2013 November Minutes

Would really love to know where you saw this agenda; I check the post office bulletin board just about every day and I didn't see it there; also, I noticed that the November 5th meeting minutes and the November manager's report disappeared almost A WEEK ago and it's still November! Hmmm, don't know why the masses cannot have that info available to them for the entire month--there certainly is enough room for it to stay there along with any other info for this month--besides, they are also posting this same info on the other side of the board used for people to post sales, rentals, club announcements and upcoming events, etc.

Interesting question so I went to look up the statute.  The statute refers only to a "committee".  I would submit that the descriptive word that is put in front of the word "committee" will reflect the intent and agenda of the sponsor--the Board.

In most instances, the governing documents would name the entity responsible for acting in such a capacity where there is the authority to levy fines and a fining schedule published.  However, SLohA documents give no authority to SLohA to fine anyone; so, there is no named entity charged with levying or approving money fines for covenants or rules violations.  If you recall, SLohA has voted against using fines as an enforcement tool on at least two ballots in the past.  Unfortunately, Florida legislated this consumer-hostile change in 2010.

So, SLohA will make up the name of the Committee to reflect its mission and methods.  It is not surprising that the BOD is referring to it as a "Fining Committee".  It's goal is to bully with money penalties and threats of liens and foreclosures rather than communicate and try to get compliance behavior.  Enlightened HOA's would probably call such a body an Arbitration Committee which describes a hearing of both sides of the issue, better understanding of both the rule and the rule-breaker, and a compromise on the issue.  The goals should be getting compliance to the rule and, in many cases, identify and rewrite/re-ballot a badly-written or outdated rule (like the one on carports).

As a historical note, FS 720 used to refer to such a body as a Fining Committee back when the statute gave the committee the power to levy fines.  That is no longer the case.  Only the BOD has the authority, by statute, to levy and fine.  The purpose of the committee is simply to provide the alleged violator with an opportunity to be heard and to either uphold or strike down the fine levied by the Board.

We can call it the Hate Committee.  Management calls it the Fining Committee.  BOD will call it whatever Management calls it.

Yes, it has been noted, for some time that these minutes and reports are on CHUG but I do not subscribe nor are we able to due to a technical problem, therefore, I depend upon what's posted up at the post office bulletin boards--this has always been a hub of communications exchanges, albeit I doubt, like you say, that people are lined up to read what's being posted there...

I think a  " Financial Oversight Committee" would be what's needed in SLR. There are too many little unimportant Committee's that really serve no useful purpose . To me (JMO) these so called committees are a scapegoat for relieving man/bod of their elected duties and accountabilities .

No wonder people hate lawyers!

From the Nov 2013 BOD Minutes which become part of SLohA Official Record:
THAT is the attorney's Summary?  I will have to forward that to my attorney.   Whatta whopper!

Reality Check:  The Mediation that I attended was called an impasse at around 10:15 am. The meeting convened at 9am. Introductions of attendees, the Mediator's comments and opening statements from each side took about 30 minutes. The actual "Mediation" was effectively over in 45 minutes. The Mediator didn't even have to work up a sweat going from room to room!

The Attorney might have "spent a good part of the day talking..."--but it wasn't to me or my attorney!

The Mediation was declared an impasse at around 10:15. I was billed the 2 hour minimum by my attorney.

Just want to make that everyone understands that all this good faith attempt to resolve issues was over in less than an hour.

well that's the most expensive lipstick in the universe for sure .

RE: your question on membership on CHUG versus membership on Forum---

When CHUG was transmitting the NewsHound in 2011-12, there were about a hundred or so email addresses from CHUG. Many of these addresses were non-owner. They were renters or previous owners. Apparently, it was OK for non-owners to have access to SLohA Official Records at that time. It is unknown what the current club policy is.

With regard to this Forum, membership is understandably low. The Forum is a venue for voicing concerns which are unlikely, in most cases, to be popular with MANBOD. So, owners reasonably read and post as a Guest.

In contrast, CHUG acts as a bulletin board for MANBOD concerns and for posting Minutes (at least the Minutes which MANBOD chooses to post). There is no discussion board--only a pre-moderated Current Events section which usually functions as a place for MANBOD's fans to rant against people who dare to voice any disagreement with anything that MANBOD does.

On this Forum, the Guest daily/hourly attendance is statistically maintained by the website and varies greatly from an average of 50 visits daily to well over 100. This can be 50 Guests or 40 guests with 10 of them visiting twice, which is what I think is the likely "baseline" behavior. Guests who post are more likely to "tune in" more frequently and raise the Guest Visit #.

My experience with the old Forum of Mik's was that validated members who were actually owners far exceeded the identified owners registered on CHUG. On that forum, Mik carefully required name/phone and stump # to validate that the owner--and only the owner--had access. There was no provision for the kind of Open Guest status that people enjoy on this forum.

Another thing that is NOT true is the BOD's reporting of regarding the mediations that went on "for a good part of the day..." when in all actuality they were over in about ONE HOUR.

Then, some anonymous board member said after that: "That the association should be able to move forward not only living with, but enforcement of the covenants and restrictions and considering any necessary amendment thereto."

I have a couple questions: Does this board want to just continue to pretend that the CC & R's have NOT expired? Especially when we all know they have already--on common areas and many, many lots.
And
What kinds of amendments could you possibly be talking about when you cannot amend something that is expired?