2014 March: Access to SLohA Deposit Accounts

Still getting over the shock of this.  I am told that this was actually done last summer, presumably because there were no BOD around to sign checks.  It is unbelievable that BOD would take it upon themselves to ignore a BYLAW and give a VENDOR signing privileges on SLohA bank accounts!   This is equivalent to giving any VENDOR--like TT--signing privileges--heck--they are in the park 2 days a week without fail during the summer!  Why not have the driver co-sign checks when they come in?  VENDORS have no authority to act on behalf of MEMBERS and to have given a VENDOR legal access to SLohA funds is not how I would characterize fulfilling a fiduciary duty.

If BOD has a problem getting checks signed in the summer--put a Bylaw amendment on the Ballot!   In the meantime, BOD cannot simply waive a BYLAW because it happens to be inconvenient.

Here's another excerpt from professional publication Current Accounts, article "Forensic Audit vs Financial Statement Audits" by Georgia Society of CPAs 2008:


SLohA has a "system of internal controls in place for safeguarding assets."   It is the Bylaws which provide that Officers' signatures must be on checks and otherwise have access to deposit accounts.  A weakness was identified in the motion made at the 3/19/14 meeting which named the persons to have access to SLohA deposit accounts--namely the four Officers PLUS a director and Bd Stmb Ixx.  A determination of anyone exploiting this identified weakness has not been undertaken. Such an effort would require a forensic audit.

Whether the Board likes it or not, there are people who are genuinely concerned about the financial integrity of SLohA--especially after the astonishing and alarming Board sponsorship of an unwanted internet service pressuring an invalid ballot.  This is even more true in light of this act authorizing non-officers access to depository accounts.  There are no insinuations being made--there are only disparate facts that do not yet fit together into a theory or conclusion.  One of my favorite quotes:

Cross-post from CATEGORY:  BOD
Board: Trust & Fiduciary Duty

This is a Letter we hand delivered, plus e-mailed to the BOD Officers, Stmb Ixx Inc. and includes e-mail responses to Our Letter:

Subject: SLohA Authorization for Bank Signature Cards/Safety Deposits

March 24, 2014

Note: via Hand Delivery to SLohA Admin office at 499 S-bag Lake Trail
TO: President@SLRmail.com,
VP@SLRmail.com,
Treasurer@SLRmail.com,
Secretary@SLRmail.com,
stambaughinc@verizon.net

RE: SLohA Authorization for Bank Signature Cards/Safety Deposit Box

This letter is to advise that SLohA directors have recently conducted SLohA business in a manner that is contrary to its governing documents with regard to authorizing signatures on SLohA’s depository accounts and safety deposit box. This is the note from the SLohA BOD meeting of March 19, 2014:

"Treasurer’s Report: Financials are on website; things are going good; expenses under budget, everything is progressing well. Signors on account need to be updated with bank with accounts/lock box. Named the authorized signors including D Brnd and Bd Stmb Ixx Inc."

"Edit to Note: Motion the authorized signors named: Peet Brdn, Pres, Chrly Mnc, VP, Alc Knttr, Sec, Stv Sthrd, Treas, D Brnd and Bd Stmb Ixx of Bd Stmb Ixx Inc. Motion passed unanimously."



The Board is reminded that SLohA Bylaws require ONLY Officers to have signing authority on SLohA depository accounts and safe deposit boxes:


On behalf of all Members, we strongly urge the Board to immediately call a Special Board Meeting to correct the unlawful action conducted at the previous meeting and remove D Brnd, Director, and Bd Stmb Ixx of Stmb Ixx Inc. as authorized signors to SLohA’s depository accounts.


J & J A, 16 Royal Coachmen

Received By: _____________________________________________ Date __________________



From: Stmb Ixx Inc.
To: JA
Sent: Wed, Mar 26, 2014 3:56 pm
Subject: RE: SLohA Authorization for Bank Signature Cards/Safety Deposits

Hello Mr. and Mrs. Ath:
The Association is in receipt of your letter regarding the signature cards. As you cited the documents require an officer to sign checks. Management has recommended and the S-bag association has implemented as an additional step of review to have two individuals sign checks at all times. In order to accomplish this dual checks and balances, it may be necessary to have multiple options of signers from time to time. As long as one officer signs the checks the Association is in compliance with the bylaws. A director or agent signature singularly do not authorize checks. However, the Board of Directors does have the option as necessary to appoint assistant officers and may exercise that option to further validate the signers.
Any questions let me know
.
Thanks
Txxx Sxxxxxx
Executive Adm.
Stmb Ixx, Inc.



