|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 16, 2015 13:03:09 GMT -5
This was a very long and will be an important meeting in SLohA history (IMO). I will be uploading the entirety of the meeting later today and add summaries.
The meeting actually began before the meeting officially convened. This is one reason why independent recordings are made--to get everything and to validate any unofficial, casual version. The board seems to be generally mindless about electronic recordation of business conducted and does not make meeting audios or videos available to members. The business of "Owner Communication" was on the agenda as Board business today, but it began to be discussed by the President prior to the meeting being formally convened. Thus, there are two audio recordings--a short PRE meeting and the longer "convened" meeting.
There were about 100 people in attendance at today's meeting. The meeting room was not set up with microphones stationed on both sides of the room, as usual, to assist with Owner Comments after adjournment of the meeting. Seeing no microphones, I feared that owners might be further shut out of SLohA business, but fortunately, my fears were ungrounded. Also, the board had not prepared the Audio Guy to connect with leery listerine, by teleconference, so the attendees had to await the connection before beginning the meeting. This gave an appearance of lack of preparation and organization.
It soon became apparent that the meeting would be an "experiment" in permitting owners to speak DURING the meeting. The method was to ask members to sign up to speak on the agenda item that they were interested in commenting about. Further, Clf asked (and at one point, begged) speakers to try to keep comments to 3 minutes because he wanted to get a golf game in today. He stated he did not want to be where he was--in the middle--and would prefer to be at the end of the dais. He lamented that this was going to be a "long three months" (his remaining officer term). His body language was "uncertain and uncomfortable".
One member spoke to the fact that there is no legal reason to limit comments to 3 minutes since the Homeowner Law (FS720) did not apply to SLohA due to expired covenants and, in any case, does not even have a 3 minute "rule". This was met with general acknowledgement by President who went on to say that people wanted the law to apply when it pleased them and did not want the law when it did not suit their agenda. (I am not sure why he would say that because it seemed to exemplify the boards' own selective approach to the law.) Several people did sign the Agenda Sheet. (IMO, this sheet should be placed at the entrance to the meeting room and not at a podium at front--it is somewhat daunting for people to march up in front of 100 people to sign the sheet).
There was a later issue when the President tried to cut off speakers from speaking to an issue brought forth in the correspondence i.e. "porches on the front" rule. This subject was not on the agenda specifically. There was no disclosure of that item under the Secretary's Report on Correspondence. That means, to be fair, the Agenda must summarize the correspondence to be read OR permit anyone to speak to all correspondence. President was, at one point, exasperated at the length of time it was taking to hear owners speak, stating he wanted to get his golf game in, and gave a clear impression that the experiment lived up to his negative expectations. But despite his obvious displeasure with the proceedings, hopefully, we seeing a favorable turn in the direction of the board's attitude and these kinds of details will be ironed out as we go. I noted that Tummy put her cell phone on a 3 minute timer later in the meeting to alert the speaker that "time was running out" with a chiming sound. That was a good idea and would be even better if the board would politely remind/urge the speaker to complete their thought and not cut people off!
Importantly, correspondence about 3 Records Requests was not read; this was not discussed by the board. Tummy Blkbrn said it was "dry" and if anyone wanted to read them, they could read at the office later or catch her after the meeting. This correspondence should have been either read in total or well-summarized. An Official Records Request is an important piece of business correspondence and is usually CERTIFIED to be legally recognized. Members should be MORE interested in what kind of records are being requested (dry or not!). Records requests can and do precede formal legal complaints and members should be fully informed of an inquiry that is important enough to generate a certified request.
Enough for this post. More later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 16, 2015 13:49:16 GMT -5
I want to get this posted quickly since it is so important. There are SEVEN people running on the next election ballot for the board for the three (3) board vacancies. None of the retiring directors (Blingz, Suthrd, murksberry) are seeking another term.
They are:
Pet er H all 6 RC
Dyeann Will i am son 31 RQ
Chrly Par sons 22 SBT
Kn Craw ford 12 BK
T Roof 13 GQ
H Hal sne 20 SBT
Mik Fos ter 79 SS
To all the above, I make the following offer of allocating space on this forum for whatever purposes they wish AND to have full control over "their" board. If we had a S-bag website up and running, I am certain that Administrator would make it available for campaigning purposes. Since this is the only one that is currently maintained, it's available to fill the void.
Election of directors is important SLohA and is one of the few business matters that non-board members have input into. I believe in the process and will support it. I will assist with any technical help for posting resumes, comments, including photos, and will turn over full administrative control to the board "owner". This control includes to enable people to comment or just have a "read only" board and disable posting by others (or review posts before approving). I will assist you in setting up your board.
For readers who are unfamiliar with the Forum, I purposely maintain a list of proper names that are automatically misspelled slightly so they are recognizable-- but prevent internet search engines from finding "real people".
