting and I read that pending litigation as the lone legal category expressed. So, can someone make the argument that legal matters are to be found in the five other categories which are personnel, contract negotiations, enforcement actions, matters involving the invasion of privacy of individual unit owners, or matters that are to remain confidential by request of the affected parties? The answer is "yes", but this same Statute clearly demands that the general nature of business of all discussions within these allowable categories must first be announced in an open meeting. That means that if the category is a legal matter regarding contract negotiations, the owners have the legal right to know that the Board will be discussing within that Executive Meeting a category of contract negotiations and that the general nature of business is legal matters and this is not being done. Instead owners get what, legal matters (discussion and action), which basically keeps the category and the nature of business being discussed a secret.
It also seems that the Roberts Rules have added some confusion among some owners on procedure, so here’s a bit more clarity.
BYLAW ARTICLE XV (PARLIAMENTARY RULES) and I quote, “Roberts Rules of Order (latest edition) shall govern the conduct of the Association meetings “when not in conflict” with the Condominium Act, March 2005 Restated Declaration or these March 2005 Restated Bylaws”. 
I am an owner here and a member of this Association and agree with other owners that the Board of Directors should set the example at obeying the rules. If I am wrong on any of the above, please let me know and I will apologize, but back your feedback with verifiable facts.
Comments
.
Read more...

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...