Post by Admin on Jan 18, 2014 15:13:42 GMT -5
This letter was submitted to BOD on Friday, January 17, 2014:
January 17, 2014
SLohA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
499 S-bag Lake Road
Lake Wales, FL 33898
ATTENTION: ALL BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SLohA
We wanted to point out to the board that the ballot presented is extremely flawed. By the way the internet proposal is worded, those that are voting in favor of the internet proposal must simultaneously vote yes on the budget increase as well. There is no way for those in favor of the internet to vote no on the budget increase.
By the very wording of the second choice, the integrity of ratifying the budget has been corrupted. The purpose of the budget vote is to approve or disapprove the proposed budget and assessment, yet the board has introduced a SECOND, separate decision into the question. The people who want the internet, but DO NOT APPROVE OF THE BUDGET do NOT have a voting option that reflects those two separate decisions. If they want the internet, they are forced to also ratify the budget and dues increase—thereby corrupting the process of budget ratification.
This board is forcing a yes vote for the budget with a simultaneous yes vote for the internet, and doing it this way does not give voters the proper choice.
If a legal cH allenge is raised with regard to the budget ratification process, it will have to be done over in another vote, since it will be determined to be invalid because the budget question is not offered as a stand-alone option—it is being polluted by a second issue—the internet.
You have repeatedly said things like: “…the people have the right to choose,” yet you have not given the voters the choice when you include the internet proposal in with the budget increase. With regard to the budget/internet question it seems you are only giving the majority the right to choose and taking it away from everyone else.
Then there is the bigger problem of the fact that NO commercial business are allowed in SLR, therefore, the for-profit internet business is one that should NOT even be in SLR to begin with, and therefore should not be inclusive of any voting option such as the one being presented on the ballot.
Its not that we want the internet shut off in here or to take the right of having this internet in their homes; we’re merely saying this internet could be in business somewhere else other than S-bag and not one person should have a problem with that. They get every right to choose which provider they wish to get internet services from and it doesn’t break any rules—rules which are in effect as we know, since we were told by the board in a recent board meeting that: “…the Association should be able to move forward not only living with, but enforcement of the covenants and restrictions and considering any necessary amendment thereto.”
Nobody has taken away anyone’s right to choose in here except this board, especially in light of the way the internet proposal was put on the ballot, but what you’ve taken away from people in here are owner’s rights that aren’t heard or won’t be heard by this board.
On top of all of the above, SLohA cannot, by virtue of its incorporation under FS617 as a not-for-profit corporation, distribute income or revenue to other members except under very strict conditions, which SLohA does not meet. SLohA is proposing to collect revenue from its members through an assessment and distribute it to another member, Bb stab. Unfortunately, though, the Department of State is not going to like this.
For the record, the sections are:
617.01401 Definitions (7) “Distribution” means the payment of a dividend or any part of the income or profit of a corporation to its members, directors, or officers.
617.0505 Distributions; exceptions—except as authorized in s. 617.1302, a corporation may not make distributions to its members, directors, or officers. (SLohA does not qualify as exemption under 617.0505(5) or the above section.)
There is the problem with the amendments to the covenants—that being that since the CC & R’s are expired, there is NO way to amend the covenants, because there was no amendatory provision in the original declaration document to amend the covenants. Therefore, those amendments are not valid and any votes to approve said amendments are also invalid, and this is another issue to which legal cH allenge may be raised.
Additionally, there is the problem with the way they are presented on the ballot; since if this were to sustain legal cH allenge it would have to have proper underlying authority, be impeccably presented and be factual; the amendments changes presented on your ballot has none of those characteristics.
Therefore, the reasons and the facts are clear as to why these covenants cannot be amended:
1) To begin with there is no authority to amend.
2) The covenants change must be completely disclosed on the ballot itself, not just on an inserted informational sheet—it has a faulty presentation for ratification
3) The reduction in voting threshold is actually false as stated from 592 to 450+, the actual number needed to pass is actually 302—way lower than represented on the information sheet.
The practical result is that it will make no difference if people do not question or cH allenge it. However, if at some point, someone wishes to contest an undesirable amendment, they will have solid footing in a future legal cH allenge.
There is so much wrong with the way this ballot has been presented to this community that the proper thing to do at this point would be to start over. The legal cH allenges this ballot raises cannot and will not be ignored and it would be wise if this board were to have realized that before wording it the way you did, then, hurried it off to the printer.
Inasmuch as the facts reflect multiple irregularities with the entire ballot, a flawed balloting process which does not contain the full text of proposed changes to rules and covenants and ballot options which endanger budget ratification, misleading and false information about the content of covenants change, including a covenant addition, and legitimate (albeit arguable) issues of authority to offer the members amendment options, I ask that you state specifically the legal basis and authority by our governing documents to have constructed this ballot form and present it as a lawful offer to members.
We look forward to your written reply.
James & Carol Grnt, 36 S.T.N.