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 17, 2015 12:58:45 GMT -5
Continuation of UNOFFICIAL BOD Minutes: The importance of Owner communication with the Board was demonstrated at this meeting, where most of the meeting time was consumed as a result of Owner correspondence to the Board. Tummy Blkbrn emphasized that input from Members was best handled by sending a letter to the board and either delivering your paper copy to the office to be stamped in by Shn, or sent to the Board Officers and Office via email. This is really easy and I am going to remind everyone again of the email addresses, adding the Management Company address. Don't forget to copy anyone else involved or mentioned in your correspondence. Office@SLRmail.com General Office ccjensen@slrmail.com Clf Jnsn President blackburntomi@yahoo.com Tummy Blkbrn Secretary jayeRite7@gmail.com Jade Rite Vice President Dinodoc3@SLRmail.com Stv Suthrd Treasurer stambaughinc@verizon.net Stmbug Ixx Inc Note: Do not send email to President at SLRmail.com. It has not been updated on CHUG and is being directed to Peet Brdun, past president who has passed away and possibly to D Brnd, past president who quit. CHUG is minimally maintained, at this point. I am also hoping that Board will not hide behind the obnoxious SOP that was adopted a few years ago stating that "letters to the board may or may not be read and would be handled by the Management Company." That was an obvious effort by the board to shirk their fiduciary duties to Owners-- loyalty and care. There were six (6) correspondences and this will discuss the first 4: #1,2 & 3 As I mentioned earlier, the three Official Records Requests were noted by date and author but the nature of the requests were not identified. ALL letters and Official Records Requests should be either read into the record or summarized. They should also be posted on the SLohA website. (Until that website is up and running, I will post this correspondence on this board, at the author's request.) Official Records Requests were from Lra Tmyk (2) and Jm Ath. (I am aware of the content but decline to post it here without their input first.) The other three correspondences were from Bouille/Ewan regarding "discuss finishing our home with a porch on the front", Cle mentson regarding liability of SLohA leasing private clubhouse to nonmember for private, for-profit activity, and Crab be/Alli son on behalf of Shuffleboard Club regarding continued postponement and handling of appeals for new courts. #4 By far, the most time was taken up from the righteously upset owners, Bouille and Ewan, who have been waiting since March 2014 to site their retirement home in SLohA --patiently awaiting Board response on the issue of "porch on the front". For those of you new readers who do not have history on this, it is significant and can be read at the following boards: Rules Schmules>Anatomy of a RuleLawsuit #2: Rule Violation and Covenant Expiration>SLohA Sues OwnersIt was summarized by an HOA attorney who has prevailed in all MRTA lawsuits, including the two lawsuits against SLohA: Further, this is a very long-standing and expensive gripe; triggering SLohA lawsuits clear back into the 80's. According to a 1980 article Lawsuit #2-Rule Violation & Covenant Expiration>Sound Familiar? (Part 1 of 2) in the Ledger: Reminder: The Developer turned over S-bag to the Owners in 1977. It was turned over as a transient campground which was the original development plan. The Owners took their first shot at rule-making in 1978. The owners rejected porches on the back of "camping facilities". Manufactured homes were strictly forbidden by the Covenants (and still are/were). Polk County approved manufactured homes in SLR in 1994. Forgive my nostalgic recounting of this incredibly twisted SLohA issue which has caused more misery and MONEY than any other problem in our sad history. Aliens who visited S-bag via D Brnd's meteors landing on the lake or arrival at the front gate would WARP SPEED out of here in fear and loathing if aware of all the problems this issue has caused and continues to cause. They would surely ask "What problem are they trying to solve?" The upshot of the discussion is that this nice retired couple was told by the Board that their "hands were tied" by the lawyers; they were asked to be even more patient until AT LEAST Feb 2017 when the porch question could PRESUMABLY be placed on the ballot for voter approval following a successful covenant revitalization approval. (That is an assumption that is not even a good bet because of SLohA's lack of statutory standing as an HOA.) So really what the board is telling this owner is that they might NEVER get SLohA approval for the porch and that they are too scared to seek other alternatives to possible 2016 revitalization/2017 ballot to accommodate a perfectly reasonable request-not to mention a beautiful architectural feature that presently exists on at least 17 homes in S-bag! They were asked to "honor the intention of the rules" and leave their home partially completed and continue to pay to store their porch furniture indefinately. They were not told that their retirement dream has been shattered because they choose to live in S-bag and the board failed to protect owners by keeping Covenants/Rules intact. I can immediately think of at least two ways to solve the problem. But, the board can think of nothing except hiding behind the desparate hope of having Covenants again and their attorney's blessing. It was pointed out by Ms. Bouille that the attorneys had not done any favors for S-bag. This brought up a whole 'nuther subject, which I will address later regarding Revitalization. Board: What will you do if the DEO disapproves revitalization? To the Owners: I am, as are most homeowners, disgusted with this Board about this and other matters. Do what is best for you. The most precious resource any of us has is >>TIME--and this HOA board is asking for your permission to hand over YOURS! If you want to reach out to SNAP for an attorney opinion, please give me a shout. The last two correspondences will be continued on the next post... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 17, 2015 16:59:07 GMT -5
...continuation of UNOFFICIAL BOD Minutes
#5 Joint correspondence from Crabbe/Allison complaining that the Shuffleboard Club was getting short shrift from Board and also complained about the manner in which their concerns were treated. They stated that they had 120-130 members and were a very large and active club, yet patiently awaiting "their turn" behind higher-priority projects such as the new tennis courts, which had far fewer members and the new docks which had very few people using/renting. They had been "promised" that their turn was near, but when it came time, they were again relegated to the back of the line for higher priority projects. In this correspondence, my impression was that the Club was pizzzed at being given assurances for so many years and receiving nothing! They further felt that assurances were betrayed and handled "inelegantly" (my word/impression) by the Board.
Here is a short rundown from BOD Official Minutes of the history of the Shuffleboard Club's attempts to get recognition and dollars for this recreational amenity. It does appear that this Club has been waiting a Very Long Time for a True Fix to the problems of the shuffleboard surface, which appear to be similar to the problems with the tennis court surfaces.
#6 Correspondence from D Clemenson regarding a renter in SLR who reserves the Clubhouse every year for a dance. The Renter invites the public to attend and charges an entrance fee. The Renter does not pay dues to SLohA and the author's concern is the liability of SLohA in the event of any untoward happening during the event. Author asked "Who pays?" If SLohA pays, why are we allowing persons who do not contribute to our insurance and liability burden use our facilities for a public event and make a profit from it?
What an excellent question! Please run for the Board immediately!
