Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Feb 21, 2014 20:44:03 GMT -5
Just got back from checking out the bulletin board at the P.O. and there, on only a half sheet of paper, was a notice for a "Special Board Meeting," it did not say any other particulars--including what's going to be discussed, to be held February 25th, 2014 @ 9 a.m. at the new annex. |
|
|
|
Post by Thrifty One on Feb 21, 2014 21:11:38 GMT -5
Just got back from checking out the bulletin board at the P.O. and there, on only a half sheet of paper, was a notice for a "Special Board Meeting," it did not say any other particulars--including what's going to be discussed, to be held February 25th, 2014 @ 9 a.m. at the new annex. 1/2 a sheet of paper ? WELL ! Look at them trying to save us money ! |
|
jwa
New Member
Posts: 18 
|
Post by jwa on Feb 23, 2014 1:51:55 GMT -5
This was posted on SLR's Chug Site:
AGENDA
S-bag LAKE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Tuesday February 25, 2014
9:00 AM at Memorial H all
Call To Order
Roll Call
Approve Agenda
Approve Budget 
Adjourn
Question?What Budget Morons?.....
The Budget Ballot was ONLY A POLL!!! per your SLR Attorney's Letter to Residents...
|
|
|
|
Post by FJ on Feb 23, 2014 7:32:07 GMT -5
Seems like KL and the other bods don't like how the chips fell .
NO MEANS NO DUMMIES !
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 23, 2014 7:38:24 GMT -5
Seems like an obvious attempt to save face over the budget rat fiasco. Now, they'll try to sell owners that this was only a POLL per the attorneys who are now running SLohA business.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Feb 25, 2014 16:51:05 GMT -5
The short version communicated golfcart-to-golf cart--meeting lasted twenty minutes and the board voted 7/2 to place the Budget ONLY on a second ballot. The people who wanted to try again to ram the internet through a second time was S teve Sou th ard and Dbag. The others expressed that they did not think the budget had a chance of passing if the the internet was added to the proposed budget.
SS was particularly unruly and interruptive during the short meeting--he butted in twice on PB while P was speaking. He was finally told "you will have your chance" or something close to that. Wow, what have we come to when the BOD is rude to each other!
Someone--don't remember who--passed around a handout on Robber's Rules. I can't imagine what that has got to do with anything as it is not a legal document--it is a "How To" book on conducting meetings. I sure hope they are not making idiot fools of themselves again by trying use RR as some justification for another cockeyed idea.
(Why are these guys so fixated on RR's?)
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Feb 25, 2014 19:29:14 GMT -5
Someone--don't remember who--passed around a handout on Robber's Rules. I can't imagine what that has got to do with anything as it is not a legal document--it is a "How To" book on conducting meetings. I sure hope they are not making idiot fools of themselves again by trying use RR as some justification for another cockeyed idea. (Why are these guys so fixated on RR's?) Yes, indeed, why? And they probably don't even follow these "rules" themselves; today was a prime example: a board member is talking and another constantly interrupts him. That board member should have been told he was out of order and to sit down and wait for his turn to talk; but I guess PB handled it.
Looks like all this truthful talk on this forum is getting to those putas! How edgy are those two: dbag and our elusive treasurer to continue to want this internet knowing(?) just how unpopular (and illegal) it is.
Oh, and yes, my dear Bag Lady (genuflecting here to you,) they will continue to make fools of themselves and come up with more cockeyed ideas especially when this whole ballot fiasco with the budget and the internet is not yet over.
(P.S. Perhaps our dear Lady Administrator can post these Robber's Rules if they are not too lengthy?) Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Feb 25, 2014 19:56:07 GMT -5
RR's is a book! It can be found here Robber's Rules RR's provides common rules and procedures for deliberation and debate in order to place the whole membership on the same footing and speaking the same language. Robber's Rules provides for constructive and democratic meetings, to help, not hinder, the business of the assembly. It is a set of rules for conduct at meetings, aka "parlimentary procedure" that allows everyone to be heard and to make decisions without confusion. If the board did not want to follow RR's, it could adopt any set of rules it desired as long the rules "worked" for conducting a reasonable meeting and the business conducted at meeting was accomplished without chaos. BOD does not seem to understand the RR's has nothing whatsoever to do with SLohA or FL law. It is just a Guide to meeting conduct. It has no standing in the hierachy of laws. |
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Feb 25, 2014 21:43:59 GMT -5
Thank you Ms. Bag Lady for posting a link to those rules, and yes, they are only how to's for proper decorum during meetings, don't know what this board could possibly cook up using these rules as a recipe.
