|
|
Post by Admin on May 9, 2016 15:00:45 GMT -5
According to Tommy Blkbrn's Facebook post, revitalization was approved by the DEO.
A Site Search of the official SLohA website revealed no Announcement or News about the reported approval; therefore, at this point it is a rumor. I wonder why we are spending owner assessment money on a website that is not kept up-to-date with important business and why Official Business is primarily communicated on Facebook.
I have already requested the DEA decision letter from their public records section and will follow up when received. (I just received a phone call and the DEO is processing my request now and will forward all records via email.)
It was observed that the Special Meeting between SLohA and its attorneys was conducted over an hour. I trust we will see minutes of this meeting and also minutes of the November 25th 2015 Special Meeting which have never been published.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on May 9, 2016 17:03:22 GMT -5
What next? Next step is to validate the written approval decision by DEO and any supplementary notes or conditions. A record request has been made for the Decision Letters and approved documents for each unit, as well as a clarification of under what statute the approvals were granted i.e. either FS720 (mandatory) or FS712 (voluntary). Next is to validate the documents submitted to the DEO and, following that, to track the recording of the revitalized documents with Polk County. This is an important step, because the indexing of parcels either will relieve SLohA of the necessity of a protracted and expensive lawsuit by homesteaders (and perhaps all non-consenters), or it will trigger a swift legal complaint. If there is restraint and sanity on the part of SLohA, it will not index parcels which did not give written consent to the revitalization. Will the wastewater plant stop working? Will owners run amok through Memorial Gardens? No, all will go on better than before. Why? Because non-consenters will continue to pay assessments-as before- and SLohA will have no basis to fuss with non-consenting parcel owners for covenants/rules-based infractions. If SLohA does index all parcels, it will likely spend a lot of owner assessment dollars litigating with the non-consenting owners for years. The next step for the Consenters is to re-ballot the Rules & Regulations that they want to bring back to life. The BOD has learned-as a resulting of repeating a revitalization-that there are THREE associations in S-bag and EACH UNIT must pass any R & R with a 50% +1 vote. R & R that are passed within each unit will apply only to the Consenting/Revitalized parcels. If there is a legal complaint pending, there will be a court injunction against attempts to "enforce" (read harass and bully) restrictions until the outcome of the judicial review process has been completed. Following revitalization, it should be noted that SLohA will still not have enforcement authority over architectural matters, violations of Rules & Regulations or foreclosure authority pursuant to non-payment of assessments. What has been revitalized is exactly what SLohA started with back in 1972, 1974 and 1975 under the then-existing FS617. We have succeeded in bringing back n obsolete campground development plan, resurrecting restrictions that were not duly validated by Members and possibly embroiling the corporation in litigation for years. It is Baglady's opinion that this revitalization has been a monumental waste of time and money and likely will consume SLohA resources for the long term without any good outcome.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the above is not meant to be legal interpretation or advice. Suggest you contact Frd O'N eel (Attny), Esq at Frd O'N eel (Attny) Esq if you have any concerns about your property rights following the recording of SLohA's revitalized governing documents.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on May 10, 2016 9:00:53 GMT -5
Sometime yesterday, the DEO Decision letter was posted on the official SLohA website. Why were not Owners sent emails notifying them of this critical SLohA business?
It appears that the "go to" revitalization attorney is not on the job and has been replaced by Riceman.
The finality of this decision is affected by SLohA adherence to the statute recording provisions of 720.407 (1, 2 & 3) and also any petition filed in the next 21 days by any person whose rights are affected by this Order.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 10, 2016 9:17:41 GMT -5
Here is President's Message: Note that "routine matters" are being discussed by email over the summer especially a tower lease... This business needs to be conducted during a Board Meeting. We have teleconferencing.
President is spot on right about one thing--there will always be divisions as long as this board conducts Owner business in secret. The fact that the President sees dissident opinions as "plague" rather than as healthy debate and checks and balances, should concern ALL Owners! As long as President and crony followers exclude Members and do business behind closed doors, there will surely be divisions-for starters.
