|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 13, 2019 16:07:38 GMT -5
Here is an example with Provision 14/15. RED is stricken words, GREEN is ADDED and NEW
Existing #15 The initial Rules and Regulations are captioned “Rules and Regulations” and are as set forth in the By-Laws of the Association. The said Rules and Regulations sH all be deemed effective until amended, as provided by the By-Laws.
Words 39
Existing 14 has been completely stricken.
No person sH all use any property or facilities owned by the Association or the Developer, or any part thereof, or a lot or any part thereof, in any manner contrary to or not in accordance with such rules and regulations pertaining thereto, as from time to time may be promulgated by the Association.
BOD Added New 14. The Rules and Regulations are captioned “Rules and Regulations” and are set forth in the By-laws of the Association. The Association sH all have the authority to promulgate regulations which govern the use of any lot or common property or facility within S-bag Lake. The said Rules and Regulations sH all be deemed effective until amended, as provided by the Bylaws.
64 words
Discussion: This is a restated section and, was almost done correctly. Restatements cannot change any process or substantive provision unless that provision is superceded by law. That is not the case here. There is no statutory change in the law that superceded S-bag’s existing provision about Rules & Regulations and therefore, no justification for “restating” the original language. S-bag has usurped the authority of the owners to vote for changes in their Covenants—ANY and ALL changes—of a substantive or material nature by adding the sentence which is highlighted in GREEN.
It is obvious to me that the Board has done this purposely and with the intent to establish their authority to “enforce” Rules & Regulations on private property as well as common property. BOD has effectively removed any discussion or conversation with the owners and unilaterally changed the Covenants to suit some agenda that is the Board’s. This new provision of the Covenants was not presented on a ballot for each Unit to vote on. It is an important change which affects owners' quality of life in the future and will change the original authority of the covenants to ENFORCE rules and regulations, something the board has always wanted to do. It is something that the owners have been asked to change on two occasions in the past on a ballot, and have refused to do. Owners have refused to give the board the power to punish for failure to obey rules. AND FOR GOOD REASON: Look at the costs incurred in past lawsuits when the board had NO authority but tried to enforce anyway! I will remind you. About $150K on two lawsuits. Both LOST by S-bag.
Not only that, but this “restated” provision has been recorded as a new restriction on each owner’s parcel in S-bag on Dec 26, 2018.
Additionally, it was misrepresented as a simple “restatement” to the owners. Simply defined, a restatement is an update such as removing the word "Developer" from all references since the developer is long gone! In fact, this does contain some updates but a Word comparison of the original and restatement revealed that there was more going on. You can see that the above word counts simply demonstrate that substantial change was made. Indeed, it is a new document created by the BOD and the Management Company lawyers to pull a fast one on owners. This is a change to the Covenants which, in fact, opens the door to unwanted changes in the community such as fining authority. At this time, the way the statute reads, this additional provision added by the Board, without a vote of the owners, may enable a fining authority that was not in the original document--an authority which owners have DEFEATED on two separate ballots in the past.
Just as a PS here, I emailed leery listerine about the many shortcomings of this document in terms of a simple restatement BEFORE examining it and, even though he is aware that I am a detailed researcher and browse the public records occasionally, he failed to mention that the document was going to be recorded without presenting to the membership. I asked him OUTRIGHT, in writing, if there were any changes other than simple restatement. leery's reply: he accused me of wanting an "email debate". I feel that I was lied to by omission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Laugha on Jan 13, 2019 17:07:54 GMT -5
Pretty soon Saddlebagger's will be getting fines for "not fetching recycle bin" or "improper dress code" "we just want to be like the Nazi's" and the fines will be voted up up UP by the Board of Dictators.
Hurry Saddlebagger's, give up all your rights then you only have your homes and money left to lose!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 13, 2019 17:49:36 GMT -5
The Board informed owners in the Minutes of Nov 21, 2018 that the revisions to the Covenants and the proposed amendments would be readied for the ballot for voting on by members:
leery listerine provided an update on the progress of updating the SLohA governing documents. The Board has received a restatement of the existing covenants prepared by the legal firm of GaGaKnees, Weiss, D’Agresta & Salzman. He also explained that a group of three directors (Dave Dunk Key, leery listerine and T Roof) would be working on the restatement and the proposed revisions from Governing Documents Committee in the hope of getting revisions to the covenants on the ballot for the 2019 elections.