I recall this situation discussed at a previous board meeting but for the life of me I cannot come up with remembering "when". It was carelessly handled--that I do recall. Not much intelligent discussion or serious treatment of the scenario. I remember it because I thought "this will come back to bite SLohA". Maybe someone out there recalls...
SLohA, at one time, required owners to produce PROOF of insurance to cover claims resulting from pet ownership and adverse events related to that. That is now a Dead Issue. Our past and Current insurance carrier does not cover ANYTHING related to a pet claim due to SLohA not monitoring and requiring proof such liability insurance personally. SLohA paid the claim and the insurer dropped the coverage for pets. It seems to me that this is a similar, but MUCH WORSE situation. The Renter needs to indemnify the Association against all claims and post a bond, at the minimum. I don't think SLohA wants to expose itself to the huge risks in such an arrangement. Especially since there is no benefit to SLohA. It is my recollection that the current insurance carrier does NOT cover SLohA for this kind of liability.
Tummy Blkbrn was quick to call for an immediate investigation into this situation and to involve the Board, Management Company and insurance carrier in assessing the risk to SLohA for this kind of activity (elderly people and the public engaging in physical activity sponsored on our premises by a non-owner and arriving/leaving to an inadequately lighted parking lot). At least it is being treated seriously this time around.
To be continued...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2015 12:12:57 GMT -5
....Continuation of Dec 2015 UNOFFICIAL BOD Minutes
A few details to add to the previous posts:
The Minutes from the Nov 18 and Nov 25 "privileged" meetings were approved. The Nov 18th Manager report is still NOT posted on CHUG. We are getting immediate summaries--and that is an improvement in this communication vacuum, but Official Minutes and attached reports are not being promptly posted. (Editor correction: The Nov 18th Minutes were finally posted on CHUG on Dec 1 after several inquiries.) Treasurer's Report needs correction: Treasurer stated that the increase was 3% and the increase is 7 1/2% as confirmed by the Accountant at the Budget Forum. It is unknown if the Nov 18, 2015 Treasurer's statement was corrected in the approved Minutes but presumably no since it was not discussed.
As of 12/19/2015, there are no approved Minutes of the Nov 25 "privileged" meeting summarized, drafted or approved posted on CHUG.
(In the past, Minutes have been posted in Draft form for Member review and, if any inaccuracies were identified, this was explained at the next meeting and the revised Minutes approved and posted. In my recollection, this has only happened once in the past 4 years as a result of Owner Correspondence. Typically, draft Minutes are the final version. Now, it appears that Members only get a summary and no official minutes get posted? I think the summaries are a great idea but no one is paying attention to followup details on Minutes, Managers Reports and Financials.
Manager's Reports are mentioned in Minutes as being incorporated into the Minutes but these have not been attached for certain months and there are missing ones.)
An addition was made to the Agenda at an Owner's request; to discuss wheelchair access in the park. This was subsequently spoken to articulately and passionately by the owner, who himself must mobilize in a wheelchair. More on that later in this post.
The Manager's Report--4 minutes yet to be posted or summarized. Added a comment about ADA law which was refuted by the Owner who spoke on wheelchair access. Chap then backpedaled what he "really" said and said that more research was needed.
The issue of the renter reserving the Clubhouse for public for-profit entertainment and liability to SLohA was formally "tabled" and it was stated that it would be discussed in January 2016, following inquiries.
Jade Rite read a heartfelt statement about "holiday kindness can't we all be loving?" and I was immediately transported back to the memories of her cruel actions to a neighbor in Feb 2015 under the oaks after the parade, her baseless police and legal complaint against her neighbor, her subsequent broken promise to the mediators and finally, her violation of the terms of the SLohA lawsuit settlement-a fact well known to the rest of the Board. Please, no more crocodile tears Ms. Rite, your actions speak louder than your words.
leery listerine gave a website report and hopes to have at least the home page ready for viewing by Jan 1, 2017. There are club tabs that will be added as clubs put their content online and CHUG will continue to operate until the site is functioning reasonably well. The clubs have no deadline for submitting content and it is not yet well understood how that is going to work but clubs must let him know who their submitting representative is. In the meantime, S-bag Express will remain in circulation and we'll continue to pin papers to bulletin boards.
Treasurer's Report: SLohA is in "good shape" as always. Ii is only over-budget in Contract Services due to the TT contract. (One still wonders why there is a 7 1/2% increase in assessments for a budget that is "UNDER" costs seven (7) months into the fiscal year... The proposed budget was not mentioned.)
The "full" Financials for 10/31/2015 are now posted on CHUG and showing a logged in date of 12/12/15. They were stated to be there by the Treasurer at the BOD meeting. They were not there when I checked immediately following the board meeting on Dec 16th.
Election Committee: 7 candidates submitted petitions (previously discussed above).
Organizational Committee Index 34:53 Will be in a separate post to follow.
Technology Committee: D Brnd on the LED marquee light and made a mistake by announcing the need for donations from clubs for the new marquee and he should have said "is there any interest in an LED marquee?" The monitoring system for water & sewer and the sign issue was put on hold. It is not in the proposed budget but thought if clubs are willing to support the project, we will do more research. D then described the minutiae of assessing the "right" LED light sign like how many colors we want etc. Last year cost was estimated at $7K. Current cost on a similar sign at the Vet hospital on Mtn Lake Rd was stated by the sign manufacturer that one side was $10-25K and it was remotely programmable.
Comment from Blkbrn: we are now instituting a website with a calendar. Most people have access to computers and smartphones. Marquee is old technology. There are only 3 church events between April & October and this astronomical expense cannot be justified. Even if the clubs wanted to support a sign, there are better places for their dollars ie beautification, history of SLR, defribrilator, improve AV equipment, handicap lift for pool. <clapping> Board Comment: Poorly understood by many people from the S-bag Express; people thought it was a board initiative and it was the committee only. It was never discussed in my presence and the board had no input and I would not consider it a high priority. D said it was not a sales pitch from the Committee; it is not our project. Comment: We should not tear down the marquee.