It seems after reading them that I found another point of RR's that they've violated; a part of Robber's Rules state that: "Under no circumstances should 'undue strictness' be allowed to intimidate members or limit full participation."
Getting: shouted at or shouted down, intimidated, treated condescendingly, bullied, physically harassed; and not allowed to speak, all these things have happened to members at meetings in SLR--most of it has happened just in the year, and it's all sanctioned by the board.
How utterly hypocritical and shameful!
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Feb 26, 2014 7:07:58 GMT -5
BOD gives Robber's Rules a Bad Name!
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Feb 26, 2014 11:36:01 GMT -5
I just listened to the audio of the meeting.
The stated purpose of the meeting was to announce that NEITHER of the budget proposals achieved sufficient numbers to ratify and, that the meeting was being held to discuss whether to resubmit to the membership a SINGLE ballot proposal with the internet or without the internet.
I can verify the report that SS was moderately unruly and interruptive during the discussion and attempted to validate his position (wanting to ratify the budget with internet) referencing Robber's Rules of Order; a handbook that should just be shredded so this Board is not distracted anymore by it. He also referenced the Bylaws.
BOD--Once again-- Robber's Rules is NOT A LAW of any kind and has NO standing in SLohA business. It is only a formalized language of meetings to help facilitate order, understanding and participation!
There are three problems here: one is that SS wants to ratify an unlawful result derived from an unlawful process and the second is that this Board just does not seem to understand the governing laws. The third is the fact that one of SLohA's own officers--the TREASURER--supports an unlawful action which has already been deemed unlawful by the SLohA attorney. This is very troubling.
This is what RR says about ratification which means--simply--approval:
As you can see, the ratification of any measure is SUBJECT TO the underlying authority to take the action under consideration. SS wants to ratify an illegal action i.e. pass the budget with internet with less than 51% of the entire membership. SS ARGUED with other directors about this and insisted RR's gave them the right to do that! Incredibly, he began adding up a complicated selections of Yesses and NO's on the two ballot proposals, as recounted, to justify his belief that the budget with internet should be considered ratified. Amazing! No one agreed. Several people stood up and supported attempted re-ratification of the budget WITHOUT the internet, believing that a budget with the internet assessment had no chance of passing.
BOD--One More Time--the ONLY thing that counts toward a passage is an AFFIRMATIVE (YES) vote! You need not even count the NO's or the absentions! They do not matter. They cannot alter an AFFIRMATIVE (YES) vote or affect the ballot outcome in any manner.
Moving on... SS started arguing that the requirement to ratify the Budget was not in our original Bylaw dated Nov 10, 1972 (but not recorded until August 1, 1983.) YAY! Ding Ding! SS got this one right! It was NOT in the original Bylaw; it was added Oct 30, 1976 (and not recorded until August 1, 1983.) Did SS check the Notification of Members, Certification of Mailing of Proposed Change of Bylaws, the BALLOT for text of the proposed bylaw amendment and Minutes of the Annual Meeting at which this item was adopted by 66% of the entire membership to validate? Perhaps this provision is like several of the other altered and "mysteriously dropped" provisions in the Bylaws and was never duly adopted! Perhaps Member ratification is NOT necessary after all! SS could undertake a process cH allenge and actually make a case for having the Board adopt whatever budget it wants instead of waving Robber's Rules around as if they mattered! If the ratification provision was successfully cH allenged, SS could get the attorney to fix the Bylaw or get the Rulebook committee to ratify the provision with the membership and correct the omission of the percentage to ratify. This is part of the job of the BOD--to protect our governing documents and by extension, protect SLohA and its members.
Another thing that bothers me about SS's objection is that he is a "johnny come lately" director and is an OFFICER and a TREASURER. He and DB were the only two directors voting against the motion to resubmit the budget (without internet) to the membership for ratification (in the next 30 days).
This BOD seems to require continuing education by an attorney--at great expense to owners. Can't they just read the Redbook and FS720 and save members constant legal costs for opinions?
|
|
Im Trying
Addict
" Chillin-Out " One Day At A Time !
