|
|
Post by BagLady on Feb 17, 2016 11:48:10 GMT -5
2 minutes before the end of the meeting...people are starting to shuffle in their seats...Shulz says "I have a motion"
"Due to the progression of the revitalization, I move that we discontinue getting a 2nd attorney opinion". (This is not a word for word motion.)
No discussion.
Clf: All in favor?
BOD: Aye x 8
Clf: Meeting adjourned
Remember: there was a LOT of discussion by a few board members about this 2nd attorney opinion in Dec 2015; Suthrd was particularly adamant that a 2nd opinion was needed. Why was there NOT ONE WORD of discussion of this motion bumrushed at the very end of the meeting?
Since I am on the Organizing Committee "report", I will summarize it here rather than in the Unofficial Minutes.
First, Schlz could easily have presented the motion during his report..but did not do so. In my opinion, this was purposeful so as not to bring this up while people were still awake. Adding it on at the last minute--immediately before adjournment when members are getting antsy, helps to hide the fact that the board, once again, voted to get a second attorney opinion and DID NOT FOLLOW UP WHAT THEY ALL VOTED TO DO (first time on covenant expiration strategy in 2013) and now AGAIN on covenant revitalization. It cost owners a LOT of money the first time they relied on the Management CompanyAttorney Duo. Will history repeat itself?
So, the Organizing Committee report was not good. Apparently, some people received the brown manila envelope and thought is was junk mail and threw it away. Additionally, there are outstanding title issues, not all owners on the title are signing the Consent form and it is now too late to go back and fix flawed consent forms. Death certificates cannot be accepted in lieu of a title. Unit 1 is lagging behind in returning consents.
And here is a most interesting statement: "The consents--Yes or No--we are treating them all equally". That statement is nearly an exact quote. I found it very curious as why it would occur to Mr Shulz to have to comment to the recognition of all consents being treated as "equal"! Is that some kind of disclaimer like the land use modification "gotcha!" last February? And then I realized what "equal" might have meant, but that raises even more questions. Here is my thought but I would invite others to weigh in here:
The message is that all the ballots Yes or No are being equally counted as an "opinion" but the actual (legal) TREATMENT of the Consent Form is that only the signatures count and it is the signature that counts toward the unit's passage of consent to revitalization. So ALL Consents are being counted equally as a Yes Consent if they are signed Consents--regardless of the "Ballot" Yes or No part.
I believe that it would behoove owners to request a records inspection of all the ballots after March 2. I also think that people who voted NO should pay attention and consider if they understand that a NO vote still imposes revitalized documents on their parcel.
If Owners think that No to Revitalization Equals No Consent, they should consult an attorney, find out the truth and get legal advice regarding revocation.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Feb 17, 2016 13:25:23 GMT -5
Two other pieces of business developing. I will deal with one on this post. ENCROACHMENT.
It is already well-recognized that the Board is a puppet for the Management Company/Attorney Duo. Now, the board has--without explanation--proposed that the Manager's office be exclusive to the Manager. What was said was "The Manager's office is not secure". Currently, BOD and Security has access to it. That seems pretty easy. Change the locks and don't give Security the keys. I assume--rightly or wrongly--that the Board would retain access to our property and that the intention is to deny access by Security. Perhaps I am wrong about that.
One question begs itself: why? What is the problem that needs to be solved here? The board spent a lot of time discussing building a new interior wall and not blocking the 2nd emergency exit. There was never a word about what makes this such a security problem requiring modification of our common property and significant expense to owners.
SLohA Managers have functioned very well for 40 years with the office being a workspace for the Manager with reasonable security access controls. Why all of a sudden is there a need to "lock down" a portion of the common property to the exclusive use of the Non-Employee Manager (who is a hired employee of Vendor Stmbug Ixx Inc). Will we also be giving St a twid an office? Or T u ckr? Or giving KCNET an office soon? What is going into the Manager's office that needs HYPER-security?
