Post by Admin on Jan 20, 2014 12:51:41 GMT -5
Guests: Use the "saddleviewer" member to download (password: 123abc) and don't forget to fill out the day's date at top, name and address at bottom. These letters are being distributed throughout the park and will be collected by the person who gave it to you-or-you can return the letter to them at their home.
GeneralOwnerBallotOjectionLetter.pdf (179.39 KB)
January 2014
TO SLohA Board of Directors and Sxxxxxxxx Ixx, Inc.
I, and other owners, object to the content and presentation of the Ballot presented to Owners on Jan 13, 2014 for the following reasons.
Ballot contains unlawful multiple “options” for ratifying the proposed 2014-15 Budget. Specifically, it prevents owners from ratifying a proposed budget by embedding a second, highly controversial and unlawful issue into the ballot vote.
The ballot has TWO options and TWO proposed budgets and a total of FOUR checkoff boxes. This alone is confusing to many owners. Those desiring the internet service do not have an option to vote against the budget! By incorporating a second polling issue with the budget proposal vote, you have limited the choices and biased the outcome. You have risked non-enforcement of a new budget due to the faulty presentation (which you were advised against by SLohA attorney and Management Company).
Additionally, the above “Internet Option” proposal to assess parcels for a non-operating expense of maintaining common property is also contrary to our Covenants and Bylaws which requires assessments to be levied on maintaining common property owned by the Association. The internet service is not owned by SLohA.
Further, owners object to the misleading and abbreviated form of the Ballots, which do not provide enough information to enable and document an informed choice. There are discrepancies between the materials handed out and the ballot materials.
Finally, there are serious questions about the underlying authority of the Association to amend the covenants—an important material fact which owners have not been informed about. Many, but not all, owners are aware of the Arbitration which you briefly referred to in the Informational Meeting and what its impact potentially is on the change proposals which you present. This should have been disclosed in some manner to allow an informed choice.
Moreover, one of the covenant proposals (#13) is not a change at all—it is an addition (which requires 100% affirmative vote). One of the proposals (#15) is false in misrepresenting a threshold of votes. Lastly, one of the proposals (#11) serves to limit and reduce owners’ contractual rights—a fact not made clear at the meeting or on the ballot.
For the above and other reasons, we submit these objections and request that SLohA specifically address these concerns, citing the authorities which permit our Ballot process to be conducted in an unlawful manner inconsistent with our documents and related Florida statutes, without reasonable disclosures, care and diligence and in a manner not in the best interests of the Association members.
Sincerely,
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Owner ADDRESS Date
Hand delivered to 499 S-bag Lake Rd and received by:
_______________________________
GeneralOwnerBallotOjectionLetter.pdf (179.39 KB)
January 2014
TO SLohA Board of Directors and Sxxxxxxxx Ixx, Inc.
I, and other owners, object to the content and presentation of the Ballot presented to Owners on Jan 13, 2014 for the following reasons.
Ballot contains unlawful multiple “options” for ratifying the proposed 2014-15 Budget. Specifically, it prevents owners from ratifying a proposed budget by embedding a second, highly controversial and unlawful issue into the ballot vote.
The ballot has TWO options and TWO proposed budgets and a total of FOUR checkoff boxes. This alone is confusing to many owners. Those desiring the internet service do not have an option to vote against the budget! By incorporating a second polling issue with the budget proposal vote, you have limited the choices and biased the outcome. You have risked non-enforcement of a new budget due to the faulty presentation (which you were advised against by SLohA attorney and Management Company).
Additionally, the above “Internet Option” proposal to assess parcels for a non-operating expense of maintaining common property is also contrary to our Covenants and Bylaws which requires assessments to be levied on maintaining common property owned by the Association. The internet service is not owned by SLohA.
Further, owners object to the misleading and abbreviated form of the Ballots, which do not provide enough information to enable and document an informed choice. There are discrepancies between the materials handed out and the ballot materials.
Finally, there are serious questions about the underlying authority of the Association to amend the covenants—an important material fact which owners have not been informed about. Many, but not all, owners are aware of the Arbitration which you briefly referred to in the Informational Meeting and what its impact potentially is on the change proposals which you present. This should have been disclosed in some manner to allow an informed choice.
Moreover, one of the covenant proposals (#13) is not a change at all—it is an addition (which requires 100% affirmative vote). One of the proposals (#15) is false in misrepresenting a threshold of votes. Lastly, one of the proposals (#11) serves to limit and reduce owners’ contractual rights—a fact not made clear at the meeting or on the ballot.
For the above and other reasons, we submit these objections and request that SLohA specifically address these concerns, citing the authorities which permit our Ballot process to be conducted in an unlawful manner inconsistent with our documents and related Florida statutes, without reasonable disclosures, care and diligence and in a manner not in the best interests of the Association members.
Sincerely,
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Owner ADDRESS Date
Hand delivered to 499 S-bag Lake Rd and received by:
_______________________________