They did not propose the "restated and amended" covenants and proposed revisions to the membership. They went ahead and recorded it without presentation to the owners on Dec 26, 2018
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2019 13:02:37 GMT -5
Realize that the Covenant is the SuPERIOR document of S-bag corporation and it cannot be changed, except by a vote of the entire membership (2/3).
Amazingly, your board and management company directed its attorneys to record a "restated and amended" Declaration of Covenants on Dec 26, 2018--bypassing the mandatory member meeting, ballot and vote.
Additionally, the Declaration was not recorded correctly:
1-No letter of certification from the BOD that the document was adopted by a vote of the membership on a stated date in accordance with the voting requirements of the document. This letter is a separate document certifying that it was duly enacted by a meeting
2-No witness to leery listerine and T Roof's signatures. Also, the signatures are cursive and the name of the signors is not printed on a separate line.
3-No Notary Acknowledgment to leery listerine's signature. 4- No dates next to either signature
5- No Corporate Seal
Here is the recorded Declaration where the Board has, without member vote or knowledge, consolidated the 3 independent plats of the units in S-bag, among other things.
Here is the recorded FALSIFIED Declaration >>>> restatementrecorded.pdf (231.49 KB) To download this, you have to sign in as a member of the forum OR just use the USERNAME: Saddlebagger and PASSWORD: bagless |
|
|
|
Post by SnowDawg on Jan 23, 2019 14:33:05 GMT -5
It seems obvious that leery listerine and t Roof are not aware (or ignore) of the laws of the US. Recording this false instrument is a felony in the US. But, the attorneys should know that and also the management company. So do most of the owners who have read their documents.
It reminds me of the contract which leery entered into with virginia stab which he drew up without the advice of the attorneys. This contract was never ratified by the BOD but allows Kay c Ntwerk to do commercial, private business in S-bag AND OUTSIDE of S-bag. The owners have to pay many costs including internet and contribute money to the tower maintenance. Everyone knows that this is prohibited by the covenants ie NO commercial business in the community. Hot dogs sales don't count.
Example: if the majority of the snowbirds decided that they did not want to pay for water, sewer and trash/garbage when they were absent from the park, then under the proposed question to "assessments" and with this covenant restatement, they could just vote to have the permanent residents subsidize the cost. The board could assess selected residents extra, without a vote or input from anyone.
Am I getting this hypothetical situation right? Are we being asked to give all the power and give all our proxy votes to the Board without any say in anything? Are we being asked to have faith and trust in a board that has recorded a false declaration and entered into a contract that is not even allowed in the covenants?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2019 15:53:50 GMT -5
SnowDawg I hear ya and I think you have the gist of it.
As far as I am concerned, the board has gone too far--again! This falsified recording puts a cloud on my title. And every single title in S-bag.
And the board knows what happened the last time they clouded my title!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 23:57:57 GMT -5
The whole package we are being asked to vote on is now appearing to be one muddled mess. Too many what ifs for me.
The way everything is worded makes me question the super power of the Architectural Committee. After a re-read of how fines and costs can happen to me if the Architectural Committee does not like what is currently on my private land or my home configuration, that they have the right to come onto my private land make the changes and send me the bill? There is nowhere a "grandfather" clause accepting all current properties "as is" of the date everything is passed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 24, 2019 1:27:43 GMT -5
Saddlebagger posted :
Thank you Saddlebagger; this is a good observation and one which raises the question of "retroactivity".
Here is an excerpt (below) from a law firm's weblog. Though it references the condo statute, the relevancy to HOA and all other common owner developments (coops, timeshares, mobile home parks) would very likely apply. That has been stated many times in the past by lawyers in response to questions on the subject of 'retroactive effect" aka impairment of contract from newly-adopted laws.
This "retroactivity" of later-enacted laws, when they conflict with contracts already made and in existence, is the concerning issue in Question ONE, which proposes to REDEFINE the CCR's as being subject to Kaufman language ie the phrase "as amended from time to time". This is why Question ONE should not be adopted. Just ONE reason. There are many more. There is another thread here that addresses Question ONE.
A principal guiding practice of contracts, which covenants are considered to be by judges, is that no change can be made which impairs the contract unless all parties agree--and that is why you are being asked to agree to it, though in reality, 99% of owners have no understanding of the implications of agreeing to this amendment.
The FL 720 statute itself specifically states that its purpose in writing Homeowner Act law is NOT to impair the private contract between and among owners. Subjecting owners to legislative changes to their contract after it has been signed and sealed is obviously not the American Way. This is also echoed in FL Constitution.
