|
Post by tinman on Nov 25, 2015 10:31:10 GMT -5
If our board meetings are "not member meetings" as Mr. Southerd says, my next question is this: How come we can't have regular "member meetings then?" It appears that that is exactly what we need--if us owners are not allowed to speak at these "board meetings," then, we should just have our own--and if the board members want to attend, they will be allowed in, but not be allowed to speak--since this would be a "member meeting." I think this is an excellent idea!
|
|
|
Post by tinman on Nov 25, 2015 10:36:31 GMT -5
An aside, according to my interpretation of his #720 the board cannot close the meeting then allow owner comments. They MUST allow comments while the meeting is open. This is different from condo law!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 25, 2015 10:40:22 GMT -5
Let me preface comments with a reminder that the Covenants/Rules are expired and thus, SLohA is not governed by the state Homeowner Association Act (FS720). We all are in the habit of thinking "FS720", "Covenants" and "Rules" but these are gone and no longer apply to life in SLR. Management likes to pretend that these controls exists in hopes that people will follow along, but they are well aware that they do not.
SLohA is only subject to corporate Bylaws and Articles and FS617, the corporate business statute. SLohA is a CORPORATE ENTITY ONLY--like Walmart or Home Depot. SLohA's product is: paying the bills and managing the corporate common property. SLohA is also subject to other higher laws of the land--county, state and federal.
Under Bylaws, SLohA is only obligated to allow ONE Member meeting per year; the one where election and ballot results are announced and formally adopted. This meeting is supposed to be turned over to Members after the adoption of ballot, but there has never, in my experience, been any concerted effort to involve members in "their" one, annual meeting. For their part, Owners have been typically apathetic about "their" meeting and have not sought a forum even when half-heartedly invited to speak at an Annual Meeting. Members have learned that their voices are impotent; the Board is not required to even attend the meeting except as a quorum to adopt the Ballot-they are then free to leave for the golf game/lunch etc. This keeps the meetings short as Stv Suthrd desires. The Board is not required to attend, listen, answer questions/concerns or document matters raised by members at "their one, annual meeting".
In a not-for-profit corporation such as SLohA, the only input into the system that owners are legally entitled to is to vote to elect directors, ratify proposed annual budget and vote on Bylaws and Articles changes. Additionally owners have the RIGHT to vote to acquire or dispose of corporate-owned assets--per Bylaws. In SLohA's case, election and financial bylaws are not followed so there is little confidence in due process.
Member rights are exercised by voting and results are adopted at Board Meetings. Participation in Board meetings is regulated by the State of Florida and is subject to the corporate statutes and administrative "Open Meeting" laws. However, even under these laws, Member participation is "advisory" only and their only rights are to be notified of meetings and attend. They also have a specific right to S u e the board if the board takes actions to diminish the value of corporate assets. They also have the right to send correspondence to the board and receive an answer.
In civilized, responsive and well-run HOA's, the Board provides forums for owners to speak freely (such as Workshops) and are benefited, and even humbled, by the breadth and depth of experience and expertise offered by a divergent group. In SLohA, 9 people--most of whom were appointed by clones of themselves--control the business and either promote or discourage participation and transparency. In SLohA, the Management Company and its attorneys advise the Board and it ignores and shuts out the Owners who pick up the tab.
The only way to alter the outcome of board actions--long term-- is to recall directors and replace them with people who more suitably represent the interests of owners.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 25, 2015 11:23:09 GMT -5
tinman; Can you please reference FS720 where you interpreted the obligation of Board to allow owner comments during business meeting (as opposed to after adjournment or not at all)? Of course, this point is currently "moot" since SLohA is not governed by FS720, but I am curious how you interpreted this. Thanks, looking forward to your point of view!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 25, 2015 15:39:03 GMT -5
Anonymous Environmentalist posted:
Love this idea.
This has been done in the recent past and was a smashing success! An owner-organized meeting was held in Jan 2014 to discuss MRTA, Covenants Expiration and the lawsuits against SLohA. Over 400 people attended this Q & A which was hosted by the attorney representing the Owners' lawsuits. This was not a recognized business meeting, however. It was an owner activity which happened to be a focused and informational forum within a communication vaccuum created by a secretive board. The Board members attended (as owners) but when the President wanted floor time, this was declined. The rationale: Board members knew about MRTA and Covenants expiration since Dec 2012 and had exclusive audience with a host of attorneys to advise and answer their concerns. THIS was a meeting for the owners who had no such opportunity and were being systematically excluded from getting accurate information from their representatives. Being denied the floor to speak, the Board and its groupies immediately exited the meeting.
