|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 26, 2014 15:10:35 GMT -5
A curious owner has requested the proof of the statement made by KCNetworks/St aib to Polk County Code Enforcement in the form an an Official Records Request to the BOD to produce the documents in support of SLohA's supposed ownership of the four (4) illegal communications towers encroaching on Owner's private property.
As you recall, the above Complaint for Violations of the Building Code has been issued against SLohA on KCNetwork's /St aib's assertion that HE "gave" these towers to SLohA and they belong to US!
That's news to US!
Here is the list of records requested. These are due in 10 days from the date that BOD will receive Certified Mail, which should be on Friday at the latest, thus the records will be due on Sept 12--2 weeks before the next County Review.
The Polk County Code Enforcement Officer was sent a copy of the Records Request to put the county on informal notice of a dispute of the violation issued against SLohA. This was sent Certified, Hand delivered and Emailed.
As many of you will recall, this KCN issue is "pre-litigation" and SLohA is under a legal records preservation notice. That means that all correspondence,i.e. personal and corporate email, videorecordings, napkin notes etc must not be destroyed, "lost" or tampered with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 10, 2014 20:23:27 GMT -5
Here is the answer to the Records Request dated Sept 8, 2014. Note the request was answered by Toneesha Shroeder, bookkeeper for SLohA and the SLohA Board of Directors was not copied on her reply. A followup Records Request was submitted Sept 10, 2014 and will be posted separately. Here is the pdf>>>> which clearly says "Response- There is no such documentation as requested."
View Attachment OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 499 S-bag Lake Road Lake Wales, FL 33898 863-696-2407 September 8, 2014 James Ath RE: Official Records Request dated 8.26.14 We are in receipt of the attached records request. Per FL Statue 720 below, attached is the information the Association is providing: 1. Response- There is no such documentation as requested. 2. Response- There is no such documentation as requested. 3. Response- There is no such documentation as requested. 4. Response- There is no such documentation as requested. 5. Response- There is no such documentation as requested. 6. Response- There is no such documentation as requested. 7. Response- The towers are covered under the general liability policy of the Association. I have attached the policy for your review and here is an email statement from the insurance underwriter for your purposes as the policy does not expressly state it in detail. " I was able to confirm that the towers owned by the community are covered for liability. Unfortunately, I don’t have anything that states that simply. Our policy does state that everything on the property is covered for liability unless it is specifically excluded, which the towers are not. I hope this helps!" Matt Sumner, Commercial Underwriter for Tower Hill Insurance. 8. Response- There is no such documentation as requested. 9. Response- There is no such documentation as requested. 10. Response- Attached are the governing documents of the Association, please feel free to obtain advise from your legal counsel for further interpretation of the documents as it relates to any questions you may have about applicability. 11. Response- There is no such documentation as requested. 12. Response- Attached is the Fiscal Year Ending 3.31.14 Audit which references Assets of the Association for your review. Respectfully, Toneesha Shrodr for S-bag Lake Owners Association, Inc. Board of Directors |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 10, 2014 20:37:08 GMT -5
SHUT THE DOOR! There's even more! A followup Official Records Request was certified to SLohA's BOD regarding the form and content of the response, which failed to fully disclose all information requested.
>>>Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 10, 2014 20:42:46 GMT -5
And, finally...one last piece of corresondence to put SLohA on Official Notice of the Records Requests, response by Stmbg Ixx which was NOT copied to SLohA, followup for more information and asking for a truthful, direct answer FROM THE BOARD. This letter must be read at the next scheduled BOD meeting and, hopefully, will be addressed in a forthcoming manner by BOD.
>>>Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 11, 2014 20:52:38 GMT -5
A "false statement to a public servant" may come under the Florida Perjury Statute and is a misdemeanor. The Polk County Attorney will certainly follow up on that. False reports and statements seem to be "going around" in S-bag lately...
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Sept 16, 2014 10:19:07 GMT -5
I noticed that Stmbug Ixx's bookkeeper invoked FL Statute 720 in her 9/8/14 response to the written requests of owners J.A. & J.A. of Royal Coachmen.