If Question ONE is adopted--and I fervently hope that it is not--the Kaufman language may apply going forward since SLohA was incorporated under FS617 in 1972. As of this moment, SLohA is still regulated by TWO statutes: FS617 that was in existence at the time of the contract and incorporation of the non-profit corporation and those PROCEDURAL AND CLARIFYING provisions of FS720 subsequently enacted.
It is generally agreed that substantive changes to material and vested property rights are protected by time--FS617 and cannot be changed by edict by the Board over constitutional protections, common law, or common practice. (This is what the board tried to do in concert with KCnet; they tried to incorporate a 720 law that was enacted decades after SLohA incorporation to allow internet and TV services to be bundled into an assessment. This is what caused the outrage when KCNET with the support of the board, wanted to force raised assessments and mandate owners payment for internet service as part of the increased assessment. The board backed down, but Pres Kn Lws promised, shouting angrily and fist shaking, jackbooted nazi-style, that another way would be found to force this on owners, even if they didn't have a computer!)
It is my lay opinion that, in order to incorporate the Kaufman language into SLohA business going forward that it would have to be clearly stated that the amendment would apply retroactively.
This very ambiguity about "retroactive effect" confounded owners and lawyers when new condo legislation passed 2 years ago. The legislators failed to clarity whether the change was retroactive and they are STILL fighting over this to this day. It is an interesting argument and underscores the difference in opinion as what is a SUBSTANTIVE change versus a PROCEDURAL change.
It is also an advantage that legal scholars have shown that, in the evolution and administration of property rights, the favor goes to the "free" use of private property and that any "taking" of rights or retroactive changes which impairs contractual agreements, favor the owners rather than the creature we know as the HOA.
The BAD news is that these questions are costly to settle in any dispute and owners do not have the deep pockets to fight the Board's lawyers. The practice, as we have seen in the past, appears to be forming a pattern of hostile parameters around owners for the benefit of the management company and lawyers. This is alarming.
At best, Question ONE of the covenants amendment on adding definitions is badly and incompletely and sloppily written in concert with the other covenants. At worst, it is a basis for SLohA to persecute and intimidate owners with prolonged legal costs required to protect their real estate investment from capture by a greedy and sociopathic group of people in leadership.
Here is the attorney opinion from the article:
And now, my general disclaimer. I am not an attorney and the above is opinion for educational and entertainment purposes. It is not legal advice. If you want legal advice, seek a lawyer.
|
|
|
|
Post by SnowDawg on Jan 24, 2019 11:57:20 GMT -5
This ballot will pass, they will make it pass. If it gives total power to the BoD and management co. and lawyers it will pass. The lawyers want it to pass, they need your retirement money for their existence, so it WILL PASS.
Unless you all are going to all vote NO on everything, get ready to have Jack Booted Thugs eyeballing every little thing on your lot, and maybe even imposing a dress code and sending you a fine or a summons for each and every little nit picky thing they don't like about you.
JUST VOTE NO & MAKE S-bag GREAT AGAIN.  |
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Jan 27, 2019 5:05:32 GMT -5
I have often wondered what would happen if a S-bag owner made a deal with another internet service provider to erect a transmission tower on that owner's property.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2019 11:02:04 GMT -5
As long as the same conditions were met equally by the new provider as currently in place for Kay c Networks, I don't see how S-bag would have any standing for legitimate objection. I do think S-bag would rally owners with hot dogs sales and tee shirts and ribbons against it to protest to the county, but on what reasonable basis would the county deny? It would be advantageous to have a competitor and backup service provider. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 8, 2019 12:05:15 GMT -5
This is a reminder to voters who are probably concerned with the covenants amendments. Please do not forget about the superior instrument that these amendments are trying to amend--ie. Covenants!
There are 3 sets of Covenants in S-bag and the board is well aware of this after the failed revitalization attempt, which was nullified because SLohA's lawyers failed to recognize the 3 Declarations; one for each Unit.
The "Restatement" purports to give the authority to the Board of Directors to REMOVE the sovereign authorities of your individual Declaration and combine it into a single whole. This is a BRAND NEW DECLARATION and the Board does not have the authority to do this. What they have done is actually usurped the authorities of 3 individual Declaration and merged into a single Declaration WITHOUT the approval of the owners who are now subject to their individual units.