The second owner-generated meeting occurred late summer where an alternative internet provider was invited to speak to owners about internet service alternatives to KCNet. Again, certain board members attended and some startling revelations were made.
Both meetings are posted on this forum.
A member made a suggestion at KK to start an Owner's Forum group to discuss concerns in SLR and the BOD President thought this was a good idea. That member was subsequently harassed so badly that the idea was abandoned.
Would anyone like to pick up this fine idea and start an Owner Participation Group as a regular meeting event in S-bag? Just see Shn and reserve a weekly time slot in the schedule, announce at KK and in the S-bag Express. I would like to see such a meeting held weekly with a Moderator/Facilitator and a panel of knowlegable commentators representing owners and directors, like the Sunday morning political talking heads on Meet the Press. Have a moderator ask position questions submitted by the audience and then open the Mik to audience to address the panelists. Sounds like fun!
|
|
Secondhandmillionaire
Guest
|
Post by Secondhandmillionaire on Nov 26, 2015 8:11:17 GMT -5
I have a question? To whom this may concern... I would like to know, after listening to this corruption of the owners' assets, why do we have a board? Is it because no one else wants to do the job? Or is it valuable to have a leadership in a community such as one like ours? From what I hear and see, we have a management company that is not out for the community's best interest-- and the board only has the interest of themselves. With over 700 residents in this park, why is it a few board members can ruin a community because they are old, mean and greedy? What happened with the ladies at Silversides should have never happened if we had a management co that was on the up and up. I think it's time for all S-bag residents to rally against the board and start a new society of younger, more giving than people in the past. It is old people that are running this park now. They should not be able to S u e another resident just because they can. That's just stupid and I for one do not believe that this is acceptable.
They already put towers on are community common grounds and shifted the liability to the owners. Some of the business practice that they are doing are for their personal gain at owners' expense. Some of us forget about things because it's easier to not to care than to care. In other words, take the easy way out. As far as people talking and asking questions at the meeting, there is nothing wrong with that if that's what the majority wants--then they sH all have it!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2015 9:04:37 GMT -5
Why not run for a board position? Get a petition from the office. I will support your candidacy.
|
|
|
Post by secondhandmillionair on Nov 27, 2015 9:36:21 GMT -5
I think there is a need for a resident meeting I think homeowner and tenants should attend. This is necessary for the survival of S-bag . We need to pull to gather as one unit and discuss where do we go from here with the increase that will take place in the near future..We need to save money and go back to basic operation as it once was if you live here you help ..I realize that not everyone will help but hopefully we will have enough to keep place up and running..Right now money is leaving S-bag account and going for unimportant things.By relection of assets I believe we can make this happen .I believe if the owners took back control we could achieve this."Ask not what S-bag can do for you but what can you due for S-bag". That quote came from Jhn Kennedy We have older people in here that can not afford the increase and will parish. We need to take back are community United we stand divided we fall! Just need to say something.
|
|
|
Post by secondhandmillionair on Nov 27, 2015 10:06:20 GMT -5
Well thank you for your support but I am not interest in someone else agenda. I think we need to throw it all out and start new.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 27, 2015 11:10:00 GMT -5
Well thank you for your support but I am not interest in someone else agenda. I think we need to throw it all out and start new. You're welcome. I understand how you feel and wish a magic wand could make all this chaos and unhappiness just go away. But, you and I know that is not possible. One does not have to be interested in an existing agenda but unfortunately, one must deal with the reality of what it is and why it is here. The current agenda exists because either "that is how the people want to be treated" or "people have passively adopted a policy course of action through ignorance and/or apathy". In either scenario, the agenda will not be easily uncovered or quickly changed overnight. It would be refreshing to see "new blood" on the board with the courage and integrity to question the agenda and discover the underlying foundations of such policy directions. With sequential appointments of vacating board members and shutdown of communications, there is rarely opportunity to question status quo. Egos and "moves" become bigger and bolder. I fear this will eventually be discovered but it will probably be through protracted and expensive legal inquiries if owners fail to take back their community from the incestuous insider group, Management company and Management company's attorneys. Oh and by the way, for anyone who is interested...the Bylaws do not give the Board the authority to make a special assessment for "attorney's fees". Special assessments can only be for repair/replacement of capital property, to wit: Apparently, the Treasurer has not yet read SLohA Bylaws. The Board should come up with realistic funding levels for Legal Fees (that IT causes) and eliminate the "fluff" categories that have no legitimate rationale for funding.