Importantly, the return of Covenants now provides a legal basis to complain about BOD's lack of fiduciary duties of prohibiting conduct of commercial business on the property, nuisance on the property and increase of insurance costs on the property. These are the 3 promises of the Covenants--promises broken by the Board! These are the Contract Terms of the Covenants--contract provisions broken by the Board!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 10, 2016 9:50:01 GMT -5
A moment of clarity on parcels that are homesteaded in Florida: revitalization starts the clock ticking anew with regard to assessment liens on homesteaded property. It is little understood, even by some lawyers, that those liens are not "in jeopardy" of foreclosure. Why? Because the statute says so AND SLohA never had foreclosure authority.
The relevant revitalization statute is the second half of Florida Statutes Section 720.407 (4)
This statute clearly reflects an understanding of the Florida Constitutional homestead right against forced sale. The homestead properties whose covenants have already expired have established homestead that pre-dates the effective date of the recorded revitalized covenants. What that means is that if you have a property that has extinguished covenants and you live or have an intent to live on that property, revitalization will never enable the HOA to lawfully foreclose on your home as long as you live there.
Does this mean that homesteaded properties can stop paying assessments and not fear foreclosure? Yes. There is no difference now than in the past--because SLohA never had and still does not have foreclosure authority over any parcel--homesteaded or not. The point is that the law does specifically clarify special exemption for homesteaded properties which are revitalized. In SLohA's case, this is a moot point specifically but an important concept for homesteaded properties.
This "forced sale" clause is a specifically named protection for homesteaders. Legal experts have opined that this protection extends to all restrictions which might be retroactively recorded on a homestead property and that such retroactive application would be an impairment of contract and violate Florida's Constitution. This presumptive protection has not yet been judicially reviewed in Florida. Florida gives substantial and broad protections to homesteads. We sH all see.
Here is one legal opinion rendered during Revitalization #1 that is reposted here:
Attorney advised, per my question: "Can revitalization that is ratified by a majority owners re-encumber my property retroactively", here is excerpt:
Disclaimer: The above is not intended to be legal advice and you should consult an attorney if you have any concerns about your property rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on May 15, 2016 9:08:46 GMT -5
leery listerine posted:
leery should complete his "certification" to SLohA ASAP to indicate his understanding and intent to comply with the law. TWO provisions of the Homeowner Act address contracts and cancellation by Members. Now, it will be interesting to see if the BOD holds a regular meeting in August when virtually No Person is in the park and available to make a personal appearance and vote. Isn't this the S-bag way?
FS720.309 Agreements entered into by the association
(a) Any contract entered into by the board may be canceled by a majority of the voting interests present at the next regular or special meeting of the association, whichever occurs first. Any member may make a motion to cancel such contract, but if no motion is made or if such motion fails to obtain the required vote, the contract sH all be deemed ratified for the term expressed therein.
(Note: this was republished from 2013 after Peet Braden, then President, declared that SLohA had just entered into a $300K/3 YEAR contract with Kay cNet. If true, that contract was entered into illegally and might explain the delay on the BOD's entering into a SECOND illegal lease agreement with stab.)
It would seem by the language that owners have only one chance to vote on the contract. It also looks like it can be motioned and voted on at a regular meeting and does not require a quorum of owners for a valid vote; only a majority of those present. That is a very low threshhold and frankly, I would get a legal opinion on that before going forward because of the "1 shot language". The person making the motion should first get a copy of the $300K contract via an Official Records request, write a letter to the Board for an explanation, get a legal opinion and assess member support for revocation of the contract.
720.3035(2) If the association enters into a contract or other transaction with any of its directors or a corporation, firm, association that is not an affiliated homeowners’ association, or other entity in which an association director is also a director or officer or is financially interested, the board must:
(a) Comply with the requirements of s. 617.0832.
(b) Enter the disclosures required by s. 617.0832 into the written minutes of the meeting.
(c) Approve the contract or other transaction by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the directors present.
(d) At the next regular or special meeting of the members, disclose the existence of the contract or other transaction to the members. Upon motion of any member, the contract or transaction sH all be brought up for a vote and may be canceled by a majority vote of the members present. If the members cancel the contract, the association is only liable for the reasonable value of goods and services provided up to the time of cancellation and is not liable for any termination fee, liquidated damages, or other penalty for such cancellation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on May 15, 2016 23:49:49 GMT -5
Attention !