It does not matter if the Declarations are "mostly the same language". There are differences in them, IMPORTANTLY, the parcels within the unit are separate groups. In the early history of S-bag, these units were legally recognized by the owners and votes were tallied separately. Voting was partitioned and even representation of board directors was in districts to comprise representation from each unit district and one "at large" director. In other words, a self-managed HOA was operating within the boundaries of the Covenants and Bylaws.
This process was unilaterally discontinued, without the input of owners, at some point (my guess is early 2000's).
S-bag boards of the past and present continue to bastardize documents and run rings around owners to disenfranchise them from their rightful voting and participation rights. This is likely at the urging of "management" and its lawyers to reinvent S-bag into its own vision of a manageable, fee-producing entity.
So, I urge to pay attention to the "restatement" of Covenants. Restatements are not Re-writes with brand new provisions. They are essentially updating terms, language and consistence to procedural laws. The Board is deceiving owners who will probably not notice the "taking" of individual unit Declarations from their owners. This corporate grab at centralization is an outrage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 8, 2019 14:07:20 GMT -5
Let me also point out additional important details about the "restated Covenants" that was included in your ballot package.
First, you are being lied to. Right at the top is the italicized note
This is not true. It is not a concise presentation of the existing covenants. It is a new document that has a NEW provision for consolidating the 4 existing Unit Declarations into a single one. This new provision was decided by your board, without your knowledge, input or opportunity to vote.
2nd lie: It is a NEW Declaration that is not included in the ballot to be agreed to and adopted by the affected voting populations in Units 1,2 and 3.
3rd lie: The management company attorneys recorded this NEW DECLARATION on Dec 26, 2018 with absolutely no notice to the membership. The intention was stated at the BOD meeting that all governing documents would be presented to members on the ballot--not just some.
4th lie: If the board were forthright in presenting this with the ballot materials, it would have included the OR Book and Page info where it was recorded on Dec 26, 2018. As far as I can see, this is a proposed restatement that they are providing for a comparison to help understand the amendments. It does not accomplish this; it only raises questions and confuses the reader who has never seen this document nor discussed it with the board.
SLohA is creating a legal quagmire by its actions and it will come back to hurt owners when the litigation and legal bills start coming in.
I am not voting because I refuse to be a party to the future legal mess that SLohA will surely endure if the amendment garbage is passed. But the point of this post is: you have been deprived of your right to vote on a NEW DECLARATION! BOD has gone behind your back and recorded the NEW DECLARATION in the public record in an attempt to void the 3 Unit Declarations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Broken Arrow on Feb 9, 2019 11:53:43 GMT -5
After looking over the voting packet we have decided SLR is no longer the place to live. Selling out and not paying fee's ever again. This stuff never stops with this park and it takes so much away from an otherwise beautiful place to winter up.
I feel bad for anybody that isn't paying close attention to the manipulation and taking home owners rights away, but what is worse is that our own reserves will be used to fund lawsuits against the people who pay fee's to live in SLR.
We've lived in SLR both seasonally and full time and there has always been some sort of drama and absolute ignorance by those who achieve false power and make changes like they were "Little Kings", beware Saddlebaggers. Vote down everything, you are having the wool pulled over your eyes and will lose the park after this voting session.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 12:03:02 GMT -5
When a governing body creates documents, why are they not legal? We elected the Board who employs the management company who employs the attorneys who in turn advise the Board. It is a circle. It seems to me that by having elected our officials we have given them both the power and the right to do exactly as they are doing. Unless any or all Board member(s) is/are profiting from any of these changes then they are just executing their power. Our input even through voting IS NOT necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 9, 2019 13:08:21 GMT -5
True and Untrue. First sentence is a question and I would answer that boards are non-professional volunteers who may exercise many broad powers including seeking legal advice. The documents that they create can be legal...or they cannot be legal. This will be determined in time--by the courts--much as courts adjudicate cases based on statutory laws written by lawyers. It is doubtful that lay person volunteers could construct a document that could withstand the scrutiny of a court. There are many, many questions in this ballot package that raises the doubt in my mind that this was well vetted by a community association attorney.
Your second and third sentences are true.
Your fourth sentence presumes that we elected them to do exactly as they are doing. We did not. We elected them presuming that they understood and accepted their fiduciary duties and one of those important duties is OBEDIENCE to our governing documents and the law. If they do not understand the law, then they must get professional advice. The actions that this Board has taken with regard to re-writing and recording a new Declaration is NOT obedience to the governing documents and the law.