|
|
|
Post by tinman on Nov 27, 2015 14:13:48 GMT -5
Admin, fs720-603 board meetings paragraph 2 for a start. Yes I believe this is moot but interesting. There is another site that I have not yet found again! Found it by searching differences between condo and his rules. Hope this helps and I'll look for it when time allows. "ANY RULE WRITTEN OR NOT WILL NOT SHUT ME UP AT BOD MEETINGS IF I FEEL MANBOD IS WRONG!!!"
|
|
|
Post by tinman on Nov 27, 2015 14:15:13 GMT -5
HOA- damn spell check
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 27, 2015 18:50:35 GMT -5
Admin, fs720-603 board meetings paragraph 2 for a start. Yes I believe this is moot but interesting. There is another site that I have not yet found again! Found it by searching differences between condo and his rules. Hope this helps and I'll look for it when time allows. "ANY RULE WRITTEN OR NOT WILL NOT SHUT ME UP AT BOD MEETINGS IF I FEEL MANBOD IS WRONG!!!" FS720.303(2)(b) Members have the right to attend all meetings of the board. The right to attend such meetings includes the right to speak at such meetings with reference to all designated items. I totally agree that the intent of this statute is to permit owners to speak at/during meetings. The vagueness in the language is "right to speak at such meetings with reference to all designated items" in that the language does not specifically state that the speaking must occur during the meeting but only the right to speak "at the meeting" which, in reality, SLohA is following by inviting owner comments "at the meeting"--after they adjourn. Word salad--a favorite ploy of lawyers esp SLohA lawyers. The "designated items" is undefined. Agendas are not required and can be changed at the start of the meeting, thus potentially changing the "items" which members would be permitted (or prepared) to speak to. It has been stated by attorneys that "designated items" must be construed broadly and that anything discussed during the meeting IS a "designated item". The other problem is the same one that faces all HOA's who are not subject to oversight, regulation, inquiry, investigation, hearings, mediation, fine & penalties by the state of Florida--as are condos. Condos pay $4 per parcel to a fund that is used to receive and resolve complaints by owners who are abused by their boards. Who is gonna make the board obey the law? Not Florida. HOA's laws are way behind condos! And, history has shown that owners, whose only recourse it to take 'em to court, will not S u e boards. So, boards become rogue and do what they like and owners eventually give up. That's what the lawyers tell them. I am more offended by the bald-faced lies of a board who say they will close off the official record of the meeting before hearing members speak and then blames it on Robber's Rules (of Parlimentary procedure). In fact, there is NO advice that supercedes or competes with statutory law in RR--RR is a procedural guide to suggest and assist the flow of business conversation and clarify the order and conduct of business speech. RR provides for democratic meetings and does not speak to "adjourning meetings before members speak". That was a lie told by the board to intimidate members. In terms of members speaking, RR suggests "recommended way to address the chair" or "depersonalize when you address i.e. don't use someone's name" and "wait to be recognized before speaking". In fact, the board was guilty at the last meeting of personalizing comments (using my name), allowing all manner of eruptive, disorderly behavior from an angry audience and not properly instructing members on basic meeting conversation. The people of SLR have learned VERY BAD HABITS from the board and this will not fix itself. I am gratified that you looked this up and appreciate your enthusiasm to defend your rights as a member!
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Nov 30, 2015 12:17:43 GMT -5
Posted on Chug November 18th:
Board Meeting Summary (Last Paragraph) (quote) This same day summary is not the official minutes of the SLohA Board of Directors meeting. It serves only as a brief and timely notice to owners of action taken. Official minutes will be released at a later date.
Question, how much later please?
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Dec 1, 2015 0:05:50 GMT -5
Posted on Chug Dec.1,2015:
Board_Minutes Date: 11/30/2015 Seq: 1
S-bag Lake Owners Association, Inc.
Board Meeting Minutes, November 18, 2015
9:00 A.M., SLR Clubhouse
DRAFT -- Pending approval, SLohA Board of Directors
Directors present -- Rgr Blingz, Tummy Blkbrn, Clf Jnsn, leery listerine, Bar bra murksberry, Stv Suthrd and Jade Rite were in the clubhouse. Chrls Schlz and Frns Sm all were present via conference call. A quorum was established.
Also present were Chap Click, SLR Manager, and Toneesha Shrodr, Stmbug Ixx, Inc.
The meeting was called to order at 9:00am by President Clf Jnsn. Bar bra murksberry gave the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Minutes from the October 21, 2015, Board of Directors meeting were approved. The agenda was approved.