My Comment: If the Technology Committee would set up electronic voting for SLohA, we could save on printing and mailing costs, AND restore faith in the integrity of the voting process AND could vote on all business matters ANYTIME instead of waiting a year for the February election.
Move on>>Clf wanted to open New Business for owner comment and limit talk to 3 minutes and said he would not tolerate cussing and calling people dirty names and would simply adjourn the meeting. (Hmmm- where did that come from? I never heard anyone call anyone names in a meeting except for D Brnd when he called a speaker a liar.)
Owner on Wheelchair Access: Owner was on crutches when he moved here but suffered additional injuries and now is permanently wheelchair bound and which prevents him from getting in and out of the pool. Is paying $2040 dues which are in large part, recreational facilities. Was told by Stmbug Ixx Manager (M. e. l.) that there are many people in park who do not use all the facilities. Speaker said that it was not that he did not use the facilities; the problem was he could not use the facilities! Asked that SLohA takes this very seriously. CH allenged Chap's comments on federal ADA regulations and guaranteed that a discrimination lawsuit would hold water and he would win "hands down". Stated that it should not be necessary to spend money on such things when lifts could provide access not only for him but many people in SLR that were elderly and found it hard to get in and out of pool. <Blkbrn's smartphone timer chimes prompted speaker to finish his thought and sentence. Nice.>
The President, once again, acknowledged that it was something that needed to be "looked into" but failed to follow up the words with a progressing action which, logically, would have been authorizing a Committee and seeking the owner's agreement to head the Committee. President said owner was not the only one in need of access and there were others who needed help and we will get something going here and would continue to work on things over a period of time.
Chap then piped in with his comments on voluntary versus mandatory ADA requirements for HOA and that we needed more research about what we are actually required to do. We are moving in the direction and we are not ignoring your interest in the park.
(BOD: Can this message be any clearer?)
One more comment; enlarge the existing marquee and make letters bigger for about $200.
Meeting adjourned.
Continued on next post...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2015 13:43:51 GMT -5
...final continuation of Dec 2015 UnOfficial Minutes
(Editor: This is a very close transcription of the part of the Meeting).
Schlz: Met "in the past week" and are pushing ahead with revitalization. Toneesha is finishing up details on the Consent Form.
I do have a Motion to make. "Whereas the Organizational Committee thinks it would be prudent to get a 2nd Opinion since the courts have recognized the 1986 and 1989 amendments and since this was the first meeting of the Organizational Committee that all members could attend since the recognizing of the 1986-1989 amendments by the courts, I move that we get a second opinion by <garbled>"
Motion seconded. Call for Discussion among board members?
Blkbrn: Yes I would like to say that I want to thank the Organizational Committee for all their work. We're due to start revitalization in January-in fact in 3 weeks-and I don't think a second opinion is going to be able to be rendered in that short a period of time. I think we must proceed with revitalization. I believe the 1986 and 1989 amendments are stand-alone documents and that the way to proceed is revitalization instead of preservation and I think that there is a concern for any delay requiring a second opinion at this point.
listerine: I would like to enter an opinion as well. I agree with what Tummy has just said. This is not a second opinion; it is probably a 3rd or 4th opinion and I think we have committed to a schedule that we need to follow. I think that Tummy misspoke; the amendments are NOT stand-alone documents; they have to be tied to the other package and as a result of that, as I read it, there has been no change in what we need to do and so I am opposed to extending the period or getting more opinions on it.
Blkbrn: Thank you leery for the correction, you are right.
Schlz: I thought I clearly stated that we are not holding up revitalization and that is not our intent in getting the 2nd opinion <mumbling in background>
listerine: I fail to see the need or the purpose of getting a second opinion if it is not going to impact the procedure that we have already established. <more murmurs>
Suthrd: If I can comment, it is unfortunate..uh..I wish you would have been at the Organizational Meeting; I know you had other things come up and you missed that meeting but had you been there, you would have heard the full discussion that went on at that meeting and I think you might have a little different look at it. The attorney that we are talking about is an expert in HOA law; their firm specializes in that. If we don't have the ability to get a second opinion by the time we're ready to get our documents mailed, it will not hold up revitalization, um.. but if we get a second opinion um..we're going ahead with the revitalization...we told him that, we are sending our documents out when they're all completed and ready, umm.. but there's been some things that as ___ mentioned earlier, some things that some of us on the board--several of us in the audience--there are some questions. uh, our attorneys are the ones that told us that revitalization was the way to go--now they're telling us that it wasn't the way to go-uh I mean preservation was the way to go. (Speaker corrected i.e. preservation not revitalization), I have a two page letter where they recommended that was the way to do it...so there ARE some questions and um..it will not hold up revitalization
listerine: You did ___ your statement there Stv you said that if we got a positive opinion meaning to me that if someone said revitalization is'nt necessary that revitalization would NOT go ahead and that's one problem. My second problem is that this was not an agenda item for the meeting that I was unable to attend. I did come late but by the time I got there the meeting had already disbanded because it had been decided that we were gonna go in another direction...so I have a couple of problems here and I don't understand the reason for a second opinion and....<remainder of sentence unintelligible>
Suthrd: Not much I can say, leery. I guess that..if my general practitioner doctor told me I gotta heart problem, I'm gonna get a second opinion from an expert..um..I think, ya know, there are questions. We want to make sure once this is all done that the documents are completely valid and completely enforceable and completely ready to operate the resort in the future. That's all we're trying to do
listerine: Well, looks to me that we're already that this is some kind of a shortcut option which may not stand up against scrutiny. I know you got a lawyer that you been talking to has indicates perhaps otherwise but I don't think we're at a place where we want to deal with "perhaps". I think we want to do it properly and make sure there are no loose ends
Suthrd: The lawyer hasn't said there's anything wrong with the way we are doing it, we just...because of questions that have come up with our current attorneys, we thought it would be prudent to get a second opinion and make sure what we're doing is right. It's not going to hold us up, we gotta do the revitalization that was part of the mediation and the court agreement, but we want to make sure there isn't something else that's gonna pop up. <long pause, muttering> partial sentence unintelligible--
Jnsn ...I think that another ___ is there is some concern about our attorneys that was mentioned here in the audience that ( ___ word sound like "eees" on the end) may be someone we will use in the future and we'll get to know a little more about him. Anyway, we need to vote on this motion.
