Post by Admin on Jan 20, 2014 12:45:11 GMT -5
I was asked to post this letter which was delivered to the SLohA Office this morning.
ballotobjectionltrauth.pdf (935.19 KB)
ballotobjectionltrauth1.pdf (67.34 KB)
January 20, 2014 (Pg. 1 of 2)
To SLohA Board of Directors and Sxxxxxxxx Ixx Inc
Via hand-delivery to 499 S-bag Lake Rd and email to: President@slrmail.com , VP@slrmail.com , Secretary@slrmail.com , Treasurers@slrmail.com
I am formally registering my concerns about the issues contained in the Grants' letter of January 17, 2014 regarding the current Ballot. It is my concern that many owners have expressed confusion about the preparation of this Ballot. The Ballot has not been constructed in accordance with due process of SLohA's governing laws and potentially or actually violates other Florida Administrative Codes and Statutes.
To remind you, SLohA's basic power, as stated in the Articles of Incorporation, is:
1. To operate and manage those properties conveyed to it for the common good of members of the Corporation;
2. To carry out all the powers and duties vested in the corporation pursuant to these Articles and the Bylaws of the Corporation and in declarations of covenants and restrictions.
Additionally, SLohA's Bylaws Article IV Section 7(12b) require it: To make and collect assessments from members for the purpose of operating and maintaining the Corporation's property and interests ...and
Article VII Section 4: The Board of Directors sH all adopt a budget each year for the following fiscal year, which sH all contain estimates of the cost of operating and maintaining the Corporation, including the following terms:
a. General expenses to be incurred in connection with the operation of the properties OWNED by the Corporation.
The complex dual ballot proposal to ratify one of TWO alternate proposed budgets is confusing and is not in accordance with our Bylaws, which require a proposed budget (as amended) to members for ratification.
Further, the content of the budget ratification item unlawfully proposes to levy an assessment upon parcels which is not in accordance with the powers and duty of the board, i.e., to propose a budget necessary to manage expenses in connection "with the operation of the properties OWNED by the Corporation".
SLohA proposes to unlawfully distribute to one of its members, revenue received from other members, contrary to Articles of Incorporation, Article X and FS617:
"The corporation sH all make no distribution of its income to its members, directors or officers, except as salary for services rendered as provided for herein and in the Bylaws of the corporation. The corporation sH all be conducted as a non-profit corporation."
There are multiple flaws and deficiencies in the Ballot which cause grave concern for the ratification of SLohA's budget and assault to the integrity of its governing documents including:
1.Presentation of TWO options—FOUR Choices—contaminating the ratification of a proposed budget with a second unrelated polling of the Internet fee and presenting a SECOND proposed budget and assessment. (Many people are confused if they must vote for only One of the four choices or vote for One choice from Option A and ONE choice from Option B.) Those owners who FAVOR the intemet part and wish to reject the proposed Budget do not have a choice to vote accordingly, thereby corrupting the budget choice and forcing budget approval on the basis of desire for an intemet fee option. The budget ratification must be a stand-alone business issue and the ballot, as prepared is confusing and misleading and owners are not being given a clear choice to vote "Yes or No" on the proposed budget, as required by our governing documents. The outcome, therefore, is unenforceable.;
2. Absence of underlying authority to amend Declaration and assuming false authority to make changes to Covenants;
3. Substantive mistakes in the text of previously-disseminated information about the proposed change on voting threshold (numerical representations false);
4. Unlawful addition of NEW provisions in the Covenants misrepresented as a change (liens and mortgage foreclosures);
5. Attempt to "change" language which serves to impair the contact rights of members regarding commercial activity;
6. Absence of full text of proposed Rules & Regulations and Covenants on the Ballot itself.
Pursuant to recent changes to FS617, under which SLohA was incorporated, members may now seek relief from 617.07401. You should, therefore, regard this as a demand and complaint for an investigation and determination that SLohA's actions were made according to all applicable laws and with good faith. We demand that SLohA states specifically what legal authority SLohA is relying on to present owners with an unlawful Ballot, in this manner with the above described deficiencies. We trust that SLohA will withdraw and nullify this Ballot, which it purports to illegally encumber parcels with a new assessment. You have misrepresented and inadequately represented items of business, and have denied owners an opportunity to clearly consider a proposed budget uncorrupted with secondary issues of interest to special outside profit-making agents.
I look forward to your response to my concerns within thirty (30) days.
