|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 1, 2019 14:47:35 GMT -5
In the April issue of S-bag Express, leery, once again, opines his disparaging opinion about homeowners’ participation in NOT voting in the previous election. He equates this voting absenteeism to failing to do their democratic duty to vote. Once again, I am offended by the attitude of superiority and tone chastising thinking adults who have participated in various democratic processes for decades!
Here’s a News Express from S u e! In a democracy, one is free to VOTE or to NOT VOTE!
The board (or maybe just leery) is coming to wrong conclusions about the people of S-bag because he is not looking inward and asking the right questions about what this and past boards have done to erode an essential aspect of participation in the democratic process—and that is Trust.
Trust must be earned; it does not “go with” being a member of a group who elect representatives. It is NOT incumbent upon the members to give their trust and loyalty, without knowledgeable consent, to a board which has marginalized them and excluded them from the process.
leery and the rest of the Board: I encourage you to read and re-read the excerpt below, which was taken from an international study and published in an article “Participation in Democratic Governance” in 2018.
SLohA leadership has failed to keep the “user of its services” in focus. It has not provided an opportunity for the users (members) to express what THEY want; what kind of services and policies do the owners want?
The Board has been handed a resounding NO by owners. Members choose to NOT participate rather than vote NO. This is a NO of major magnitude because it strongly suggests member disenfranchisement from the democratic process. As in personal relationships, once trust is lost, it is nearly impossible to get it back.
leery, ask yourself why owners should trust the board when you recorded a restated Declaration behind the owners’ backs in Dec 2018 after the board said all owners would vote on this and the amendments? Did you ask if owners’ even wanted a restated Declaration? Did you disclose that you were usurping the sovereignty of members in the three (3) independent units into a “whole”? Did you deny this when asked directly by a by an owner at a meeting? Is this a trustworthy action? Did you ever ask the members to validate your vision?
Board, did you even one time at any meeting discuss with the members what amendments, if any, THEY wanted? Was there ever any discussion about the need for these amendments or what they would accomplish--good and bad?
Board, have you paid attention to past election ballot failures? When several amendment propositions failed to pass a couple years ago, it was theorized that there was TOO MUCH information for owners to assimilate, because the board had failed to allow participation and preparation. Amendments were presented to owners that were clearly alienating, attempted to hand over too much power to the board and one provision that had never been even broached to membership by the board but written in by the Management’s attorneys! Instead of denigrating the democratic identity of the owners, that board actually analyzed what IT may have done wrong, instead of blaming owners for not “being loyal and trusting” of the board.
Your actions in this election and in the last one have not been worthy of trust. My loyalty will never be to a BOARD and it will always be to the community—which is the people! If the board is attempting to/has deceived owners with propositions and secret actions, I will offer my opinion to the members because it is them I am loyal to. And you should be too!
You earn trust of the members each and every time you take or fail to take an action; being elected is not a “Winner Takes All” bonus.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on May 3, 2019 16:46:14 GMT -5
For my part, I chose not to participate because of my personal opinion on the proposed "over 55" restriction. While I was willing to accept the decision of the majority in this matter (& therefore declined to vote "no"), I also did not wish to lend my support to this proposal by voting "yes". Let me explain my position: I believe that the more we seniors choose to isolate ourselves from the community-at-large, the more jeopardy we put ourselves in relative to the government programs we rely upon. Certainly, all of us should be aware of the efforts by conservative politicians and pundits to scale back Medicare (see former House Speaker Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare) and Social Security (Trump Administration's switch to "chained CPI" to determine how much our benefits are subject to taxation). They falsely claim these programs are bankrupting the government. And, the more we elect to physically separate ourselves, the easier it is to stereotype us as "greedy geezers" for the purposes of advancing that agenda.