The second question goes deeper. It is the progression of intrusiveness of the Management Company in the overall operation of the park--encroachment. By giving over a portion of our common property to a vendor, SLohA further seats Stmbug Ixx's presence to a degree that was never imagined by our forefathers. It is similar to the seizing of our common property by KCNetwork and its towers with the permission of the board. Remember that it started with replacing the Lake Wales Wireless tower on the Admin Bldg; next was a locked room in the Annex for exclusive use by a club owned by stab and stab's equipment. Then, stab was given a locked room in Memorial H all. All with no owner consent or input. (The Board permitted Brnd's locked Poker Club Room in Memorial H all but, of course, it took a complaint to outside agents to reopen our common property to ALL.) Now the Board wants to give an office for the exclusive use and access by the Management Company. The board does not seem to comprehend or appreciate "common property" that is paid for and accessible to all Members with reasonable parameters on use (such as the Clubhouse/Pool problems that occurred recently). WHY is the board continuing to shut out Owners not only from dialogue concerning park expenditures and business--but also from physical access to the facilities built and maintained with Owner funds???
If Members tolerate the board progressively giving away our common property to Non-Owners, what will be next?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Feb 17, 2016 15:36:14 GMT -5
O.. IMO, I believe 0ne or more SLohA Directors more then likely got a verbal 2nd. opinion. They just do not want to share any opinion that makes them look dysfunctional as a group. The simple truth is they are not to be Trusted. Just look at our Boards past track record, it says it all..
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Feb 17, 2016 20:56:50 GMT -5
2 minutes before the end of the meeting...people are starting to shuffle in their seats...Shulz says "I have a motion"
"Due to the progression of the revitalization, I move that we discontinue getting a 2nd attorney opinion". (This is not a word for word motion.) No discussion. Clf: All in favor? BOD: Aye x 8 Clf: Meeting adjourned Remember: there was a LOT of discussion by a few board members about this 2nd attorney opinion in Dec 2015; Suthrd was particularly adamant that a 2nd opinion was needed. Why was there NOT ONE WORD of discussion of this motion bumrushed at the very end of the meeting? Since I am on the Organizing Committee "report", I will summarize it here rather than in the Unofficial Minutes. First, Schlz could easily have presented the motion during his report..but did not do so. In my opinion, this was purposeful so as not to bring this up while people were still awake. Adding it on at the last minute--immediately before adjournment when members are getting antsy, helps to hide the fact that the board, once again, voted to get a second attorney opinion and DID NOT FOLLOW UP WHAT THEY ALL VOTED TO DO (first time on covenant expiration strategy in 2013) and now AGAIN on covenant revitalization. It cost owners a LOT of money the first time they relied on the Management CompanyAttorney Duo. Will history repeat itself? So, the Organizing Committee report was not good. Apparently, some people received the brown manila envelope and thought is was junk mail and threw it away. Additionally, there are outstanding title issues, not all owners on the title are signing the Consent form and it is now too late to go back and fix flawed consent forms. Death certificates cannot be accepted in lieu of a title. Unit 1 is lagging behind in returning consents. And here is a most interesting statement: "The consents--Yes or No--we are treating them all equally". That statement is nearly an exact quote. I found it very curious as why it would occur to Mr Shulz to have to comment to the recognition of all consents being treated as "equal"! Is that some kind of disclaimer like the land use modification "gotcha!" last February? And then I realized what "equal" might have meant, but that raises even more questions. Here is my thought but I would invite others to weigh in here: The message is that all the ballots Yes or No are being equally counted as an "opinion" but the actual (legal) TREATMENT of the Consent Form is that only the signatures count and it is the signature that counts toward the unit's passage of consent to revitalization. So ALL Consents are being counted equally as a Yes Consent if they are signed Consents--regardless of the "Ballot" Yes or No part. I believe that it would behoove owners to request a records inspection of all the ballots after March 2. I also think that people who voted NO should pay attention and consider if they understand that a NO vote still imposes revitalized documents on their parcel.