Hmmmm....I wonder if she realizes this is the wrong FL Statute to be going by here?
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 16, 2014 17:22:07 GMT -5
That is true in some cases; however, FS720 is the proper statute to follow regarding Official Records Requests. The reason is what makes things confusing. Here is a discussion for your consideration. As my disclaimer, I previously discussed this issue at length, via email, with my attorney, Frd O'N eel (Attny), and below is my understanding of his opinions and thoughts. The discussion is not intended to be legal interpretation or advice, but is for informational purposes only.
In general, there are two purposes of statutes for homeowners--one is "remedial/procedural" and one is "material/substantive" and these purposes are in keeping with the state's mission to protect homeowners. The "material" modifies property rights and that is the part that applies when we are talking about "taking away" (or expanding) owners' property rights. The other part is "procedural and remedial" and is intended to cure defects caused by the passage of time, omissions, and vaguely or badly written laws.
In the case of Official Records Request, the state is always trying to "catch up" to the many creative ways the HOA's come up with to deny homeowners access to their own records. The statutes are frequently updated to close the new loopholes. The right to see records has not changed; only the process by which owners must request and HOA's must respond has changed i.e. the statute changes are "curative and remedial" and solidly within the domain of protecting the public. The changes are applicable to all HOA's and replace any bylaws, policies or rules that HOA's might currently have.
In the case of this subject, FS617.309, the original provision under which SLohA was established, was written back in the days of cable TV when Developers were adding sweetheart deals to the subdivision and passing on contract obligations for decades to the homeowners. Back then, the Cable TV companies paid Developers big bucks to install their bulk service in communities and tie homeowners into long term service agreements. The original provision--the one that SLohA was incorporated under-was both material and remedial in that it limited the rights of Developers, expanded the rights of homeowners and filled in language missing in governing documents.
That provision was expanded in 2011 under the Year 2000 "break out" Statute for homeowners--ie 720--and intended to cure the problems of the past which had became a recurring cause of disputes and court cases. The expanded provision was both "procedural" and "material". It is not unusual for there to be blurriness in the statutes with regard to regulating certain activities of homeowner associations and this helps to send lawyer's kids to college (Frd has a lawyer sense of humor).
But, this expansion of the statute went too far; it gave the power to Boards to adopt a bulk contract--regardless of what the governing documents said (or didn't say)! And this power was not in the domain of "remedial". Was there some overwhelming, overriding "public good" to be achieved by permitting the state to allow Internet Service Providers to sell bulk service contracts to Boards of Associations--even when governing documents prohibited it? The only remedy remaining to objecting homeowners would be to launch a constitutional lawsuit against their own Association. More lawyer fees to sort out a whole new generation of disputes!
It is important to remember that FS720 binds HOA's all the time with regard to procedural, remedial and curative changes to the provisions; i.e FS720 "trumps" the Redbook on many, many provisions. BUT, FS720 cannot insert itself into contracts already entered into and take away vested property rights unless the right was previously waived by 100% of owners! So, 100% of the owners would have had to take a deed to property restricted by documents that contained the "magic Kaufman language" (1977). "Kaufman language" is documentary language that has the effect of incorporating later-enacted "substantive" statutory changes into the governing documents of a community. There is no such language in SLohA governing documents. Thus, owners' property rights are those fixed in time to the 1972 statute.
So, by expanding FS720.309, the State "took" a right from the Owners that they might have otherwise had by virtue of their own governing documents. Then, the State went on to give back a procedural remedy to Owners; it said that Owners could ratify or defeat the contract at the next regular meeting! Whew! We can all rest easy--NOT! Heavy Sigh...the provision fails to refer to notice requirements which must be otherwise followed for the adoption of special assessments or a new amenity. A strict reading of the provision says that this "cancel option" is afforded to Owners only at the meeting following the adoption of the contract, and that there is no special notice that need to be given to Owners that they will passively ratify an extra assessment to pay for a bulk telecommunications contract unless they take appropriate action at the next meeting! Nice law.