To: Stmb Ixx Inc.
From: Jm & Jew-D Subject: Re: SLohA Authorization for Bank Signture Cards/Safty Deposits

Your statement that "as long as one officer signs the check, SLohA is in compliance with the Bylaws" is untrue. That is not what the Bylaw states.
Perhaps you should seek additional guidance from your attorney on this matter to further your comprehension of the language in SLohA Bylaws.
While we appreciate your comments, we reasonably look to our Board to provide an authoritative response.

James & Jew-D Ath
From: Stmb Ixx, Inc.
To: James Ath
Sent: Wed, Mar 26, 2014 8:44 pm

Subject: RE: SLohA Authorization for Bank Signature Cards/Safety Deposits

Perhaps you should ask before you assume that a legal opinion was not sought. Since you feel the need to state the association is not operating legally, legal advice was sought and the Board did review my response. As you are aware, as management we take care of responding to correspondence and requests of this nature as we've always done in the past and you have accepted as well. Otherwise if you do not wish to get a response from management, then expressly request that in your correspondence and refrain from copying us so there is no misunderstanding.
Unless the Board instructs otherwise, all checks will be dual signed with at least one Officer as has been the case for years. If you wish to seek further legal advice on the matter to further your comprehension of the language or take further action you may do so at your expense.

Have a great day!
Txxxxx Sxxxxx
Executive Adm. Stmb Ixx, Inc.

: From: James Ath
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:11 PM
To: Stmb Ixx Inc
Subject: Re: SLohA Authorization for Bank Signture Cards/Safty Deposits

Txxxxxx, Since you chose to consult a lawyer, presumably at the direction of the board and paid for with Association funds, please provide a written copy of the attorney's opinion.
Thank You,
Jm & Jew-D Ath
From Stmb Ixx, Inc.
To James Ath

Hi Jm and Jew-D,
The advise was done via conversation with the attorney while on the phone regarding other legal matters of course authorized accordingly. No such written opinion is available for you, but if you wish to have one in writing you can request one at your expense.

Txxxxxx Sxxxxxxxx
Executive Admin.
Stmb Ixx, Inc.

.Note: Our correspondence was addressed to SLohA Board of Directors; We should have copied Stmb Ixx Inc. and sH all make it clear in the future that our correspondence is directed to the persons that are answerable to the Members who elected them. Apparently, this matter was thought to be an insignificant "management" concern and mistakenly delegated to our vendor (Stmb Ixx Inc.).
This is exactly the style of Management, we have in SLohA. Pass the Buck.
My assumption is that our Board would reasonably be able to read and comprehend SLR's Bylaws and that expensive legal advice would not be necessary. Wrong !!!

Without diligent pursuit by the Board to stop this practice of allowing a vendor access to our SLohA monies via signature authority, the Board will have broken a bylaw. If the carport issue or front porch issue is in violation of any bylaws, then I say that SLohA has negated its own strong fisted enforcement of each and every bylaw and thus under equal application "under the law" must step down its enforcement practices against individual home owners.

The best thing to do is to take away their allowance and spank them until they straighten out and fly right.

A Second Letter has been delivered to the Board today; the Management Company has NOT been included in the correspondence per their previous complaint.

I was looking at the different threads on the Residents Forum, and this thread above, with BOD & Managements lame response, is a In Your Face, We Will Do As We Please.

The Present BODs and Management Company (Stmbg Ixx Inc.) must be replaced.

This is The Worst Board of Directors in the history of SLohA. We are being Played as Fools. I do not Trust this Leadership! The Truth about Our Leaders will be exposed in due time.

Think about this Please: The CEO of Our Management Company can co-sign SLohA's Checks and Draw Monies From SLohA's Depository's Accounts.

PLEASE VOTE THESE DIRECTORS OUT of OFFICE.....