If Owners think that No to Revitalization Equals No Consent, they should consult an attorney, find out the truth and get legal advice regarding revocation.KUDOs to Chrls Schlz and the Revitalization committee. It never was a vote form for or against Revitalization. It was in 2015 and again in 2016 a CONSENT FORM. Consent to allow our Board to put rules and regulations on each person's PRIVATELY OWNED PARCEL and then give Stmbug Ixx, Inc and their employees full control of S-bag. THAT IS WHY SLohA NEEDS TO PUT UP BARBED WIRE AROUND THE MANAGEMENT TEAM. No need to count yes or no. Just sign. TRUST YOUR SLohA BOARD. |
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Feb 17, 2016 21:34:23 GMT -5
Do they still post Board Mtg. Dates and Time? Also do they take time to post what is going to be on the BOD Mtg.s Agenda? I did not see any Agenda Posted on Chug or The SLR Site, did I over look something?
Some of our Board Members are really Slick, bring up a Pre-Planned Motion at the last possible minute, and have a quick Vote, then motion to closed the Meeting. Now what does that type of action by our Leaders, tell you? Yes they are, Dysfunctional White Hair Old Men, they are not True Leaders. And I do not Trust Them.....
16RC
|
|
saddlebagger viewer
Guest
|
Post by saddlebagger viewer on Feb 17, 2016 22:46:49 GMT -5
If the wife and I voted "NO" and submitted our form, not realizing that it was actually a "YES" consenting to reimposing Covenants, Rules and Regulations on our land can we recall our vote?
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Feb 18, 2016 10:16:01 GMT -5
S-bag viewer posted:
Of course-that "recalled vote" would be a "revocation" of your Consent when you erroneously signed thinking you were validating a "no" vote. You can revoke your Consent prior to it being counted at the March 2, 2016 Special Meeting. Once your NO/Signed Ballot is counted on March 2, 2016, your property will be re-encumbered if the Revitalization passes the DEO.
And here is my disclaimer: This is not legal advice; it is more in the realm of self-help common sense:
If I were you, I would immediately write a letter to the SLohA board specifically revoking my consent and vote on the Ballot/Consent green form and cite the reasons for revoking your consent and vote. Be sure to put ALL the property legal information in your letter, preferably as it was written on the Green Form. All who signed the Consent must sign the letter and have their signatures notarized. The letter should be CERTIFIED RRR. As long as you are clear about your wishes to revoke your consent and vote, have properly signed and notarized all title signatures and certified your notice to SLohA, you rights are reasonably well-protected. Be sure to keep a copy for your records.
For something as important as this is to your property rights, I would advise that you consult an attorney who is familiar with this HOA issue. IF you intend to do that, I will offer the services of SNAP and its attorney, Frd O'N eel (Attny), who has been retained to respond to S-bag owners who have concerns about their property and civil rights being jeopardized by the corporation. This kind of thing is in the realm of the type of assistance that Saddlebaggers might need to adequately protect themselves from "special interests" who do not provide information about your property rights and it is why SNAP was established and funded.
But, if it is hot dogs you want, they DO have hot dogs!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 18, 2016 11:04:11 GMT -5
Dick Tracy posted:
I think you might be right. I also think that some directors are spooked at being called out individually in any lawsuits in the future. That might account for the bizarre statement prepared by the Management Company and read into the record by Secretary Blkbrn at the meeting. And with good reason...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Feb 18, 2016 13:24:42 GMT -5
Does anyone have a copy of the statement prepared by the Management Co.and read into the record
at the Board Meeting? Thanks...
