|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 7, 2014 14:11:59 GMT -5
Anyone have any guesses why IT demands that Owners hand over their OLD Redbooks before she will give them a new Redbook?
This has been reported by several Owners; some of whom claimed to have never had a Redbook and others who just said NO.
I moved in here in early 2010 and the office had NO Redbooks in stock. For at least 4 years, No Redbooks for owners.
So, expect the Mange to attempt to withhold your new Redbook unless you voluntarily give up your old one.
Actually, everything written in the Redbook is forever on file in the Polk public records, so there is no purpose to collecting old books except to make it harder to discover and validate identified discrepancies. IT would probably say that she "does not want to confuse her infants by having 2 versions of the Redbook in circulation".
|
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on Jun 28, 2014 21:29:15 GMT -5
They simply do not want SLR Residents to have easy access to SLohA Original Documents. So collect the Old Redbooks and only post the SLR's Documents from 1989 to present on Chug [SLR's Official Site]. Just leave out all of the Old Original Document, those Documents are 40years old. Just forget about those outdate documents, yes, just trust us, we know what is best for you. Amen!
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Oct 10, 2014 17:37:03 GMT -5
Dick Tracy wrote, from the Dec 2013 BOD meeting. This summary was spoken (not quoted) by the then-Pres, KL:
When I read that post, I was reminded once again of the intent, however misinformed and mishandled, of the BOD to put out a Redbook that was complete. Note that particular attention was to be given to "incorporate authority to amend documents". Well, that has been discussed ad nauseum--there is NO authority to Amend the Covenants and 'that is that' but the BOD still doesn't understand or is in denial. Neither does BOD understand that there are THREE Declarations--not just the 1972 Declaration. Oh well.
Anyway, the Beige Book that emerged from this Motion was defective in several aspects--first and foremost, it failed to incorporate ANY of the Declarations. That is understandable; doing so would provide easily accessible, visible proof that there is no amendatory provision in the original Declarations. Second, the Rules were unilaterally altered without Owner ratification. This has been demonstrated and brought to the BOD's attention--in writing. BOD has "excuses" uttered by proxy by the "Rules Committee".
In the end, nothing was produced either "as promised", "as moved", or of legal, moral or ethical value. It will be up to the justice system to show "where we stand"--and this will be at monstrous legal cost to Owners, unnecessary financial and emotional burden to selected owners and their families and enduring and as-yet unrealized long-term costs to SLohA.
We should not forget this egregious example of "neglect of fiduciary duty" or let these transgressions get lost in the ever-expanding list of New Abuses against owners.
|
|