Blkbrn: Clf I will read the motion again. "Whereas the Organizational Committee thinks it would be prudent to get a second opinion on our current position, therefore I move that based on the information recently obtained, the Organizational Committee asks for approval to have an HOA attorney review as a 2nd opinion our current position regarding revitalization."
Schlz: That's not the motion. (Schlz stands and hands the paper with the motion to Blkbrn)
Blkbrn: Ok sorry..Whereas the Organizational Committee thinks it would be prudent to get a 2nd opinion since the courts have recognized our 1986-89 amendments; therefore since this was the first meeting of the Organizational Committee that all members could attend since the recognizing the 1986-89 amendments by the court, I move that we get a 2nd opinion on our position."
Jnsn: OK I think we'll get a roll call vote on that.
Blkbrn: OK...she calls the roll. All YES's except Blkbrn and listerine. Motion passed.
44:25
Welcome Committee Report: A couple visits have been made, have packet for new owners and we're gearing up for a busy season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2015 17:25:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Dec 19, 2015 18:19:16 GMT -5
Let Us Not Forget This Post on Dec. 11th, 2015 by BagLady.
"Revitalization Cost"
Dick Tracy posted:
(quote)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Maybe the question should be how much money have we wasted so far on this Revitalization. I do not believe this bunch, has the mental capacity to present a Revitalization Package to Tallahassee.
In my opinion it will be the 3rd time our leaders have wasted our time and money on this process.....
They have been told several times in the last 2 years, their Revite Packages are flawed, they refuse to heed any advise". (end quote)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BagLady posted:
It is estimated that around $25K was spent on the last "paper" attempt at Revitalizing. That resulted in a flawed ballot which the Management Company's () lawyers, supposedly acting in SLohA's best interests, withdrew as a condition of mediated settlement. The lawyers were told, in writing, that the Ballots were flawed and instead of withholding the mailing of the package and inserting corrected Ballot/Consent forms, advised SLohA to "let 'er rip!" It took a 10 1/2 hour mediation for the SLohA lawyers to acknowledge that the Ballot was illegal and had to be done over.
The amount of Legal Fees budget for the next fiscal 2016-7 year is $30K and that seems right--for a start. This was stated by Toneesha at the budget meeting with an annotation by the proposed funding. IMO, the attorney should pick up the entire cost of the next attempt.
Remember--this entire thing began in 2012 and SLohA has been expending money on "revitalization" for 3 years with more to come. The original problem resulted from an accidental discovery in late 2012. At that time, Management Company began a legal inquiry on changing the Covenants to include Manufactured Homes. Now--bear in mind SLohA was approved for Manufactured Homes by Polk County in 1994 and had at least 100 Polk-Permited homes in place. For some unknown reason, this was not good enough for . During the process of "discovery", it became apparent that SLohA had a much bigger problem to deal with than amending Covenants to do something that was already permitted--the problem being EXPIRED COVENANTS. The birth of revitalization and its exhorbitant costs thus began with a legal opinion i.e. that expiration was considered a "gray area" and the Corp should go ahead and PRESERVE the later-dated Amendments and following that, proceed with amending the Covenants.
A side track here- Amendments to the Covenants are not permitted. The Covenants to not contain an amendatory provision. Florida considers Covenants to be a PRIVATE CONTRACT and a contract cannot be unilaterally changed unless the Contract specifically states it can be changed and how to do that. Florida Constitution says that that there can be no retroactive application of a contract provision without 100% agreement by all parties. In the absence of permission to change granted by the parties to the Contract, 100% of the affected parties must agree to the change (including 3rd parties who have an equitable interest in the property, such as banks).
The Covenants DO provide that individual or groups of lots can be RELEASED from The Covenants i.e. if SLohA wanted to put a playground amenity on two residential lots; the membership was authorized to vote to remove those two lots from the Covenants and RELEASE them from paying assessments, rules/regs etc. In law, to Amend something is ADDING TO THE BASIC PROVISION and to RELEASE is to SUBTRACT SOMETHING FROM THE BASIC PROVISION. SLohA only has the authority to RELEASE lots from the Covenants.
Getting back to Revitalization; it is a resurrection of the original Covenants and will not change basic legal principles. What revitalization will do is GIVE SLohA the "missing" amendatory provision with a 66% affirmative vote. That is Florida's statutory gift to revitalized Covenants. But, it will NOT change the legal doctrine of contract law. Amending can only "flesh" out something that is already there. The only other entities that can supercede SLohA governing documents are Florida and its Counties/Cities, common law and of course, Federal laws. That is why it was unnecessary in the first place to seek an "amendment" for manufactured homes in SLohA--our Documents were already superceded in law back in 1994 by Polk County. I presume that SLohA wanted to create a Covenanted authority to do more fiddling and diddling with the Rules and Regulations.