As some of you know, I spent 32+ years as a municipal official. During that time, I attended several public hearings regarding the proposed siting of Community Based Residential Care Facilities (i.e. group homes) in residential neighborhoods. Now I understand the fear over halfway houses for parolees but what surprised me was the opposition to group homes for the elderly. Among the reasons given by opponents were claims that the peace of the neighborhood would be constantly interrupted by paramedics responding to medical emergencies. At one public hearing, a young woman got up to voice her concern that "her children would be traumatized by being exposed to so much sickness and dying". Instead of allowing elderly in need of assisted living to enjoy some sense of normalcy in a neighborhood setting (CBRF's are limited to no more than 8 patients per facility), these opponents preferred warehousing those elderly in nursing homes or other institutional settings where they are out of sight from the general populace. Based upon my personal experiences, therefore, I fear the backlash from those who are struggling to provide for their families in an economic environment devoid of family-supporting wages, employer-provided health insurance and employer-provided pensions. And just as some Saddlebaggers have told me that they don't want children in our community because of high school taxes, I can readily see the parents of those children resenting our boast of "another day in paradise" while they face the possibility that, when it comes time for them to retire, they cannot count on programs like Social Security and Medicare to provide the same quality of life that we currently enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 3, 2019 17:59:34 GMT -5
Yours is a unique perspective and underscores my belief that the people in S-bag are not unlike most people in social groups. They assimilate their world according to their personal experiences and understanding of how a "civil society" is structured regardless of political affiliation. Adding to theories on the ballot outcome, aside from general disenfranchisement, is the long-held practice that if one does not have an opinion "either way", they should just abstain from voting, thereby allowing the "informed positioned voters" to take the lead on an issue. I do think that some of the non-participation was also "silent absention" in addition to the deer in the headlights response to such a massive rewriting of the covenants (which, was neither well-written nor presented in the proper statutory format). Whatever the various reasons for owner non-participation, the board's 'tude discounted the ability of the community to contextualize the changes that the board wanted and instead, blamed the membership as empty-headed and not democratic.
The 'tude of the board continues to deteriorate (or escalate) into a disturbing elite-ism. It is not important what owners want or need. Control over the governing direction of the community has become upside down and emanates from the elite at the top to the mindless member-peons. That might be the Management Company's manipulation of the board through Stmbug Ixx, but this is a disturbing development I have seen over the last several years, starting with the collusion with KCNet to allow its for-profit enterprise to occupy owner common property without permission or compensation, to the unratified one-sided "lease" with an obvious straw signator of KCNet, to the redefinition of common property parcels as voting entities resulting in a purported amendment to voting thresholds and culminating in a behind-closed-door recording of a "restated" covenants which seizes Unit covenant soverignty by fiat.
And--the crowning touch--putting out an unsolicited group of controlling "amendments"--many of which amended nothing but rather, added new restrictions--to private property for the owners to wade through without any notice, discussion or preparation. The board asked for consent--uninformed consent and blind trust/allegiance--from owners to give them/attorneys/management company the tools to pummel/torture/agitate this community with ominous additional property restrictions and open the door to new abuses of power--much of that permission embedded in legalese language that most people do not recognize or understand. When owners denied the board/management company/attorneys the permission to virtually rape owners of the remaining private property and civil rights they might still retain, the board president opted to publicly chastise and castigate the owners and accuse them of undemocratic behavior in their social activities newsletter!
To address the over 55+, my objection is not social, though I understand what you (Jm H) mean by growing resentment by the taxpayers burdened with underwriting the lifestyle of the old geysers in paradise. My first objection is institutional. It is my belief that the process of certifying/recertifying the over 55 exemption status was not accurately surveyed by SLohA. This is evidenced by asking OWNERS to certify in the ballot materials. If the board knew what it was doing or intended to comply with an actual LAW, it would not attempt a recertification in this manner, as the law clearly requires that 80% of the OCCUPANTS living in SLR homes be over 55. This must be done by a visitation survey to each address, much like a population census. By duplicating or certifying "owners" instead "occupants", SLohA has opened the door to additional opportunity to be negligent, fraudulent and liable in a HUD complaint. Eventually, that means more LEGAL EXPENSES that owners will have to pay and possibly worse if a damages judgement is additionally awarded to a Complainant.
|
|
