|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 17, 2017 21:22:53 GMT -5
Per the July President Message, there will be no business meeting in July. Apparently, SLohA business magically stops during the season despite the fact that big money is spent on projects as reported by Chap, including rehabbing water tanks and roof leaks so far halfway through July.
July marks the SEVENTH MONTH that The Board has failed to authorize the faux contract between leery listerine and Virginia stab.
To remind everyone, a Motion to Proceed on the proposed contract was passed in October 2016. The contract was signed in December of 2016. The contract, to be a lawful SLohA contract, must be voted on by the Board. It has not done so. The contract is unratified and technically, only obligates leery listerine and Virginia stab. (This might be advantageous to SLohA in the future.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 17, 2017 21:57:18 GMT -5
Manager's report at KK. Attachment DeletedNo meeting, no minutes and no Manager's report to board during July. |
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Jul 17, 2017 23:35:09 GMT -5
Regarding the contract between SLohA and KCNET, I don't know Florida law but I can draw from my own work experience regarding contracts between corporate entities. First, with respect to contracts between local governments and vendors, the standard procedure is to attach the contract to a formal resolution so that the public can see the details of what is being agreed to. Also, if the contract extends to multi years or is for a large sum of money, the approving resolution must bear the results of the vote BY ROLL CALL (i.e., how each member of the governing body voted on the resolution). With respect to contracts between two corporations - such as a loan from a bank to a company - standard procedure is for the borrower's Board of Directors to approve a resolution authorizing the CEO to execute the promissory note and collateral encumbrances on behalf of the corporation. This assures the lender that the CEO has the legal authority to undertake this financial obligation.
Given the nature of SLohA's Board of Directors vote on the contract with KCNET, it appears to me that the contract would not survive a legal cH allenge - particularly when there is no meaningful compensation given to SLohA for the use of the towers by KCNET .
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 18, 2017 10:57:12 GMT -5
jimherbst posted:
"Given the nature" describes the backstory here of undisclosed conflict of interest, self-serving, fraudulent dealings, unauthorized use of common property and misuse of funds.
There was never a contract agreed to be ratified by the Board; there was only a motion to continue the proposed agreement then under consideration (Oct 2016). Two months later, the "contract" was signed by leery listerine and the proxy for Bb stab, Virginia (Dec 2016).
SLohA then PAID over a $1000 to KCNET for service. SLohA continues to pay the ancillary costs of stab's equipment on the property plus his taxes, per the terms of the "contract". SLohA Members continue to pay this and into a Reserve for the repair and replacement of towers on our common property, for the sole benefit of KCNet and its investors.
It should be remembered that this service is not a common amenity; it is simply a private, for-profit enterprise that has been sited on common property without the approval of the Members, as provided for in law. Private subscribers inside S-bag and mostly outside S-bag pay KCNET fees for service. SLohA receives no compensation for housing, insurance costs and assuming liability for KCNET tower equipment.
It should be remembered that this was shoved down Members' throats by Bb stab (a felon convicted of bank fraud) and D Brnd (who, without explanation, resigned from the board on the eve of the PUD appeal hearing) via a PUD change spearheaded by stab/Brnd, in collusion with the board, in mid-2016. This followed a series of repeated failures to shove it down Member's throats (quasi quote by Kn Lws) by forcing a new (unwanted) amenity and attempting to trick and confuse Members into ratifying it into a budget. This investment scheme dates back to 2010 (at least) at which time the only internet provider in Lake Wales suddenly shut down their business. There are lingering questions about the circumstance of that...
The contract itself was amateurishly-constructed and was not disclosed "as prepared by" anyone or an attorney. The contract was not adopted as valid by a majority of the board, as required and the $1000+ payment to KCNET was improper, to say the least.
"Given the nature" of all the fraudulent events of the previous 6 years of acts leading up to this mess, I would agree that this transaction would not survive a legal cH allenge. If all the facts were known, it would probably make headlines and end with a few convictions.
|
|