The provision is named "Agreements entered into by the Association" and, in my opinion, went beyond the task of curing procedural elements of adopting bulk telecommunication agreements. There is BIG money in that business and the legislature is pro-business. It will cost Owners a lot of money to get this sorted out.
To sum, S-bag was incorporated in 1972 under FS617.309(1)--41 years before the word "telecommunications" was part of the cultural vocabulary. At that time, the statute referred only to the Developer and their contracts which attempted to bind owners to service after turnover of the association. By 1977, SLR turnover to SLohA occurred and rendered the provision moot. Now--41 year later--here it is again--morphed into a vehicle for the enrichment of the lucrative telecommunications providers and "sponsors"! Because S-bag documents are completely silent on this issue, the courts would look at the original contract and what the governing documents permitted in terms of future internal and external modifications to the contract. S-bag has no provisions (no Kaufman language) which indicate any intent to be governed by future legislative changes in its contract with Owners.
I want to add one more thing that Frd told me--this is not a democratic question--it does not matter what the majority of owners want. Non-profit corporations are not democratic institutions and are not set up to be run as a democracy. Owners can opt into a non-mandatory contract negotiated by the BOD, but some owners cannot impose a new, mandatory amenity assessment on all owners--or ALL owners will be paying a lot of legal fees for a very long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 28, 2014 9:32:51 GMT -5
This is a SECOND followup Official Records Request to the BOD delivered immediately following the first response which SLohA had the attorney construct and the administrative assistant prepare and deliver to the requesting owner:
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 28, 2014 11:50:03 GMT -5
This is the reply to the SECOND Official Records Request -Stmbg Ixx/BOD in BLACK BOLD ITALIC and EDITOR IN RED: September 10, 2014 To SLohA Board of Director via Certified Mail, Hand-delivery and Email From J Ath xx Royal Coachman RE: Followup to Records Request Stmbg Ixx Response dated September 8 2014 I am in receipt of your response of above-dated correspondence which confirms that S-bag Lake Owner’s Association does not own any communications towers or equipment which have been installed on SLohA common property by K C Networks, as represented to Polk County Code Enforcement by Mr. St aib. I will, therefor, followup with Hank Smith and request that Polk County vacates complaint CE14-3504 filed against SLohA on 5/16/2014 for “Building without a Permit” in light of the non-existence of any documentation which supports Mr. Robber St aib’s assertion on 6/10/2014 that “he gave the towers to S-bag MHP”. I am also advising Ms. Martinez in Land Planning of the status of our objection to the complaint, for her information. In followup to your response, please provide the following: 1. Minutes of “privileged” meeting between SLohA and Stmbg Ixx’s and/or SLohA’s attorney(s) on September 5th and, copy of invoice from the attorney(s) for services provided. 1. See Attached MinutesRecReqSept5.pdf (18.35 KB)The Minutes were attached and are posted under the BOD Board or downloadable here. The Minutes were affixed to one or more outdoor bulletin boards on Sept 16 on a half sheet of plain white paper and were unsigned. The Minutes were belatedly posted on CHUG on Sept 17--TWELVE DAYS after the Sept 5th meeting! The Minutes simply named the attorneys present at the meeting and that pending litigation was the subject of the meeting which is the minimum required by law. The Minutes were probably produced at the last minute to fulfill the Official Records Request.2. Statement of clarification of the relationship between Stmbg Ixx’s bookkeeper, Toneesha Shroeder and SLohA i.e. is Toneesha Shroeder an agent or representative of SLohA? Ms Shrodr provides no title after her name or any relationship except “for” SLohA Board of Directors. You are requested to provide documentation establishing and defining the permissions and limitations of that relationship to SLohA. Attached is the management contract with Stmbg Ixx, Inc.