Leery listerine Board President and All Other Board Members, before you finish your "Tidying-Up, SLohA's business relationship with KCNetwork, you may want to read this entire Post. SLR's residents will pay a big price for your "Tidy Ways". You are dealing with a con-artist, with a Federal Record....
leery listerine posted: The Board has been working behind the scenes to tidy up SLohA’s business relationship with KCnet and we soon expect to approve a lease agreement which will clear up any concerns around the ownership, liability and future of these controversial towers. I believe that the questions that have been raised will be answered.
Our Board over the past few years has allowed KCNet (Owner Virinia stab)to operate a Commercial Internet Provider Business in Robber & Virginia stabs residents. It was against all of SLohA Rules & Regulations, but Our Leaders did not do their Duty as Elected Officials to enforce SLohA Rules & Regulations. Our BODs have Failed Us. Now we are entwined with KCNet and a convicted Federal Felon, Register-#08011-029. This all happen without "One Resident/Owner Having Any Say In This Decision Making". That my friend is a crying shame........... We were Coned by a Con Artist and a Majority of Past & Present Board Members. The Members of SLohA will be paying the Price for our Board Members Closed Door Policy for Years to Come. You Got in Bed With a Con- Artist! 16RC~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PUBLIC RECORD
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Iowa (Cedar Rapids)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:99-cr-00030-LRR All Defendants
Case title: United States of America v. stab Magistrate judge case number: 1:98-mj-00056 Date Filed: 04/13/1999 Date Terminated: 12/14/2000 Pending Counts 18:1014.F LOAN AND CREDIT APPLICATIONS GENERALLY Disposition(1) 38 months imprisonment. 3 years supervised release. $100.00 special assessment. $20,000.00 fine. $13,162,315.91 restitution. Highest Offense Level (Opening) Felony Terminated Counts18:1014.F LOAN AND CREDIT APPLICATIONS GENERALLY (2) dismissed Highest Offense Level (Terminated) Felony Complaints Disposition None Date Filed # clear Docket Text
12/03/1998 1 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT by USA against Robber B stab signed by Chief Mag Judge Jhn A. Jarvey [ 1:98-m -56 ] Seal (Entered: 12/04/1998) 12/03/1998 2 CLERK'S COURT MINUTES w/notice and w/exhibit list: as to defendant Robber B stab before Chief Judge Michael J. Melloy initial appearance Robber B stab Attorney Paul Papak present; , BOND HEARING set for 2:30 12/4/98 for Robber B stab w/Judge Melloy 3rd flr courtroom; Tape #84 [ 1:98-m -56 ] Seal Modified on 12/04/1998 (Entered: 12/04/1998) 12/03/1998 3 ORDER SETTING CONDITIONS OF RELEASE for: PR for Robber B stab by Chief Judge Michael J. Melloy; Home confinement until hearing at 2:30 on 12/4/98 (cc: all counsel,USP,USM) [ 1:98-m -56 ] Seal (Entered: 12/04/1998) 12/04/1998 4 MOTION to continue detention hrg by defendant Robber B stab assigned to Chief Judge Michael J. Melloy [ 1:98-m -56 ] Seal (Entered: 12/04/1998) 12/04/1998 5 ORDER by Chief Judge Michael J. Melloy as to Defendant Robber B stab Granting Motion to continue detention hrg [4-1] DETENTION HEARING set for 11:00 a.m. on 12/8/98 for Robber stab w/Judge Michael J. Melloy, 3rd Floor Courtroom, Fed. Bldg., Cedar Rapids; the defendant sH all continue to be allowed to remain on release pending the rescheduled hearing subject to the conditions set forth by Judge Melloy at his initial appearance; further, the Court orders that the file in this case is unsealed, per Administrative Order 1369, dated August 27, 1997 (cc: all counsel,USM,USP) [ 1:98-m -56 ] Seal (Entered: 12/04/1998) 12/07/1998 6 RECEIPT for passport of Robber stab - Rec'd from US Probation this date [ 1:98-m -56 ] DGE (Entered: 12/07/1998) 03/24/2000 38 CLERK'S COURT MINUTES w/exhibit list: as to defendant Robber B stab Jr before Judge Michael J. Melloy; Deft exhibit "A" UNDER SEAL; PLEA HEARING held on 3/24/00 , guilty plea entered by Robber B stab Jr , SENTENCING