Sincerely,
James Ath & Jew-D W. Ath (16 Royal Coachman)
5099 S-bag Lake Road
Lake Wales, FL 3389
*Hand delivered to SLohA, 499 S-bag Lake Road- Received By
ballotobjectionltrauth.pdf (935.19 KB)
ballotobjectionltrauth1.pdf (67.34 KB)
January 20, 2014 (Pg. 1 of 2)
To SLohA Board of Directors and Sxxxxxxxx Ixx Inc
Via hand-delivery to 499 S-bag Lake Rd and email to: President@slrmail.com , VP@slrmail.com , Secretary@slrmail.com , Treasurers@slrmail.com
I am formally registering my concerns about the issues contained in the Grants' letter of January 17, 2014 regarding the current Ballot. It is my concern that many owners have expressed confusion about the preparation of this Ballot. The Ballot has not been constructed in accordance with due process of SLohA's governing laws and potentially or actually violates other Florida Administrative Codes and Statutes.
To remind you, SLohA's basic power, as stated in the Articles of Incorporation, is:
1. To operate and manage those properties conveyed to it for the common good of members of the Corporation;
2. To carry out all the powers and duties vested in the corporation pursuant to these Articles and the Bylaws of the Corporation and in declarations of covenants and restrictions.
Additionally, SLohA's Bylaws Article IV Section 7(12b) require it: To make and collect assessments from members for the purpose of operating and maintaining the Corporation's property and interests ...and
Article VII Section 4: The Board of Directors sH all adopt a budget each year for the following fiscal year, which sH all contain estimates of the cost of operating and maintaining the Corporation, including the following terms:
a. General expenses to be incurred in connection with the operation of the properties OWNED by the Corporation.
The complex dual ballot proposal to ratify one of TWO alternate proposed budgets is confusing and is not in accordance with our Bylaws, which require a proposed budget (as amended) to members for ratification.
Further, the content of the budget ratification item unlawfully proposes to levy an assessment upon parcels which is not in accordance with the powers and duty of the board, i.e., to propose a budget necessary to manage expenses in connection "with the operation of the properties OWNED by the Corporation".
SLohA proposes to unlawfully distribute to one of its members, revenue received from other members, contrary to Articles of Incorporation, Article X and FS617:
"The corporation sH all make no distribution of its income to its members, directors or officers, except as salary for services rendered as provided for herein and in the Bylaws of the corporation. The corporation sH all be conducted as a non-profit corporation."
There are multiple flaws and deficiencies in the Ballot which cause grave concern for the ratification of SLohA's budget and assault to the integrity of its governing documents including:
1.Presentation of TWO options—FOUR Choices—contaminating the ratification of a proposed budget with a second unrelated polling of the Internet fee and presenting a SECOND proposed budget and assessment. (Many people are confused if they must vote for only One of the four choices or vote for One choice from Option A and ONE choice from Option B.) Those owners who FAVOR the intemet part and wish to reject the proposed Budget do not have a choice to vote accordingly, thereby corrupting the budget choice and forcing budget approval on the basis of desire for an intemet fee option. The budget ratification must be a stand-alone business issue and the ballot, as prepared is confusing and misleading and owners are not being given a clear choice to vote "Yes or No" on the proposed budget, as required by our governing documents. The outcome, therefore, is unenforceable.;
2. Absence of underlying authority to amend Declaration and assuming false authority to make changes to Covenants;
3. Substantive mistakes in the text of previously-disseminated information about the proposed change on voting threshold (numerical representations false);
4. Unlawful addition of NEW provisions in the Covenants misrepresented as a change (liens and mortgage foreclosures);
5. Attempt to "change" language which serves to impair the contact rights of members regarding commercial activity;
6. Absence of full text of proposed Rules & Regulations and Covenants on the Ballot itself.
Pursuant to recent changes to FS617, under which SLohA was incorporated, members may now seek relief from 617.07401. You should, therefore, regard this as a demand and complaint for an investigation and determination that SLohA's actions were made according to all applicable laws and with good faith. We demand that SLohA states specifically what legal authority SLohA is relying on to present owners with an unlawful Ballot, in this manner with the above described deficiencies. We trust that SLohA will withdraw and nullify this Ballot, which it purports to illegally encumber parcels with a new assessment. You have misrepresented and inadequately represented items of business, and have denied owners an opportunity to clearly consider a proposed budget uncorrupted with secondary issues of interest to special outside profit-making agents.
I look forward to your response to my concerns within thirty (30) days.
Sincerely,
James Ath & Jew-D W. Ath (16 Royal Coachman)
5099 S-bag Lake Road
Lake Wales, FL 3389
*Hand delivered to SLohA, 499 S-bag Lake Road- Received By