StamManmtAgree20142016.pdf (315.24 KB)
In an email: Follow up on response dated 9.8.14:
As you are aware, the Association via its Board of Directors has hired it's management company to deal with the day to day operations of the Association under their supervision and guidance. In past instances you have received responses to records requests directly from me and my office with no question. I also had the pleasure of working with your wife for short period of time during the management transition and have covered the office from time to time. I am kept apprised for the most part of the goings on at S-bag in case there is ever an emergency that would require our involvement we can step in and take care of the Association with little interruption. I do supervise all Community Association Managers of our company including M. e. l.. However, I can provide a quick summary of my qualifications which you can easily verify with the respective agencies. I do have my Bachelor Degree of Science in Accounting from the Lock Hayvn University of Pennsylvania, I have a CAM license with the State of Florida, Real Estate Sales Associate license with the State of Florida, and am part owner of Stmbg Ixx, Inc. Additionally, there was no failure on Stmbg Ixx, Inc.'s part to keep the board apprised of the your correspondence/response and if at any time the Board feels that our response was inadequate or unauthorized we would have communicated that in a timely manner.
If there is further correspondence/answer from the Board on the questions you pose in your correspondence that is outside the records request requirements, I will forward it on.
Toneesha Shrodr
Executive Administrator/Accountant
You can download the Stmbg Ixx Inc Management Agreement here. But, this is Not a responsive answer to the question which specifically asked for BOD's statement of delegating agency to the administrative executive assistant to "speak for them". Instead, Toneesha submitted a copy of the current Management Contract and an overview of her educational qualifications to intervene in SLohA business--which did not involve her role as bookkeeper.
The Management Contract is broad and all-inclusive as to the duties and responsibilities of the "manager", who is Stmbg Ixx Inc. Property Management. Though Schoeder's involvement in SLohA affairs is appropriate from an ACCOUNTING viewpoint, it is inappropriate for her to involve herself in general business, though it is not contrary to the specifications of the Management Contract or law (since she is a licensed--and verified--CAM).3. Documentation that the Board Directors received a copy of Stmbg Ixx’s reply to the Official Records Request—there was no copy to SLohA indicated on Stmbg Ixx’s correspondence dated September 8, 2014. 3. See attached screen shot of the board being blind copied on the original response which they are being blind copied on this one as well. It does not print recipients when BCCd.ReqReqScreenShot1.pdf (269.12 KB)Ridiculous answer. There is NO REASON to blind copy the BOD when replying on behalf of correspondence written to the BOD. And this screen shot is undecipherable and meaningless as evidence of anything. This is the reason Owner wrote separately to the BOD--to place Toneesha's "unauthorized" reply into the Official Record of SLohA.4. Copy of the email exchange(s) purported to have taken place between Stmbg Ixx and Matt Sumner and any other persons at Tower Hill insurance with reference to the presence of communications towers installed on SLohA common property. Unresponsive as the Request asked for the "EXCHANGE" ie. the question and the answer. Stmbg Ixx provided only an email response from Tower Hill. One has no idea what question(s) were asked or what context that answer was given. Also, the original email was to an "elambininsurance.com email address to Stmbg Ixx and the SUBJECT was "Cell Towers-S-bag Lake". The reply was to Tower Hill whose underwriter responded that the cell towers owned by the community were covered under the general liability policy but there was no specific mention of these towers on the policy. IMO, this is unacceptable; these towers are a special liability on the premises and should be separately rated.
5. Further to the response by Tower Hill regarding towers on the property and general premises liability which SLohA is paying for, please provide the easement agreement with an indemnification clause to limit SLohA’s liability inasmuch as your statement presumes that SLohA is paying insurance on the tower equipment.