Chap Click gave his manager's report. It will be incorporated into the official minutes, posted on official bulletin boards in the resort and available to owners upon request at the office. Based on the manager's report, the following action was authorized by the Board of Directors.
· cupstain Construction was selected as the contractor to repair the north wall of the Recreation Room. Depending on the extent of damage and repairs, the cost will be a minimum of $2,500.00 not to exceed $10,725.00. cupstain's proposal was the lowest of three bids submitted. The motion to accept the bid from cupstain Construction was made by leery listerine, seconded by Stv Suthrd, and it passed unanimously.
· The clubhouse lift station pump #2 has failed and Stwd Elctc's proposal is accepted for replacement at a cost of $4,517.00. Stwd's bid is the lowest of three proposals. Bar bra murksberry made the motion to accept the Stwd Elctc proposal, Stv Suthrd seconded and it passed unanimously.
· Fox Hollow landscaping contract was terminated due to inconsistent service during the summer. Tummy Blkbrn made the motion to terminate Fox Hollow, seconded by leery listerine, and it passed unanimously.
The board discussed an estimate from D&D QuakKirb to recoat the garden curbing in three common areas; the office and memorial garden, clubhouse area, including post office and annex, and bath house. The proposed cost is $3,617.00. The board tabled a decision so other alternatives for curb coating can be researched.
In his report, President Clf Jnsn complimented the board of directors on their willingness to serve. He said that no one, two or three directors make decisions but decide as a group and work together with one voice.
Vice President Jade Rite thanked board members and the SLR community for their support following her resignation as President due to a family health crisis. She encouraged everyone to work together on the upcoming revitalization initiative.
Tummy Blkbrn, Secretary, read correspondence addressed to the Board of Directors.
1)
· Gerald Sln, 50 Queen of Waters, objected to the procedure allowing no audience participation during the board meetings.
Tummy Blkbrn suggested the board review its policy regarding owner questions and comments during the meeting. A discussion followed among board members and Toneesha Shrodr offered to provide information to directors about owner participation during board meetings.
Stv Suthrd, Treasurer, presented the financial reports for September. The documents will be available to owners on the CHUG website or at the SLR office.
Stv Suthrd made a motion to recommend approval of the budget for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017, with total operating expenses of $1,190,147, SBA loan payment of $22,409, and reserve contributions of $468,993 for a total of $1,681,549. The budget will require total quarterly payments of $525.00 per lot with $457.00 for budget assessment, $8.00 for SBA loan, and $60.00 for water assessment. Rgr Blingz seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with a roll call vote of all directors.
Stv Suthrd reminded owners of the Budget Forum and Town H all Meeting on Wednesday, December 9, at 9:00am in the SLR clubhouse.
leery listerine gave a brief report on the Owner Forum, Thursday, November 12, 2015, about the proposed new SLohA website. An estimated forty people attended with an opportunity for questions directed to Dan Barlow, account executive, TOPS Condo/HOA Management Solutions, via web connection.
leery listerine made a motion to contract with TOPS Condo/HOA Management Solutions for a new website. The cost is $59.95 per month with a $150.00 setup fee. There is an additional $70 charge for the purchase of a domain name for two years. Tummy Blkbrn seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with a roll call vote of all directors.
leery listerine suggested another owner forum and workshop after the website is operating to help people with the new format.
Chrls Schlz reported that the Organizational Committee is working on plans to revitalize the SLohA governing documents in 2016. More information will soon be provided to owners.
In old business:
A new VOIP telephone system for the SLR office was approved following a recommendation presented by Grdn Hrthrn and the board's Technology Committee. Tummy Blkbrn made a motion to authorize the VOIP phone system not to exceed $800.00 initial cost to purchase equipment with $60.00 total monthly cost for four lines that includes all long distance calling. The motion was seconded by Bar bra murksberry and approved unanimously.
Clf Jnsn initiated a discussion of lighting in the clubhouse parking lot. leery listerine made a motion to place an additional overhead light near the north walkway next to the post office. Jade Rite and Frns Sm all seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The SLR Women's Club is funding this project.
2)
In new business:
Clf Jnsn reminded owners that candidates are needed for three directors for the SLohA board. Rgr Blingz reported on a meeting that he attended with representatives of the Shuffleboard Club, Toneesha Shrodr and Jade Rite to discuss the condition of the courts. Current budget issues prevent an immediate renovation of the facility. leery listerine said the shuffleboard courts are a high priority for the board when funds are available.
Clf Jnsn wanted to follow up on an owner request for an additional resort wide yard sale and asked board members if it was needed. It was the consensus of the board that two events, the Granny's Attic sale sponsored by the SLR Women's Club and one annual yard sale, were sufficient.