5415 S-bag Lake Road
Lake Wales, FL 33898
January 17, 2014
SLohA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
499 S-bag Lake Road
Lake Wales, FL 33898
ATTENTION: ALL BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SLohA
We wanted to point out to the board that the ballot presented is extremely flawed. By the way the internet proposal is worded, those that are voting in favor of the internet proposal must simultaneously vote yes on the budget increase as well. There is no way for those in favor of the internet to vote no on the budget increase.
By the very wording of the second choice, the integrity of ratifying the budget has been corrupted. The purpose of the budget vote is to approve or disapprove the proposed budget and assessment, yet the board has introduced a SECOND, separate decision into the question. The people who want the internet, but DO NOT APPROVE OF THE BUDGET do NOT have a voting option that reflects those two separate decisions. If they want the internet, they are forced to also ratify the budget and dues increase—thereby corrupting the process of budget ratification.
This board is forcing a yes vote for the budget with a simultaneous yes vote for the internet, and doing it this way does not give voters the proper choice.
If a legal cH allenge is raised with regard to the budget ratification process, it will have to be done over in another vote, since it will be determined to be invalid because the budget question is not offered as a stand-alone option—it is being polluted by a second issue—the internet.
You have repeatedly said things like: “…the people have the right to choose,” yet you have not given the voters the choice when you include the internet proposal in with the budget increase. With regard to the budget/internet question it seems you are only giving the majority the right to choose and taking it away from everyone else.
Then there is the bigger problem of the fact that NO commercial business are allowed in SLR, therefore, the for-profit internet business is one that should NOT even be in SLR to begin with, and therefore should not be inclusive of any voting option such as the one being presented on the ballot.
Its not that we want the internet shut off in here or to take the right of having this internet in their homes; we’re merely saying this internet could be in business somewhere else other than S-bag and not one person should have a problem with that. They get every right to choose which provider they wish to get internet services from and it doesn’t break any rules—rules which are in effect as we know, since we were told by the board in a recent board meeting that: “…the Association should be able to move forward not only living with, but enforcement of the covenants and restrictions and considering any necessary amendment thereto.”
Nobody has taken away anyone’s right to choose in here except this board, especially in light of the way the internet proposal was put on the ballot, but what you’ve taken away from people in here are owner’s rights that aren’t heard or won’t be heard by this board.
On top of all of the above, SLohA cannot, by virtue of its incorporation under FS617 as a not-for-profit corporation, distribute income or revenue to other members except under very strict conditions, which SLohA does not meet. SLohA is proposing to collect revenue from its members through an assessment and distribute it to another member, Bb stab. Unfortunately, though, the Department of State is not going to like this.
For the record, the sections are:
617.01401 Definitions (7) “Distribution” means the payment of a dividend or any part of the income or profit of a corporation to its members, directors, or officers.
617.0505 Distributions; exceptions—except as authorized in s. 617.1302, a corporation may not make distributions to its members, directors, or officers. (SLohA does not qualify as exemption under 617.0505(5) or the above section.)
There is the problem with the amendments to the covenants—that being that since the CC & R’s are expired, there is NO way to amend the covenants, because there was no amendatory provision in the original declaration document to amend the covenants. Therefore, those amendments are not valid and any votes to approve said amendments are also invalid, and this is another issue to which legal cH allenge may be raised.
Additionally, there is the problem with the way they are presented on the ballot; since if this were to sustain legal cH allenge it would have to have proper underlying authority, be impeccably presented and be factual; the amendments changes presented on your ballot has none of those characteristics.
Therefore, the reasons and the facts are clear as to why these covenants cannot be amended:
1) To begin with there is no authority to amend.
2) The covenants change must be completely disclosed on the ballot itself, not just on an inserted informational sheet—it has a faulty presentation for ratification
3) The reduction in voting threshold is actually false as stated from 592 to 450+, the actual number needed to pass is actually 302—way lower than represented on the information sheet.
The practical result is that it will make no difference if people do not question or cH allenge it. However, if at some point, someone wishes to contest an undesirable amendment, they will have solid footing in a future legal cH allenge.
There is so much wrong with the way this ballot has been presented to this community that the proper thing to do at this point would be to start over. The legal cH allenges this ballot raises cannot and will not be ignored and it would be wise if this board were to have realized that before wording it the way you did, then, hurried it off to the printer.
Inasmuch as the facts reflect multiple irregularities with the entire ballot, a flawed balloting process which does not contain the full text of proposed changes to rules and covenants and ballot options which endanger budget ratification, misleading and false information about the content of covenants change, including a covenant addition, and legitimate (albeit arguable) issues of authority to offer the members amendment options, I ask that you state specifically the legal basis and authority by our governing documents to have constructed this ballot form and present it as a lawful offer to members.
We look forward to your written reply.
James & Carol Grnt, 36 S.T.N.
5415 S-bag Lake Road
Lake Wales, FL 33898