The point is, from that point on in 2012, SLohA has spend TENS of THOUSANDS of DOLLARS pursuing first, an unnecessary change, second--an invalid Preservation which triggered an objection by an owner that it was ILLEGAL. This was subsequently admitted by SLohA but it spent a Lot of Money legally pursuing the dissenting owner, progressed to a legal assault on another owner--without authority--was advised when the owners defended themselves with a countersuit based on expired covenants that it COULD NOT WIN that SLohA finally decided to start the revitalization process. My guess is the total cost easily exceeds $150K not counting what the insurance company paid to defend SLohA. Owners will now continue to pay for the Board's folly. The insurance was dropped, a new carrier finally procured in the high risk/high cost surplus lines market and we STILL have another expensive revitalization to endure. The next step is that SLohA could become uninsurable at any cost and has to self-insure.
Regarding that--SLohA has already been advised that it does not have standing under the MRTA law (FS712) to revitalize because it does not meet the statutory definition of an HOA (FS720). Despite that, the Management Company and its attorneys want to launch another Hail Mary and try to get DEO to see otherwise--just as SLohA tried to do with the Invalid Preservation attempt. The Board does what wants. That is called breach of fiduciary as it is serving the and its loyalty and care is not to Owners. Owners' only recourse is to recall directors and take the corporation in a new direction away from the control of .
And, if by some chance DEO decides to approve a revitalization and then SLohA attempts to force encumbrance on non-consenting parcels with Revitalized Covenants, get ready for more legal entanglements or a possible class action by owners with homestead protections under Florida's Constitution.
Everyone should be very careful about signing ANYTHING presented by SLohA. You are reminded that a signed Ballot form which appears to allow you to vote For or Against Revitalization--also provides CONSENT to being re-encumbered by Covenants. Whether you want to revitalize or not, a SIGNED BALLOT is CONSENT and if you Vote NO and sign, you CONSENT. Approval of revitalization could involve SLohA in multiple lawsuits for years with non-consenting owners (if SLohA records Covenants on non-consenting parcels) and there will be NO insurance to pay the tab!
Personally, I do not object to Revitalization of Covenants. I object to not fully informing owners of their options and also to encumbering MY parcel with those Covenants.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Dec 19, 2015 19:28:54 GMT -5
Board Members please do not worry about a second lawyers opinion, the lower court ruling on the 1986/1989
Covenants will be "CH- allenged " if need be, in the Appellate Court which will over rule the Lower Court.
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 20, 2015 11:55:09 GMT -5
Dick Tracy posted:
Why indeed, waste more money on a 2nd opinion if it will not be considered by the Organizing Committee?
History: Board voted in September 2013 to get a second legal opinion on the Tg lawsuit. They never did.
We need more background. The board needs to communicate honestly with owners. Obviously, there is board concern with the performance of the current attorney firm who have led us in bad directions FOUR times (at least), costing us over a hundred thousand dollars, chaos among neighbors and inferior insurance for the long term. The FAB FOUR FOULUPS were:
#1
2012 The Original Opinion: That covenants expiration was a "gray area" and Preservation was the way to go. (This was referenced by Suthrd's remarks about the two page attorney letter in Dec 2012, which I have a copy of somewhere in my computer's innards). Further, the attorney created a singularly-idiotic opinion that the Amendments were a "replacement for the Covenants"--so-called "stand alone documents" referenced by Blkbrn/listerine. Clearly, that was wrong and any title searcher or real estate broker could explain why. SLohA ended up with an invalid Preservation and clouded titles on 787 parcels. These title clouds remain to this day and it will be up to owners to legally clear their slandered titles at their own expense.
#2
2013: The Opinion to fight Tg- A major mistake. Tg's complaint could have been solved with a few hundred dollars. The attorney advised SLohA to dig in and fight. The attorneys' rationale was described by a board member in the statement "Let's see how deep Tg's pockets are". The attorneys advised SLohA that Tg would not go the long haul--that Tg could not afford it. This came up in mediation when the mediator asked me if I was being funded by anyone. (Board: Do not make the same mistake again. Remember I got ALL my money back and No I am not being funded by anyone except myself and my lifetime of hard work and good investments.)
#3
2014: The Opinion to fight Tmyk/Astn on an architectural issue. Bad mistake of professional incompetence and very poor judgement by the Board for two reasons: Board already had a lawsuit on the table contesting the Preservation and the gun was cocked and loaded for an expired covenant defense and 2- there is NO authority in the (expired) covenants to exercise architechtural control over private parcels.
(Board has been courting another lawsuit by pretending there are rules and intimidating owners who want to modify their lots. I knew there was trouble when they established the "limited" Architectural Committee whose only purpose was to assist owners with setting up new units. LEGAL Architectural authority MUST be in the Covenants. Board has no legal basis to defend SLohA against an Owner's legal complaint of say..interference in a business transaction such as Owner-Contractor relative to Polk-permitted use of private property. Warm up your wallets!)
#4
2015: The Opinion that the attorney-authored Ballot/Consent Form was legally sufficient. The attorney supplied the Ballot/Consent. The legal problem of the Ballot/Consent form was identified within minutes by laypersons and communicated IN WRITING to the attorney firm prior to the revite packages being mailed. They chose to ignore the Owners, who sounded the alarm while there was still time to correct the form prior to mailing. This was a major issue at mediation where SLohA's attorneys finally agreed that the Consent was legally flawed and would have to be redone. SLohA $$$$ wasted: $50K -- the initial $25K cost PLUS another $25K to repeat the process. If a cH allenged is filed, add several more thou. If revitalization is not approved, double all the above figures to start from scratch with brand new documents.
