|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 14, 2017 14:43:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Jan 14, 2017 23:10:25 GMT -5
Question: How does one know what the President's Report will talk about, the Vice President, etc. I may want to address what any of them say, but how do I know in advance? Please advise or is this the way of hidden agendas?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 15, 2017 14:13:56 GMT -5
pestcontrol posted:
That question is a good question. I bet the BOD would answer that you could comment at the end during "Owner's Comments" on any matter pertinent to the HOA. BOD would probably use the opportunity to remind owners that the BOD meeting is THEIR meeting and the law says that they HAVE to let owners attend and "speak to all designated matters" --whatever you interpret that to mean. (Such vague phrases are typical of legislators'/attorney sleight-of-hand language which seeks to obfuscate consumers' rights.)
This particular President seems to incorporate whatever is on his mind into his written messages on the website, so that might be a clue if it is posted before the meeting! The Vice President does not appear to handle substantive issues.
Hidden agendas? Meetings are carefully orchestrated beforehand to introduce and progress stated and unstated purposes and zip business matters into the official record with minimal discussion. Owners' participation is obviously regarded as a necessary nuisance and frought with danger (hence the paid presence of Polk Sheriff in the recent past). I think it is obvious that many things have been and will continue to be hidden from members.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2017 11:06:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2017 11:19:47 GMT -5
Lra posted:
People should realize that they are NOT penalized for submitting a reasonable complaint to a governmental entity established to address consumer problems. HUD can receive a second complaint as the discrimination continues through the proxy of KCNetworks--SLohA's private, for-profit communications partner. HUD cannot award anyone their attorney's fees and costs.
S-bag can spend another $20 thousand dollars to defend the indefensible passivity and possible encouragement of behavior toward you through its association with KCNetwork.
Oh, and BTW-- TENANTS residing on SLohA property have as much right to the right to be free of a hostile housing environment as an owner does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2017 11:39:22 GMT -5
leery posted:
Uh-- I don't think so. If we were to replace the sewer plant, there would surely be a shortfall. There are not sufficient funds to cover the replacement of this facility should that be required.
Theoretically, the replacement would cost upwards of 4 million dollars. (A few months ago, I recall SLohA was getting yet another report of the condition of the plant along with an guesstimate to replace but the Board has not shared this information with owners.)
According to the latest financials, SLohA has a little over 2 million in the bank in investment CD's, MM and such. The shortfall of 2 million to replace the sewer plant would result in an assessment of $2,541.30 to each parcel. This would be a valid assessment.
Of course, not everyone would be able or willing to pay this kind of money regardless of how much the Management Company attorney's huff and puff! It would be up to the paying owners to cure the deficiency or SLohA to secure a loan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Jan 19, 2017 11:42:51 GMT -5
Board Members are just like Politicians. When you see their lips moving you KNOW THEY ARE LYING.
AKJG
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2017 12:20:53 GMT -5
Secretary Correspondence Summary:
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jan 19, 2017 14:26:55 GMT -5
A Sewer Plant failure, is the one thing that could shut down SLR. It has been suggested in the past that the sewer plant account is under funded, but the powers to be disagree with that assessment.
It was also suggested that once the SBA loan was paid off, to then apply that $100 additional amount per year to the Sewer Fund.
That idea fell on deaf ears. That Money has been used elsewhere, I do believe.
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2017 11:00:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2017 16:24:12 GMT -5
Secretary's Correspondence Report:
I noted that the Secretary Report incorporated into the Minutes mentioned TWO letters received, but only one of them was mentioned in the Minutes--Letter #2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2017 16:26:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2017 18:02:03 GMT -5
Q; What important SLohA business was missing from this meeting Jan 2017 meeting AND the December 2016 BOD meeting?
A: Ratification/Adoption of the KCNet Lease Agreement.
This very important contract--signed on Dec 8, 2016--has not been introduced to members for their approval. It has not been acknowledged as existing by The BOD. It has not been motioned and voted on by BOD.
