2018 Annual Member Meeting

The election results>>> the covenant amendment reportedly passed and the new directors elected are Blkbrn, Gates and Graff

13548798sloa_election_results_and_annual_me....pdf (39.98 KB)

Because the result was within 3 votes to pass the amendment ie 583/775 and the board announced previously that it would "vote" on the 3 common properties, the result will have to be validated by an audit of the record.  It is also unknown how many properties were ineligible to vote due to delinquency and whether the 3 common properties were or were not included in the 775 voting properties.  I will do a record inspection in April.  If the board has voted this amendment in with the 3 common properties, the passage of the amendment will be formally cH allenged. This is a worst case outcome because the passage may be tied to affirmative votes that the board did not have the power to make.  I hope that this is not the case, but if it is, this action must not go unanswered.

Also, there is no report on the "mutilated" votes ie how many votes that were not counted and why.  In past years, there have been many, many "mutilated" ballots not counted but never an explanation as to the nature of the purported "mutilation".  It is a stretch to think that THIS year there were no mutilations.  But, it is possible that perhaps the board discontinued the practice of discarding inscrutable "mutilated" ballots.

Special Meeting tomorrow.  Ballot recount.

146special_meeting_agenda-SPECIALMEETING FEB22.pdf (45.95 KB)

Per FS720, the ONLY meeting that is lawfully closed to Members is a Special Meeting at which an association attorney is present AND which meeting discusses pending or proposed litigation OR discussion related to employees of the association. 

The agenda indicates that none of these conditions are met for this meeting, therefore, it is "open" to Members.

Due to the need to safeguard the integrity of the election materials, the board may monitor the entrance to the H all and partition the committee participants attending to the ballot recount.  By doing so, it can ensure that non-committee members can be present with a physical separation of some kind, like the St age rope or some such "barrier" and protect the election materials.

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?

No one will ever know that either.....

Sorry to hear about the loss of your Brother, may he be at peace.

I personally feel given the circumstances that you should be allowed to still cast your ballot and have it counted. Acceptions to the "rules" is not an uncommon thing in SLR.

135150397results_of_recount_for_the_2018_sa....pdf (33.92 KB)

This is the unattributed and unsigned statement of the ballot recount, which resulted in a 1 vote miscount.

Perhaps the board will provide minutes of the Special Meeting and the Annual Member Meeting for the official record.

For those who are scratching their heads, my previous conversations with T Roof about the ballot did not question the accuracy of the ballot count and T Roof did not share the recount plan with me.   It is unknown why the board decided to do a recount.  The problem I have with the ballot is substantial and there are multiple flaws in the presentation of the ballot to Members. 

The most severe flaw is the ballot repeated a deficiency that was identified on the initial revitalization ballot which was the collection of all three units under a single vote.  As the Gargleknees lawyers learned after nearly 12 hours of mediation, S-bag lots are not aggregated and controlled by a single unit-- but are THREE discrete units (Units I, II and III).  Thus, the amendment did not bind each unit individually or collectively, since there is no way to determine which unit owners passed the ballot and which did not.  It was a faulty, invalid ballot-- in the same vein as the illegal "dual ballot" SLohA presented on the mandatory internet fee and which had to be redone in 2014.

Management-SLohA lawyers apparently forgot that only a Master Association can control property restrictions in its sub associations--and SLohA has no Master Association.  Absent a Master HOA, EACH Unit must vote and pass-or fail to pass--a property restriction.   IMO, this ballot is null and void as regards all parcels that may be subject to Covenants.

The situation is further complicated by the Board's stunt of casting 3 votes on common properties, which is not authorized in the governing documents.  This unauthorized vote using Members' common property resulted in a tiny .35% margin of passage of the amendment.  Because the margin was so narrow and the extra 3 common parcels were all in the same unit, it is probable that at least one of the other units did not pass the ballot.  But it is impossible to know which unit(s) passed or failed the amendment because the votes were not cast within their Unit.

This issue may eventually ripen into another expensive legal cH allenge at such time as SLohA attempts to pass an amendment such as one attempted a few years ago.  You might recall that the Board attempted to usurp for itself the covenant prohibiting commercial business in SLR, presumably to host KCNetwork and perhaps other private ventures.  You might also recall the Board's attempt to gain "lien and foreclosure" authority by proposing a stealth run-on sentence blended with another unrelated covenant on that same ballot. 

Nothing that I say or do will change the direction of the Board.  I have no illusions; there are forces of self-interest at work in the Bag that do not serve the owners' interests and the only one controlling deep pockets is the Board.  Management company and its lawyers will advise the board to ignore owners as history has demonstrated they will not S u e.  And that is probably true.  It is more likely that a future owner will S u e.  Thank goodness the Board has fine attorney$ willing to defend SLohA!

Business as usual in the Bag!  SAD!