Posts: 143
|
Post by Im Trying on Feb 26, 2014 12:04:35 GMT -5
SS was the BOD member who gave the hand out to the other members. It was his presentation to the BOD. Then DB did a short spin also on the hand-out.
Maybe this is the wrong place to post this DB statement made at the meeting. He said that more then likely we will need to have a Special Assessment in the Spring. The special assessment would be for the sewer lateral repairs needed on Beaverkill, Royal Coachman, Grey Hackle and a few repairs on the SL Trail. The first Bid from Tkr was for aprox. $190,000. The BOD only proposed aprox. $125,000 to the Water/Sewer Reserve Fund. Plus our Water/Sewer Reserve Fund total is only about $900,000 and the replacement cost estimate (which is dated) is 3.2 million dollars. Which I have been telling the BOD that this W/S Reserve Fund is way under Funded... A new sewer system cost today would be way more then 3.2 million dollars. But the trend in the past 3 yrs.is to spend more $$$ and to put less $$$ into our Reserve Funds. The BOD had advance notice that we had Sewer Lateral issues this past Summer/Fall. So as it stands now, we will have to take more money from our S/W Reserve Fund, to make up the difference. Which maybe cause for A Special Assessment for Sewer Repairs... "Great Planning Leaders".. I have been telling You for the past 5 months about this Sewer Issue, and KL response== "Stop Beating A Dead Horse" and it is "Not on The Agenda"... A Sorry Bunch !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 28, 2014 6:54:42 GMT -5
Question: "Why did this Special Board Meeting take only 19 minutes?" <Jeopardy Music> This is a pop quiz for alert and very bright readers who have been following, learning and paying attention... <Another verse of Jeopardy Music> I am not going to answer this... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 12, 2014 22:21:32 GMT -5
I was asked to post this correspondence to the Board about an error in the Minutes of this Special Board Meeting:
|
|
gusto
Addict
"A Friend of Bill W."
Posts: 117
|
Post by gusto on Mar 13, 2014 10:28:04 GMT -5
What about SS's & DB's discussion about Robber's Rules and that the Internet & Budget had already been passed. The Original 2 part Ballot (which was a Poll) the majority voted for the Resort wide Internet and KL had declared at the Annual Meeting as passed. SS's & DB's argument baste on Robber's Rules, is not included in the Official Minutes. It could be I was dreaming during a nap at the Meeting.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Mar 13, 2014 20:38:07 GMT -5
What I'd like to know is why did DB and SS vote NO on this $500/qtr. budget? SS, the treasurer, sure was driving hard to convince everyone that the budget "required" this increase of $25/qtr. And, after it seemed like all the bod's were well in favor of the $25/qtr. increase, these two voted NO. Why?
|
|
gusto
Addict
"A Friend of Bill W."
Posts: 117
|
Post by gusto on Mar 13, 2014 23:15:31 GMT -5
Monkey See, Monkey Does Not Always Do... Why? Big Ego!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tha Majority Whip on Mar 14, 2014 5:58:31 GMT -5
What I'd like to know is why did DB and SS vote NO on this $500/qtr. budget? SS, the treasurer, sure was driving hard to convince everyone that the budget "required" this increase of $25/qtr. And, after it seemed like all the bod's were well in favor of the $25/qtr. increase, these two voted NO. Why? They only reason is because the Majority is VOTING NO on this budget also. They want to be on the side of the Majority plain (not plane) and simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 14, 2014 6:02:34 GMT -5
DB and SS:
Pure Petulance!
"If I can't get my way, I'm not gonna play!"
Is THIS the kind of behavior that "is for the good of the community"? When are owners going to wake up and smell the SELF-INTEREST?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 14, 2014 6:14:13 GMT -5
Thanks to alert owner RT who caught this error in our Official Record Minutes and took the time to write the BOD for a correction. It would be great if more owners practiced this kind of responsible community involvement in SLohA business affairs.
Note below the correction: i.e. the identification of EACH Director's vote in the Special Board Meeting. Also note that TWO of our representatives voted AGAINST the budget which was prepared by the Board and previously ratified. There were NO changes to the budget from the initial ratification and this one. The only difference is that these two directors wanted the internet in the budget.
These two voted against ratification of an operating budget for SLohA because they wanted the internet! This was NOT a choice motion; this was a straight motion to ratify a budget proposal to submit to Members.
The reason statutes require full disclosure of votes by Directors is so that MEMBERS IDENTIFY who is representing their interests!
|
|