HEARING set for 1:30 6/12/00 w/Judge Melloy 3rd flr courtroom COURT REPORTER Patrice Murray DGE (Entered: 03/24/2000) 03/27/2000 39 ORDER ACCEPTING PLEA OF GUILTY by Judge Michael J. Melloy as to defendant Robber B stab Jr SENTENCING HEARING set for 1:30 6/12/00 for Robber B stab Jr w/Judge Melloy 3rd flr courtroom ; sting bail orders are continued in force pending sentencing (cc: all counsel,USM,USP) DGE (Entered: 03/27/2000) 12/01/2000 57 CLERK'S COURT MINUTES w/witness and exhibit list: as to defendant Robber B stab Jr before Judge Michael J. Melloy SENTENCING held on 12/1/00 COURT REPORTER Kay Carr DGE (Entered: 12/04/2000) 12/14/2000 58 JUDGMENT as to Robber B stab Jr sentencing Robber B stab (1) count(s) 1. 38 months imprisonment. 3 years supervised release. $100.00 special assessment. $20,000.00 fine. $13,162,315.91 restitution. , to dismiss count(s) dismissing counts as to Robber B stab (1) count(s) 2. dismissed , case terminated as to defendant Robber B stab Jr by Judge Michael J. Melloy SSN: 287-36-3924 JUDGMENT BOOK 20 ENTRY 12 (cc: all counsel,USM,USP) DGE (Entered: 12/14/2000) PUBLIC RECORDFederal FelonRegister #08011-029 Released On: November 17, 2003 "Federal Judge Hill, Got it Right".....
PUBLIC RECORD
Do a Google Search: UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT For The Southern District of Iowa Robber B. stab Case #98-5541 CH OR Click Below: www.iasb.uscourts.gov/iasb_ftp/decisions/h00359.pdf
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 24, 2016 15:58:41 GMT -5
A bit more news about revitalization.
An owner in S-bag has formally cH allenged the DEO decision. Note that this is not a lawsuit or anything directly involving S-bag; it simply says that the DEO has erred in approving SLohA's application and asks for a judicial review. I am not at liberty yet to publish the content and am seeking permission from the owner. It is my understanding that this was just filed and has not yet been received "certified--return receipt requested" from the DEO. I have no idea what the timetable is for replies etc or if the pending cH allenge has any significance to SLohA's approval status. The owner's attorney is "tangentially involved" to coin SLohA's Bad-Nutcake's characterization.
Today, I received two CD's of SLohA's revite submission from the DEO and it was noted the record was "redacted" but I saw no evidence of that. It contains over a thousand pages, including both sides of every Consent/Ballot received and counted. Later, I'll publish the detailed results of each owner's decision i.e. either Yes, No or "did not return Consent/Ballot".
BTW, there is nothing on any document indicating that SLohA's "revitalization attorney" Debra Bad-Nutcake, participated in preparing the application. The only attorney involved is William Riceman.
I can categorically state--with certainty--an absolute denial of truth to the rumor that "the rules are being revitalized". In fact, there were NO Rules & Regulations submitted with the Revite #2 package, nor are they listed on the Consent/Ballot. Because of the persistance of the rumor, I requested the entire DEO record to see what documents were actually submitted in SLohA's application to validate the documents submitted. S-bag did not submit the old Rules & Regs. They were not part of the Revite application. Trust but Verify.
Again: THE REVITE PACKAGE CONTAINED NO RULES AND REGULATIONS. The old R & R's are dead and gone forever. SLohA members must now re-propose, revote and readopt rules for future use on a unit-by-unit basis. Each unit must affirm each rule by at least 50% of owner parcels in that unit. There are some facts that cannot be "wished away" as many folks would like. This is one of them.
I hope this puts an end to the Rules Rumors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on May 25, 2016 13:16:59 GMT -5
What would be the advantage or disadvantage leaving the Rules & Regulations out of the Revite Package? Surly this was not an over-site on SLohA's part.... It could turn out to be very bad advice from counsel.
I just do not trust them, based on the past.