I wondered as I listened to the inscrutable audio recording: was there a quorum of directors who met in Organizing Committee (O.C.) with an attorney present last week? Seems to me if a specialty HOA lawyer was present, presumably as a guest, that all hands on deck would be in attendance. Revitalization, after all, is a critical issue for SLohA. listerine admitted he was invited to attend by teleconference and complained that the O.C. motion was not on the meeting agenda. Schlz and Suthrd were obviously there. Only the dissenting directors -listerine and Blkbrn-engaged in discussion about the motion. President hardly acknowledged the motion except to call for the vote and imply there were "questions" about SLohA attorneys, echoed by an audience member (criticism by Becky Bouille). The other Directors had no questions or input which seemed odd, unless they had attended the meeting and were already in agreement with the Motion. This suggests to me that most if not all directors attended the Committee meeting. In that case, the Committee Meeting becomes a statutory board meeting requiring notice to members to attend and Minutes.
The discussion of this was extremely guarded and almost nonsensical. There was no background provided and everyone tap danced around the REASON for the legal second opinion or why it would not affect revitalization.
If the Board wants to achieve better communication with owners, they need to realize communication is a 2-way street. Board needs to avoid the appearance and/or practice of conducting business in private, coming to meetings with prepackaged motions that make no sense and talking in halting umm..uhh..crony-code to exclude Owners from the conversation. Board needs to talk honestly about this and other issues, such as the towers, to have any hope of earning the trust of its constituency.
|
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on Dec 20, 2015 13:01:05 GMT -5
When if ever, will we get off of this "Merry-Go-Round" in SLohA !
P.S. Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid !
(J ohn Wayne)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 22, 2015 9:45:45 GMT -5
I have been getting questions about the 2nd legal opinion that the board wants to seek. According to the language of the Motion ("Whereas...statement" is the contextual reference for making a motion), the ambiguity/discomfort/uncertainty/fear centers around the Amendments which the court cleared in May 2015. This was the final issue to settle the Tg lawsuit. I might be able to shed some light--or at least stimulate thought-- on why there are "questions" surrounding these amendments at this late hour. I have often said that including these amendments in a revitalization package will eventually find SLohA in another lawsuit involving HUD. First, some background. An Important requirement of the mediation was to submit the question to the court and agreement that there would be no appeal of the decision by either party. There was a second "rule of the road" that was laid out by both sides and that was: not to argue "issues of fact" and the only thing that would be addressed was the question: "Do original Covenants give the Association permission to amend the Covenants?" This is important because it precluded entering the SLohA's 1986 Minutes into the arguments. As you recall, these Minutes clearly documented that the 1986 Ballot FAILED TO PASS an amendatory provision. These Minutes are posted on this forum here>> BOD>Archive Minutes>1986>April 16 board minutes Thus, the sole argument was if the Covenants gave the Association permission to amend. Here is a summary of the arguments: After both sides were heard (the hearing is described on the forum here>> Covenants Lawsuit #1>Mediation 2>Court Hearing on Summary Judgements Completed the judge rendered a decision in favor of SLohA BUT DID NOT WRITE AN ADVISORY OPINION stating a rationale for the decision. It might as well have been a coin toss! And, I believe that is the problem. This was a decision but it was not a considered one based on any finding of fact or law. It was not a considered opinion. It was more a contrivance of a mediation with the point being to have an "end point". It was not embedded in a larger issue. It was a Very Narrow decision. It settled the lawsuit but did nothing to clarify the question. Additionally, it is recognized by legal practitioners that Florida has an abysmal record with lower court judges; they are overturned by appellate courts with alarming frequency, which is why the "no appeal" clause was entered into the mediated settlement. Now, here we are again with even more uncertainty about these amendment documents. In my opinion, these documents are much more problematic than useful and here is why: -The 1986 added the "missing" amendatory provision; it was an ADD not a "change, clarification or correction". There was almost nothing else changed in that document except some guidelines on duplex lots and updating of terms. It failed the Ballot and that is documented by SLohA in its own Minutes, but SLohA recorded it anyway (what were they thinking?). (The 1986 Amendment is discussed here>>> HOA Florida Law and Government>Comparison of Original Declaration and 1986 Amendment>What Happened here?-The 1989 amendment used the FAILED 1986 Amendment to legitimize a new "over-55 age restriction" which was absent in the original Covenants. This, too, was not an amendment; it was a brand new provision being added! This is discussed here>>> HOA Florida Law Government>1989 Amendment to Covenants>1989 Amendment to CovenantsIf SLohA gets approval for revitalization, it will also get Florida's gift to Associations that were born with no amendatory provision- an amendatory provision with a realistic 66% threshold! So that is actually better than the 1986 Amendment with a 75% threshold which could very well be overturned in a future (expensive) legal contest and make passage of valid amendments near impossible to pass. So why wave the Red Flag? Revitalization solves the problem to the advantage of SLohA and avoids a future legal squabble. It is only the "55+ age restriction" that is the sticky wicket. Because it adds a burden on homeowners that was not there when they accepted their deed restrictions, it needs to have the validity of a 100% voter affirmative vote, which it did not get. And the invalidity (failed ballot) of the 1986 Amendment further complicates things. It's more problems than it is worth and will surely feed the hungry lawyers down the road... If the Revite package is passed with these two amendments and SLohA provokes a complaint with HUD by attempting to enforce the age restriction, it will be a horrific expense to owners and change the way SLohA must represent itself and operate as a family park for the rest of time. See the example lawsuit--the Westwood case (Florida) demonstrating what could happen here>>> Lawsuit #1-Covenants>Legal and Lawyer>Another interesting tidbit from Frd O'N eel (Attny), attyIf revitalization is not approved, SLohA can start over with brand new documents that are actually relevant to the park now and add all the good stuff that people will sign onto. The reason SLohA does not want to do this is because it would be a voluntary signup and you would get people who signed and people who refused to sign. I say, echoing the immortal wisdom of a past president, "Let the Chips Fall!" IMO, SLohA would be wise to exclude these Amendments from revitalization; they add nothing of value and present future problems which will be unlikely to resolve in SLohA's favor. SLohA will have more than enough problems on their hands if they successfully revitalize the Covenants & R & R and attempt to re-encumber non-consenting parcels. |
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on Dec 23, 2015 12:50:18 GMT -5
A Laurel and Hardy saying:
" Well , here's another fine mess you've gotten us into "....