Your fifth sentence is not credible. Exercising the power carries with it the several burdens of fiduciary duty. These are not mutually exclusive. Exercising legitimate power requires the duty of obedience. Otherwise, it is rogue board and ignores the law in its exercise of power and it is not legitimate.
Last sentence is untrue. There are many day-to-day operations of the Board that owners have limited input into--but cannot vote. We can only vote OUT a rogue board or recall a rogue director. Owners have all the voting powers in the Covenants and Bylaws and an important vote is the 2/3 vote to amend the highest restrictive and governance documents of the Association and that is the Declaration, Articles, Bylaws. Additionally, there is the 50% vote on any Rules and and the Budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 7, 2019 14:31:09 GMT -5
One comment which I am basing entirely on the written Minutes. This board cannot be trusted to tell the truth. They recorded in the February Minutes a question asked by a Member about the consolidation of the THREE separate Unit Declarations into a single entity under the so-called Amended and Restated Declaration. The board answered that this consolidation had NOT been done. That is a lie.
I also asked leery listerine outright in email exchanges about the first recorded restatement in Dec 2018 without notice to members, when past Minutes had stated that this restatement and the amendments would be voted on in Feb 2019. I asked him outright if there were any substantive changes. His response was to attack me for wanting to engage in an email debate. He avoided answering the question. A lie by omission to a direct question.
Moving on to the problem Restatement document:
Recital of Documents and here I will summarize 1-Unit 1 Declaration, 2-Unit 2 Declaration, 3-Unit 3 Declaration, 4-Amendment to Unit 2 (1974), 5-1986 Amendment, 6-1989 "Revised Covenants & Restrictions and 7- 2018 Third Amendment ALL these referred to collectively as the "Declaration" and as compiled and consolidated in the Restatement (in this 2/25/2019) corrected recording.
(Interestingly, there is no mention of the recorded Revitalization of the Covenants for each Unit, which was ballotted FOR EACH UNIT and Passed EACH UNIT and INDEXED to each UNIT in the Official Public Record. This was done for legal reasons because these units cannot be consolidated without EACH UNIT voting to incorporate their Unit into a single entity.
So, if one were tracking the progression of legal document creation, it might appear that the Revitalization of the three Units in 2016 never happened. I have no idea how this will impact title searching in the future--beyond my pay grade. So, there are actually TEN (10)--not 6-- documents which the Board has attempted to consolidate into one single document, with no mention of the recorded revitalized Declarations (which properly revitalized all 3 units, balloted and passed separately.
The THIRD AMENDMENT, however, did not ballot each unit separately to reduce the affirmative voting threshhold for each of the 3 units and therefore, in my opinion, this is not a valid Amendment and the voting threshhold remains at 75% for each unit.)
Now, I know you all don't really like to read all this legalese stuff, but it is important when the s*** hits the fan as it did in 2014 and ended up wasting $150,000 dollars on legal fees and 4 years of ugly divisiveness in the park. I am asking--begging you--to pay attention this time!
The Board has limits to its power! Unilateral authority to change the Declaration, regardless of a "restatement" is not a power that the Board has--and for the reasons I am showing you! People generally do not scrutinize documents and just "trust" the Board. Then ask "What happened?" when the Association gets involved in costly lawsuits or it costs you money at the closing table because your title is clouded with missing and invalid documents.
There are many problems I see with this document and previous documents and actions taken by this Board--and especially the end run of the board and management company attorney's around the owners' backs. We need no further details, though I could probably do my Word Software Magic to compare the changes word-for-word between the revitalized covenants and this "restatement" but I'm gonna spare you the gruesome details. Pay attention please, to what matters--and that is the changes being made to your documents by your board which DEGRADE the power of YOUR rights under YOUR Unit Declaration--the one in 2016. Anything after that is BS.
OK one more thing. There is no line next to the signatures of leery listerine and T Roof that PRINTS out their names and specifies their officer authority.
I have this morning sought legal advice regarding slander(s) of my title.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2019 14:11:47 GMT -5
OK so here is my lawyer's general observation after viewing the "corrected amended/restatement of Covenants". I might add at this point that my lawyer, Frd O'N eel (Attny), has nearly memorized S-bag documents since he began representing Complaints in 2015 and prevailed in two cases.
I have also been in periodic conversations with him since then about various acts of the Board. He has, in fact, been providing me/owners with advisory legal information and has quite a longitudinal record of certified letters, board acts and documents since 2011 when the whole mess started with Stmbug Ixx, who led clueless SLohA directors off the rails with a gray area opinion by his attorneys.