At this time, it is not official business of SLohA. Its existence is not documented in the Minutes. No one could find out that there WAS a contract except a knowledgable owner who requested the record.
At this time, it is a contract between SLohA and Kiosk Centers dba KCNet signed by leery listerine and Virginia stab.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2017 18:07:59 GMT -5
TWO violations of Florida statutes with regard to the one-sided KCNet Lease Agreement.
This basically says All Directors must disclose any interest in the business with KCNetworks and interest must be entered in the Minutes AND that a contract must be disclosed to members at the NEXT meeting, which should have been December 2016. At that meeting, Directors would disclose and vote on the contract. At the NEXT meeting--in January 2017--Owners would have to be told about the existence of the contract. At the January 2017 meeting, ANY OWNER can motion that the contract be cancelled and, if a majority of parcels present at the meeting agree, the contract will be cancelled.
This did not occur.
Additionally, specific conflict of interest DISCLOSURES are required by the corporate statute (partial provision below), as referenced in the Homeowner Association Act:
We now know why D Brnd had to resign his directorship on July 30, 2016 for this contract to have a chance and avoid disclosure requirements. Are there any other directors that have a financial interest in KCNetworks that require disclosure to Members and Directors?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jan 30, 2017 19:50:41 GMT -5
A question to leery listerine (President),
what motivated you to sign such a one sided illegal lease agreement ?
Please explain to the residents.
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 7, 2017 17:29:53 GMT -5
jimherbst posted:
Here is what I heard at the October 2016 meeting:
New Business: The KCNET DEAL. Proposed agreement not described with much specificity and summarized on a separate post. The action taken at the meeting was described as "BOD must approve moving forward with finalizing the agreement between Bb stab and the attorneys."
Further, Toneesha was on the phone line while all this was going down and she specifically stated that there was no contract, that his was a way to move forward. Of course, she was right. The meeting was on October 19 and the contract was not signed until Dec 8, so obviously, the board could not "approve a contract".
This is what leery said in his President Message. A President Message is not Official Business of SLohA:
This is from the Official Minutes of October 19. 2016:
The contract was not signed until Dec 8, 2016. It did not exist on October 19, 2016. It has yet to be "approved" by either the BOD or the Members, in accordance with governing documents and corporate statute.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Feb 7, 2017 21:52:48 GMT -5
Thank you, S u e, for providing some fascinating details involving the discussion that took place during that October 19th meeting. Based upon what happened, I am even more convinced that the tower lease agreement between SLohA and KCNET would not with stand a legal cH allenge. Unfortunately, however, it does not answer my primary question: did the October 19th meeting violate the Florida Open Meetings Law?.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 8, 2017 11:06:39 GMT -5
jimherbst In my opinion, technically, YES, the October 19, 2016 was not noticed to members, according to SLohA bylaws and was therefore, business was not lawfully conducted. In my opinion, it did NOT violate Florida Open Meetings law FS286 because it is not subject to its provisions as a private, quasi-governmental body. Even with the revitalization held in suspense due to the cH allenge and concurrent suspension of the homeowner act, the SLohA Bylaws were then and still are the superior and ruling law. Its provisions for holding meetings must be met. In my experience, SLohA has never held a lawful meeting. Meetings must be noticed by mail with the proper advance timing AND an affidavit of notice mailed to members must be entered into the Minutes. BTW, the Bylaws have been altered by "someone". Corporate SLohA was incorporated under FS617; it remains in many aspects tied to the provisions of FS617 in perpetuity. The split of FS617 to FS720 occurred in 2000. "Someone" at S-bag re-wrote the Bylaws and stated that SLohA was incorporated under FS720. This is false. "Someone" might like to argue that the reactivation of the Inactive SLohA corporate body gave them the right to alter the document, but reactivation is a ministerial matter of paying late fees and resubmitting the documents to the Secretary of State and does not give anyone the right to change the Bylaws and Articles. Date of incorporation is un-alterable, like one's age.
|
|