I truly believe if 5 years ago our management company had concentrated on researching SLohA's Deeded Lots, instead of making comments about we are here to execute your Reserves. We could have avoided a lot of this fine mess we are experiencing at the present. Stmbug Ixx Inc. did not have the credentials to manage a community the size of SLohA.
Also the Attorneys had little knowledge of Florida Statues and MRTA, which have cost SLR owners dearly now and into the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2015 15:51:55 GMT -5
GTO posted:
Per public record: Stmbug Ixx Inc, before registering for the CAM Firm license in 2009, was a real estate broker in the Port St Lucie area. "Bd" Stmbug Ixx was licensed as a CAM in 1990. Stmbug Ixx Inc did not exist at Winter Hayvn until Oct 2009 and did not register as a CAB (CAM Business) until Nov 2009. There is no evidence that Stmbug Ixx Management company had HOA business experience before setting up camp in Winter Hayvn--only the recommendation of a golf buddy (Reerookuh) on the board at the time. His credentials were not disclosed to Members. The Board hired him 8-1 in 2010. He apparently had a CAM ready to go for S-bag--the late Kn Sooner, who was not licensed until Oct 2009. Could a newly-licensed manager with no experience be expected to pick up S-bag's legal status with regard to deed restrictions?
In 2010 when I bought in SLR, I discovered this unique characteristic of HOA's when I read the HOA statute-FS720 Part III on Covenant Revitalization. Surprised but curious; I looked up MRTA, searched my title and saw that deed restrictions had expired. But, I doubted the truth and said nothing. The professionals could have read FS720--Bd Stmbug Ixx could have read it--Sooner and Kreeow could have read it and referred to Stmbug Ixx Inc for more information/guidance. Apparently, nobody read it or comprehended the implications. Nobody cared.
IF the Management Company had read FS720.403, they would have been alerted to research MRTA and look at S-bag's governing documents and would have (presumably) begun revitalization in 2010. They were well aware they were coming in to a long-time, self-managed environment and should have had a high degree of suspicion that there were gaps in administrative operations. Instead of assessing the structural foundation of the corporation ie. the governing documents, they could not wait to start indexing our assets and "execute the Reserves". Validating the authority to operate a homeowner association is probably the Single Most Important Assessment for a new Management Company to undertake. There is nothing more important to the life and authority of a homeowner corporation and the security of its Members than its Covenants. More than one attorney has opined that any Board/Management Company that allows its Covenants to expire should be sued by the Members.
Not only did Stmbug Ixx and its unlicensed CAM Manager NOT discover a critically important problem with S-bag's documents in 2010, when it finally did 2 1/2 years later, it and its attorney failed to appropriately address how to correct the problem. And, when told that their actions were illegal in May 2013, they refused to act properly--triggering a lawsuit. In desperation, MANBOD tried to quash the truth and...sued an owner in June 2014--presumably at the recommendation of the Management Company's attorneys.
Whenever I feel like blaming the boards-past and present-for this mess, I remind myself that it was Stmbug Ixx Inc who should have discovered it and taken appropriate steps to address it. This problem was beyond the pay scale of volunteer board directors, after all, but they also should have read FS720 Part III and made inquiries. ALL are accountable, but IMO the Management Company bears the lion's share of the blame for this mess. We PAID them to be incompetent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Oct 3, 2016 21:34:41 GMT -5
JUST MAYBE, WE WILL GET OUR 2nd. OPINION, ONE YEAR LATER !
Please Attend This Open Forum Special Meeting on December 13th, 2016 in The Club.
We Can All Walk Down SLohA's Memory Lane Together.
Sharpen Your Pencils Folks and Seek The Whole Truth.
Ask Your 2nd Opinion Questions...
DURING THE OPEN DISCUSSION/OPEN FORUM
..........................................................................................................
(October 2nd, 2016)
(yesterday at 10:07pm Admin said:) (quote)
OPEN DISCUSSION/OPEN FORUM
D Brnd and Stv Suthrd are sponsoring a guest speaker for Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 9 am, in the Clubhouse. This will be an Open Forum for questions and answers by all owners of SLohA.
The guest speaker will be Steven H. Mezer. Steven is a Shareholder in Community Association Law Practice Group in the firm’s Tampa Bay office. He has extensive experience in all aspects of community association operations and community association law. He represents condominium, homeowner and cooperative associations, where he handles matters relating to issues including collection of assessments, covenant enforcement and foreclosures.
Please plan to attend this important function and bring any question you may have regarding SLohA.
We will serve free coffee. (end quote)
D Brnd 95 S-bag Trail
...........................................................................................................
|
|
gusto
Addict
"A Friend of Bill W."
Posts: 117
|
Post by gusto on Oct 5, 2016 1:40:52 GMT -5
Maybe a End Around or a Back-Door Move ...
Mr. Stv Suthrd could be giving his second opinion Lawyer a platform to speak?
355 Days Later !
I'll drink to that...
Gusto
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 5, 2016 6:38:22 GMT -5
D Brnd wrote:
I don't want to hear any more from lawyers. I would like a forum to "bring any question" TO SLohA and actually get answers to all the matters that have been hidden from owners for years.
|
|
