|
Post by Admin on Mar 18, 2019 22:54:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2019 16:47:18 GMT -5
2019MarchPresRem.pdf (26.23 KB) Well, this is all very interesting. The Special Meeting for the Board to address the ouster of Chap has been scheduled for April 3 at 9am. The petition contained well over the minimum number of signatures of owners --20%--only 10% of owners are needed to force Board to schedule a Special Meeting. The Board does not approve of the outster, therefore, it will not be done regardless of what the owners want. The Board is not required to act upon the owners' wishes in this regard, but would be foolish to ignore whatever issues are at hand. One more interesting thing that D Brnd brought up and a couple of illegal things. D Brnd said the meeting should not have been adjourned until a vote was taken on covenants preservation per the new legislative amendments to FS720 and FS712. The BOD then scheduled an UNNOTICED meeting the next day, purported to confer with their attorney, who told them that the law does not apply to SLohA. First, you cannot hold an unscheduled meeting unless an emergency exists; this means Blood, Flood or Fire. In the absence of an emergency, the required 48 hours must be observed. Second, was the attorney present? If not, it was an unnoticed meeting of the Board. If yes, it was an unnoticed Special Meeting of the BOD. In any case, the remarks of leery listerine reflect that the attorneys state the requirement does not apply to SLohA. Not True. It most certainly applies to SLohA because SLohA is regulated by both FS720 and F712. However, in looking at the language of the law, it was not necessary for SLohA to act upon it, but only "consider" it. This law was meant to get Associations to calendar the reconsideration of the preservation of their covenants on an annual basis to avoid falling through the cracks of MRTA--as SLohA did! Here is the law: New Requirement for all HOA boards under Thus, strict compliance with the new statute would require that your board consider annually the impact of MRTA, even if the 30-year deadline is years away and regardless of whether a preservation notice has already been filed. The minutes of those meetings should reflect a discussion of the relevant dates and events relating to MRTA. What this is...is A GOOD HABIT! To file an annual Preservation will prevent the 'forgetting" about the drastic effects of MRTA extinguishing covenants and costing Associations hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and revitalization, as happened with SLohA. I happen to agree with D Brnd in this instance, though his admonishment was not within the letter of the law, it is well within a best practices of HOA to exercise an abundance of caution. (And me agreeing with D Brnd hardly ever happens!) For the lawyers to say it doesn't apply to SLohA is ludicrous and false. It costs $10 bucks and 10 minutes to file the Preservation, which restarts the MRTA clock every year for a new 30 year period. A good habit which SLohA should adopt but maybe for the lawyers it is another cash cow "gray area" for their sons and daughters to bill out to SLohA!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2019 17:36:39 GMT -5
I got my letter about removing Chap Mc Click from the job today.
Can anyone please describe, with specificity, what the deficiencies are in his performance? It is anonymous to post here and there is no way I can identify a person.
My only experience with Chap directly concerned his inexperience and unwillingness to read the documents in pursuit of a homeowner. My "feeling" is that Chap is still inexperienced in performing the full range of the job, but that his activities have been "harmless". I perceive that Toneesha has been behind him as S-bag's "shadow manager".
My main concern is that Stmbug Ixx has NEVER--not even One Time-- given S-bag a manager with ANY experience with any property management company, always an unlicensed CAM/no experience (M. e. l.) or Chap (newly licensed/no experience). I fear that S-bag might get even WORSE as some sort of retribution from the Management.
This would be my comment to S-bag. IF you get rid of Chap, dissociate the Manager position from Stmbug Ixx!! Hire an employee that is an experienced CAM and adjust the Fee to Stmbug Ixx accordingly. This bundling of EVERYTHING with Stmbug Ixx is not healthy, and serves only Stmbug Ixx who controls the vertical--the horizontal--and the diagonal--in S-bag to the detriment of a community with a healthy mix of point of views and experience.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 16, 2019 7:57:06 GMT -5
Here is the Manager's BOD report: 2019Mar20manager_s_report_board_meeting.pdf (30.72 KB) Here are the Minutes for the meeting: >> 2019Mar20_minutes.pdf (78.98 KB) So some interesting tidbits from the meeting"" What lien motion is pending? What is the board doing with regard to liens that was referred to by an owner who wanted an update. This was not addressed. Motion made/passed to "move forward" with foreclosures that do not have pending tax burdens. What properties are these and what does "moving forward" consist of specifically? Where is correspondence report to BOD referred to by Graff and what is the "Procedure" to send correspondence to board? Moreover, why has not the "procedure" been memorialized in an SOP and posted on the Website? This correspondence procedure has changed many times since I came to S-bag in 2010 and has been an irritating source of confusion and misdirection. What is a paint "initiative"? Owner asked about the Kay c Net towers and leery listerine did not answer but diverted the question to status of the Lease. D Brnd Won, when he insisted that SLohA was out of compliance with newly-enacted FS720 law! The Board gave a minimal nod to the law, insisting that SLohA was in compliance, which it clearly was not in strict compliance. Now, every year, at the first meeting following the election, the BOD will considering filing a notice of preservation of covenants. The Nod: "We will note that this consideration is to be done at the first meeting of the year, every year." This will still not technically be in compliance because the law is very specific that it must be done at the first meeting following the Member Meeting election. Here is the law>> Here is Becker & Poliakoff's take off on the new legislation. This is BOD-speak (not the actual law which appears to be meaningless to SLohA attorneys) Note the board is not required to file a Preservation, but the law specifically says that Minutes must reflect that the issue is agendized for discussion and must specifically acknowledge the Association's MRTA status.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2019 9:48:14 GMT -5
Still no Correspondence summary for March. It was reported that there was a correspondence report given to the Board in the Minutes for March.
|
|