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2016 0:06:06 GMT -5
dick Tracy posted:
Many of the R & R were based on no covenanted authority. This represents a huge liability to S-bag as it discovered when it attempted to place unlawful use restrictions on 66SS. Allowing those illegal R & R to remain was asking for trouble-especially with regard to Use and Occupancy. I would like to think that SLohA was using caution and following sound legal advice when it decided to let the old R & R's go...
Of course, it is doubtful that SLohA has learned its lesson yet as it continues to hassle owners about this 'n that. IMO it is just intimidation until someone calls their lawyer.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinman on May 26, 2016 7:12:39 GMT -5
A credible sorce has informed Me that hanging Chap has been harassing an owner? About a structure telling them the R &R,s have been voted back in and that he must comply with them. Chap was told to F*** Off and to get off the property. He also told the person the New R &R's could be picked up at the office! I think I might pay the office a visit today. ;>)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2016 9:49:54 GMT -5
Here is the "official" Consent count submitted to the DEO by SLohA's attorney:
So, the approval was just under 3 out of 4 owners consenting and more than 1 out of 4 Owners did not consent.
Actually, the attorney's stats are in error. There are only 787 voting parcels that I am aware of in S-bag. (Some parcels might not have a voting interest for other legal reasons, such as extreme arrears in the payment of assessments but there is no way to know of these unless one is "privileged".) THREE of the 790 parcels are common property and do not have a voting interest nor do they pay assessments. These are: the parcel adjacent to 499 which is currently occupied by the CAPS shed and the two parcels that have been restricted as drainage parcels on S-bag Trail.
This "parcel use" dedicated to CAPS illustrates the "release" clause in the Unit Declaration. It was never proposed, voted on and removed by the Unit 2 owners and relieved of the duty to pay assessments, thereby increasing a prorata amount to the other 789 owners. On the other hand, the two drainage lots on SBT were sold to and "taken over" by Polk County to maintain drainage and the Owners would not have a vote in the use of these two lots. The two drainage lots are to remain unimproved/unoccupied by structures according to the deed restrictions which SLohA accepted back from Polk County.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2016 10:19:14 GMT -5
tinman posted:
IF Chap is fraudulently representing that Rules & Regs have been "voted back in" and that "new" R & R can be picked up at the office, then he has violated his CAM license. And if this is sponsored by the Management Company or allowed to continue, then Toneesha Shrodr and Stmbug Ixx Inc have also violated their licenses (CAB and CAM) The aggrieved Owner can register a complaint to the Dept of Business Regulation and cite the violation(s) on Chap's CAM license and a separate complaint against Stmbug Ixx Inc. Contact Admin for particulars.
While Owners are gathering evidence to support the complaint(s), the pdf below can be attached. It clearly shows, in the DEO reviewer's handwriting, that no supporting documentation namely Rules & Regulations were included in the submission. This is an optional submission item.
DEOStatChecklist.pdf (503.21 KB)
What SLohA did submit for "supporting documentation" was the new website slresort.net and pictures of some common areas.
DEODocsSubmitted.pdf (27.09 KB) |
|
|
|
Post by tinman on May 28, 2016 8:37:17 GMT -5
HMMMM, Seems the R& R'S are NOT available at the office. They are allegedly still at the attorneys office being "Reviewed?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 28, 2016 9:40:32 GMT -5
tinman posted:
All this talk of R & R is a continuing lie. I do not believe a word out of Management Company's corporate mouth unless it can be independently validated by a credible source.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lra on May 31, 2016 7:04:24 GMT -5
HMMMM, Seems the R& R'S are NOT available at the office. They are allegedly still at the attorneys office being "Reviewed?" Let's hope that the "new" version of the Rules and Regulations are legally correct. The past versions suffered and are easily cH allenged in a court of law. Specifically, Regulation #1 places the definitions of porch, deck and landing outside of the rules. This makes them a preamble and they do not carry the weight of the Rules and Regulations. Further, these definitions were never voted on by the owners unlike the rule on porches, decks and landings in Regulation #4. Definitions are not Rules. This was most evident in the case American Montessori Society vs. State of Michigan in the U.S. District Court of Appeal in Cincinnati, Ohio. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 31, 2016 10:12:32 GMT -5
Lra posted:
Let's also hope that this Gee Whiz Law firm can review accurately and comprehend the near-useless Covenants before them. These covenants have NO provision for any architectural review or control of any private property. Therefore, any "new" R & R relating to controls of homes/appurtenant structures and landscaping or lawn decor elements is Null & Void. The only control agent is Polk County.