Subsequently, Frd O'N eel (Attny) served as a director on the non-profit corporation set up to render sliding scale legal assistance to owners in S-bag (especially with the regard to the KCNetwork takeover of our common property and mandatory assessment increases to pay for its business).
It remains my position, since the invasion by this Management Company in 2010 and its placement here of an UNLICENSED and INEXPERIENCED CAM, that this bunch would be the ruination of a once-peaceful and delightful community.
One final clarification; my attorney uses a word that may be unfamiliar to some but is very much used and understood among lawyers. The word is "purported"-- source Merriam Webster dictionary:
Here is the email: fredonealatlaw@aol.com Thu, Mar 7, 11:09 AM (23 hours ago) to me (S u e)
Conceptually, they (ref collectively the Board, management company, lawyers) continue to fail to understand that a declaration of covenants and restrictions constitutes a contract between and among the unit owners and the association. Like any other contract, no one party to the declaration has the right to amend the contract. By purporting to consolidate the three declarations, the association (through its board) is attempting to make substantive changes to the three declarations. Before the purported consolidation, each of the declarations had to be amended separately. Conceivably, therefore, the three units could eventually end up with very different covenants. Now, that possibility has been purportedly eliminated. However, their purported change is, in my opinion, ineffective legally. Moreover, it adds further confusion to the titles of all the units. Future purported amendments will purport to amend this document which, for that very reason alone, will call into question the validity of those future amendments.
Put simply, in the name of simplifying things, the board has only ended up adding more confusion to the titles of units.
I told leery listerine and T Roof this simple fact of governance/contract life in an email MONTHS ago and it was a concept also "taught" to Management Company's attorneys 2 years ago which resulted in the initial revitalization needing to be completely started over a 2nd time. I had previously volunteered (in writing) to be on the Governing Documents Committee. My volunteerism--which leery listerine has continuously advocated for and droned on about in his messages--was completely ignored and not even acknowledged. These are examples of expensive educational moments in SLohA history and our board/Management/Lawyers do not seem to retain these contract principles.
I'll say it again: "Owners, get ready to pull out your wallets" to pay for the wrecking ball and debris that this leadership triad is setting up for the future"!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 11:53:17 GMT -5
On several occasions the Board has voted down the selling of hot dogs within S-bag. First it was to sell hot dogs on common property, but now it extended to hot dog sales on private land. If we own our property why was this even an issue. What about people in the park who have lawn mowing businesses they operate or beauty salons? Did they have to go before the Board to get permission to operate? Fair is fair.
This rewording you brought up does not have a fair minded required application.
What is required of one must be required of all or else our Board will be facing a discrimination lawsuit soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 13, 2019 12:33:03 GMT -5
This is what the larger plan is by management and its attorneys. Remember, they benefit from any lawsuits that are brought by owners for the crap they are passing. They DO NOT CARE about the owners. They have NEVER surveyed the owners about any of the 7 amendments. They never discussed the proposed amendments. They did not follow the law in the textual presentation required by law in the amendment process.
I guess there is no end to my writing on this forum that the board is serving the interests of the Terrible Triad: Stmbug Ixx Inc, GaGaKnees et all and Kay c Ntwerk. The dummy vehicle that allows the Triad to plunder the rights and interests of the owners is the Board.
So, do I have any ideas how to fix this? Well, yes I do.
First and foremost, owners must start paying attention to what their representatives are doing and always ask two questions: "What problem is this proposal supposed to solve?" and "Who benefits by the proposal?. Asking these questions, along with some inquiry about the nature of HOA governance, goes a long way to contributing to "fixing" the problem.
Second, an educated and informed--and participative membership-- must actively engage in the process specifically to remove tyrannical directors or perhaps even remove the entire board. The passivity and resistance to change must change.
Third, the reformed, newly-constituted board must, with their own attorney--NOT Stmbug Ixx'S LAW FRIM--identify the legal problem areas that have been created by rogue boards and their neglect to their fiduciary dutes in the past and begin the education of the board to its unique duties. They are not just dummy heads to obey whatever "recommendation" comes from a self-interested Management Company.
The newly-enlightened board will then begin the process of repairing the document damage of the past, set up its mission and goals with relation to common property, reassess the needs and wants of the membership and start advancing the interests of the owners for a change!
It could be an exciting time in the life of S-bag, but it will take courage and effort by both the Board and owners. To allow the current pattern to continue will continue to HURT and COST the owners, in big ways and Sm all.
|
|