|
|
|
|
Post by tinman on Feb 19, 2016 11:32:04 GMT -5
NO ON ALL ACCOUNTS! I ponder IF there was an Illegal BOD Meeting to make the Decision to Scrap the 2nd opinion of an HOA Attorney??? I THINK SO!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 19, 2016 15:06:36 GMT -5
Here is the letter I just sent TO: SLohA BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
I will write more about the background of this as relates to this meeting and the "statement" by which the Board is attempting to be excused from informing Owners about the written questions and issues of their fellow owners. I had to get this letter out first and will catch up soon!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 19, 2016 19:48:52 GMT -5
Dick Tracy posted:
No but it can easily be heard on the audio record and/or transcribed if desired. I will post it soon. Here is the gist: The SOP of SLohA specifies that correspondence is to be ADDRESSED to SLohA and, since my several records requests were SPECIFICALLY addressed and CERTIFIED and HAND-DELIVERED to SLohA directors by name (as well as to Stmbug Ixx Inc AND to the members of the Organizing Committee AND to OFFICE) that it was determined by the Board to have been improperly submitted and would not be recognized to be read to Members at the meeting.
Because I did not address "SLohA Board of Directors" as a general group. I addressed the SLohA Director-Officers by name, as currently published by SLohA. Think about that for a moment...
And also think about this. Nowhere has the Board EVER published its SOP's on ANYTHING! Owners are not permitted to read the SOP's because they "belong" to "management". Without the ability to read the SOP, there is ZERO chance of knowing what one must do to comply with SLohA wishes.
My take is that I could have sent a copy to each individual Director for SLohA and the Board would say Uh..NO...the SOP says it has to be addressed specifically and solely to the general entity SLohA. Is this control freakism or just plain fear of exposure? What is the real reason for the skittishness of the Board to be called out and named on a records request? Do they think the law would stand behind their SOP to address correspondence to the general entity and negate anything directed to the individual directors? What are they hiding from? Does anyone reasonably think that the individual directors are not the same entity as SLohA Board of Directors?
The law is very clear about the right of members to inspect their records by giving written notice; they don't get persnickety like the board but the law was created from a perspective of permitting owners' access to their records. In fact, this is the #1 complaint against HOA's and the legislature seems to change the law to close new loopholes every year or two. (That is why board members still think there is a statutory 3 minute limit to speaking--the law changed and they do not keep up. In fact, there is NO statutory time limitation on Members' speaking.) The Board is obviously trying to avoid permitting owners to inspect records or even mention this at a meeting during "correspondence". This is another shameful example of the SLohA Flight from Transparency.
Clearly, the "management" statement read into the record by the Secretary was used as a device to avoid reading my records requests to members. The records requests were clear and directed to Board Director-Officers, as published on saddlebaglakeresort.net (the new website does not even have this contact information posted yet...). Members are being disrespected by board members who are hiding behind silly protocols. Members are not permitted to "hear" about other members' concerns.
The Board lied to Members when it said it would be more transparent and inclusive by opening up member comments during meetings.
Here is an example of that. NOWHERE did the Board post an agenda for the Feb 17, 2016 Board Meeting. The statute says that Members can speak to "all designated items". Generally this is understood to mean anything on the agenda or brought up DURING the meeting. This is per HOA attorneys' opinion. The President announced at the meeting that noone had signed up to speak. (Duh...with no agenda, what would anyone sign up to speak to?) Signup to speak was impossible without an agenda, since that is the only thing Members are permitted to speak to (supposedly). HOA's are not required to prepare an agenda and so the Board did not publish an agenda. GOTCHA!
QUESTION: At the conclusion of the AGENDA-LESS meeting, where Owners invited to speak before adjournment?
ANSWER: NO
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Feb 19, 2016 21:35:31 GMT -5
Some of the Elder Statesmen in SLR need to get involved and speak out about these Issues.
IMO, something is terribly wrong behind the curtain of secrecy our leaders have built. It is truly a big concern to many, what are they hiding from the residents?
The Board and Management tell out right lies about Frd O'N eel (Attny) (Attorney at Law) approving the 2016 Green Consent Form, and then had the nerve to post these lies on SLohA Official Bulletin Boards. How in the world could anyone in their right frame of mind, ever Trust this group? So many questions unanswered, and so many promises broken. Some of them from over 2 years ago!