Clf Jnsn asked if board action in the form of a standing operation procedure was necessary for an owner request to prohibit people broadcasting music at the pool on personal speakers rather than listening with ear buds. After board discussion, no action was taken.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Tummy Blkbrn, Secretary
Owner questions/comments following the meeting.
Alc Nttr, 80 S-bag Trail -- question about status of lagoon fountain repairs.
Jm Harpold, 40 Royal Coachman -- question to clarify the date of the next budget year.
Mark Robinson, 63 S-bag Trail -- question about lighting in the parking lot and whether additional lights were required by the insurance company.
Dick Clerk, 89 Beaverkill -- suggestion that an article referenced by Stv Suthrd about limiting owner comments during a board meeting be posted on the CHUG website. Also, asked that budget documents be posted on the website in addition to copies available at the SLR office.
Mik Fos ter, 79 Silversides -- asked for more involvement by owners in board meetings and commented on wheelchair accessibility in resort facilities.
Hrld Hglnd, 27 S-bag Trail -- comment that the board workshops use to allow for more input from owners. Hrld asked that the board elaborate more on the details of bids during the meeting. Questions on the cost of fountain repairs, paying assessments monthly, stump removal on the SLR right of way adjacent to his property and extending barriers for golf carts in the gazebo area on S-bag Trail.
Mrl Kpp, 17 Grey Fox -- suggested the board hire a contractor for maintenance on landscaping curbing provided by the Garden Club rather than resort employees.
Jm FoolDay, 87 Royal Coachman -- question regarding cost of past litigation against SLohA.
leery Allison, 10 Royal Coachman -- question if repairs on recreation room north wall would interfere with common wall of storage area for shuffleboard club. Also, he addressed current or future repairs of the shuffleboard courts.
3)
Jm Ath, 16 Royal Coachman -- criticism of board of directors for past litigation. Comment on a lease agreement with internet provider.
Teary Roof, 13 Gngr Quill -- comments on new website software and that owner input during a board meeting might be unreasonable for all issues.
Dyeann Fos ter, 77 Silversides -- question on how management determined when trees were removed in the resort. Comment that heckling of a previous speaker is hurtful.
Roy Pawlowski, 38 Queen of Waters -- suggested white striping on the middle of all roads to separate the lanes.
D Brnd, 93 S-bag Trail -- cH allenged a statement made by another speaker during the owner comments following the board meeting
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 1, 2015 8:36:12 GMT -5
Excellent Minutes. With one exception:
This was not a cH allenge.
CH allenge: an objection or query as to the truth of something, often with an implicit demand for proof.
This was merely a childish display of temper. D-bag--you called the speaker a liar...Period.
A cH allenge would be something that a mature adult might do. You offered NO reason for your abrupt exit from the board on the eve of your important Land Modification Use appeal hearing. You left your fellow board members in a bad lurch at the last minute to sponsor YOUR and Bb stab's application. You shirked your duties and YOU caused SLohA owners unnecessary legal fees for a last minute 1-hour phone conference, intensive review so the lawyers could get up to speed doing YOUR job at the last minute and then attend and speak for you at the hearing. Cost: at least $2,000.00 and in my opinion, YOU should reimburse SLohA for that expense! You have offered no apology or reason for your irresponsible behavior at the time or since then. YOU deserve whatever flak comes your way. It's all about YOU.
While I laughed at you along with everyone else, I also thought that you would be a good Poster Boy in the Memorial H all of Shame for the worst board director in the history of S-bag.
|
|
Annonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Annonymous Environmentalist on Dec 1, 2015 12:32:47 GMT -5
Speaking to the minutes posted from the 11/30/2015 meeting--(NOT the 11/18/15 mtg.) I have this to say: I cannot believe the audacity of this former board member to solicit (even) more money from SLR clubs for something that is so unnecessary and extraneous that it is laughable.
Surely the tech committee can come up with better ways to serve this community--like why aren't they trying to obtain the technology for electronic voting? I, for one, will feel a lot better when the paper ballots are abandoned along with all their "flaws" e.g. their obvious corruptibility.
|
|
Annonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Annonymous Environmentalist on Dec 1, 2015 12:48:52 GMT -5
I can already envision it: The new electronic Marquis is up and scrolling; of course, there will be people who want to stop in the middle of the road to read it, some may slam on the brakes just to read it--this is not just AN accident waiting to happen--it's SEVERAL. This sign is just NOT a good idea.
|
|