To ADD an architectural control provision, you need 100% of all members' approval. Just like adding an Over 55+ age restriction. Or adding fining authority...
On the other hand, if the Gee Whiz Law firm includes this kind of thing, it will assure them lawsuit revenue from SLohA in the future. More self-generated income compliments of owners clapping for the Management Company.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jul 6, 2016 22:12:56 GMT -5
May 9, 2016
Quote by our President Leeery:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Board has been working behind the scenes to tidy up SLohA’s business relationship with KCnet and we soon expect to approve a lease agreement which will clear up any concerns around the ownership, liability and future of these controversial towers. I believe that the questions that have been raised will be answered."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
July 6, 2016
There must be a lot of loose ends with SLohA's business relationship with Robber B. Staiib (part owner of KCnet).
Almost 2 months have past and our Board is still tiding up an "e-legal" Lease Agreement with KCnet.
Question did the BOD every find time to read SLohA's Documents, I sure hope so. Toneesha's staff took 2 hrs. to gather the Board Member's Signed Certifications.
Management taking 2 hrs tells me a whole lot about our Board working behind the scenes to TIDY-UP....
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Jul 7, 2016 9:27:42 GMT -5
For what its worth, I have a few recommendations regarding the language of the lease between SLohA and KCNET:
1) If KCNET is given exclusive use of the Towers, KCNET should hold SLohA harmless against personal injury and property damage that might be caused by a structural failure of the towers. KCNET should carry a liability insurance policy which names SLohA as "other insured as its interests may apply". Said insurance policy should be attached to the lease agreement.
2)KCNET cannot make any alterations to the towers (such as adding transmitter antennae) without the express written consent of the SLohA Board. I would hope that the Board has the prudence to submit those proposed alterations to a structural engineer before approving them.
3) KCNET cannot sublet its use of the towers to a third party (such as the use of the towers as a signal transmitter by a cellular phone provider). Such ancillary uses must be negotiated directly between SLohA and the cellcom company, with the expectation that SLohA will receive additional compensation from the cellcom company(s) for the use of the towers. If such ancillary uses involve alterations to the towers, SLohA must notify KCNET of those alterations and waive the requirement for KCNET to provide SLohA with indemnification and proof of liability insurance.
4) KCNET sH all provide compensation to SLohA for the use of the Towers in an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of KCNET's gross monthly receipts.
Example: Based upon a customer base of 2,000 subscribers at $50 per month, KCNET would pay SLohA a ground lease fee of $10,000 (2,000 X $50 X 10%) per month. Because of the seasonality of KCNET's customer base, that ground lease payment sH all reflect the reduced number of KCNET's subscribers during the off-season. As such, if KCNET's number of subscribers drops to, say 500, during the off-season, KCNET's ground lease fee would drop to $2,500 per month for the off-season.
Under this example SLohA could receive an annual revenue of approximately $60,000 to $70,000 from the lease of its towers. This compares with City of Lake Wales annual revenue of $198,000 from the cellcom companies for permission to place their cellular phone antennae on the City's two water towers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 7, 2016 9:42:09 GMT -5
Dick Tracy wrote:
I think I can say with certainty that it did NOT take Toneesha 2 hours to dig around for the requested certifications and the likelihood is that such certifications do not exist. This is a record that BOD should be proud to display to show owners that they complied with the law and provide some assurance of competency! Why would they want to hide these certifcations? Doesn't make sense. Charging an exhorbitant "research fee" is a tired ruse by HOA boards everywhere to discourage owners from requesting business and financial records. Don't stop asking for a record that you want to see; it is your right to request your own business records regardless of the board's suspicion and resistance. You don't have to pay the ransom.
This discriminative posture will become apparent to anyone who cares to look at the board's treatment of certain individuals. This will not bode well for the board in the future as this kind of behavior reveals a representative pattern.
|
|