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Feb 20, 2016 8:12:16 GMT -5
As every owner is a member of the Association, you would believe that that point alone would make access to records a "given". Just like access to the pool or membership into any club. Why is management addressing this issue instead of our Board directly? Didn't realize they were such cowards who had to hide behind their mother's apron strings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 20, 2016 9:07:46 GMT -5
Dick Tracy posted:
And don't forget that not only did the Board publish and disseminate the lie representing the internal validity of the Consent form throughout the park, they HIRED Management Company's attorney to attempt to validate it directly with Frd O'N eel (Attny)! This probably cost several hundred Owner dollars for Ms BaggNutcher to send a threatening email to Frd Oh Kneel and try to intimidate me. Ms. BaggNutcher INSISTED that Mr. O'N eel (Attny) had "approved" the form which he had never even seen! Then she proceeded to accuse me of "not supporting" revitalization--whatever that means-- and threatened the compensation paid to Mr. O'N eel (Attny) unless he put a leash and a gag on me! That threat did not go well for Ms. BaggNutcher and triggered a formal complaint to the Florida Bar Association on Jan 24, 2016.
The board was demanded to PROVE the lie by myself and Frd O'N eel (Attny). Additionally, I requested a written retraction and an apology to Mr. O'N eel (Attny). The Board did neither. Their response was to simply "fold over" the applicable statement on the posted paper copies.
AND don't forget the the Board published and disseminated what may turn out to be a SECOND lie i.e. that the "State approved the Green Consent Form". I sent a record request to inspect this form which was due Feb 1. Today is Feb 20; I have requested they produce the form TWICE in writing and so far--no form. Continued refusal/inability to produce the "state approval letter" means that there IS no letter and the Board lied AGAIN about revitalization.
How do they think that this will look to a judge who is considering whether to uphold or vacate a DEO approval? This board is piling up reasons why this revitalization, should it pass SLohA and get approved by DEO, could be successfully cH allenged. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
Trust this group? Forget this group. This park is being run by Management Company and its attorneys. The BOD is the mouthpiece for Management Company.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 21, 2016 8:59:16 GMT -5
Admin posted:
Here is a correction. As stated, this Forum is dedicated to presenting factual information and opinions supported by evidence. I stand by whatever I publish and, if I am later found to be in error, I quickly and publicly retract and/or correct. This protects me from Board revenge behavior because the truth does not damage those who utter it. LIES DO hurt and damage! (BTW, as long as we are on the subject, the Board has often publicly stated on CHUG and at board meetings that this Forum is full of BS and falsehoods--but not ONCE has anyone ever cited anything specific--much less offered a correction or alternative. I am still waiting for the beef...)
I was told by an Owner that they saw a meeting agenda posted on a bulletin board (exact location not recalled). The agenda was not noteworthy It was sketchy with the usual "director reports" listed as business. I was told that there was nothing specific, unusual or interesting on the Agenda. Not being terribly mobile at the minute following my surgery, I did not go searching on all the BB's, verify and get a photo. The reporter is reliable.
(Board: Why are Owners paying for a website if you do not post documents there? We still do not have Dec 2015 Financials posted!)
PS: Notwithstanding having posted an agenda on a bulletin board somewhere, there was no agenda or sign up sheet available at the meeting on Feb 17. Of that I am certain because I was there and moving pretty slowly on my cane. Even if there had been agenda, there was nothing on it of interest for anyone to speak to. The point being; that the "new" communication has been fashioned into a meaningless "sign up" procedure where business is not stated and hidden behind a general "report" template. Another Board GOTCHA.
The only way around this blockade/charade would be for Owners to "sign up" to speak to EVERYTHING if a signup sheet is available at the entrance, thereby preserving their "right to speak". Later, simply "opt out" when called upon to speak to any report or issue brought up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 22, 2016 13:05:28 GMT -5
|
|