5. There is no such documentation to provideUnacceptable and shocking. SLohA is totally exposed to any claim or lawsuit filed by any third party--any of the 1500+ subscribers and any of the Lessees like Verizon or Sprint whose dishes are mounted on the towers. Owners should be outraged at this flagrant neglect of protection. Remember--the previous record request revealed NO DOCUMENTATION of SLohA ownership of the towers; this means that SLohA should require indemnification of SLohA from the owner of the towers.6. Expansion of identification of SLohA expenditures in Item #8. That request is hereby modified to be inclusive of ALL expenses regardless of the date of expense (where previously it was limited to a proposed date of acceptance of an offer for the towers). In other words, identify ALL direct and indirect labor and materials expenses attributable to the planning, existence, installation, maintenance and repair of the towers including any allocation of SLohA funds not yet expended. 6. See attached financials over the years for maintenance expenses for SLohA.Toneesha attached the Income Expense Compiled Financial statements from 4/1/2012 to 3/31/13, 4/1/2013 to 3/31/2014 and from 4/1/2014 to 7/31/2014.Unacceptable response; this was a "F*** You" answer and is insulting to Owners. The request was for the expenses paid by SLohA for these towers. There is NO POSSIBLE way to identify these particular expenses from the compiled financial reports. That is why the request was made. SLohA is refusing to provide this information.Attached is a copy of my correspondence to Hank Smith, Code Enforcement Officer, at Polk County Code Enforcement. Please forward all documentation, in digital form, to jauth1@aol.com. J Ath, xx Royal Coachman CC: Via Certified Mail to SLohA, 499 S-bag Lake Rd, Lake Wales, FL 33898, Hand-delivery to same address and Corporate Officer Email addresses CC: Polk County Hank.Smith@polk-county.net (Hank Smith, Code Enforcement Officer) CC: Polk County – AnaMartinez@polk-county.net (Long Range Planning Division) |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 28, 2014 12:06:39 GMT -5
This new thread was set up to separate the Official Records Request/Response from the Polk County Complaint threads (#1 and #2) to help organize the content. The Official Records Records Requests have been moved here on Sun Sept 28th.
|
|
Expose
Pilgrim
"Always Seek The Truth"
Posts: 43
|
Post by Expose on Sept 28, 2014 21:06:03 GMT -5
We have a question... We have read all of the above posts and are some what confused. If SLohA does not have any Documentation about Ownership of the 4 Towers. Why did our "BODs Vote and Approved $3,200 to pay a Engineering Firm", to prepare a structural study of the Towers for SLohA. It does not make any Common Sense. If SLohA does not have documentation of ownership, then Virginia & B ob Stailb the owners of KCNetwork should be paying for any Engineering Study costing $3,200. We Do Not Understand, Can Somebody Help Us !!! (The New Clappers)
NOTE THE BOD MEETING MINUTES BELOW: "Under New Business", (hi-lite in red)...
Board Meeting Minutes
August 13, 2014
Draft -- Pending Approval, SLohA Board of Directors Meeting
Secretary, Alc Nttr called the meeting to order at 09:00 a.m. in the clubhouse.
Invocation given by Alc Nttr
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call: Peet Brdun, NorleeDee Brnd, Clf Jnsn, Alc Nttr, Chrls Schlz, Stv Suthrd were present. Chrly Mnc, Alln Rss, Frns sm all were absent. A quorum established.
Stmbg Ixx, Inc.: Melonknee Kreeow was present.
Stv Suthrd made a motion that the minutes of the June 11, 2014 meeting be adopted as presented. NorleeDee Brnd seconded motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Peet Brdun moved that the Agenda be adopted as presented. Clf Jnsn seconded motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Melonknee Kreeow gave Managers Report. Will be posted in SLR and on the CHUG website.
Peet Brdun: Presidents Report
Nothing to report, but wanted to thank Alc Nttr for chairing the meeting since he nor VP Chrly Mnc were physically present.
Chrls Mnc: Absent
Alc Nttr: Board Correspondence
1] Letter from Gny Lwl, 37 Royal Coachman, RE: Letter of Resignation from the Violations Committee.
2] Letter from Don & Wenda Mullen , 62 Silversides, RE: Lawsuit concerning 66 Silversides and possible change to bylaws regarding porches
3] Letter from twelve [12] summer residents requesting the swimming pool be opened at 6:30 a.m. to walk laps in the pool before the exercise class starts at 9:00a.m.
4] Letter from Alln Rss, 61 S-bag Trail, RE: Letter of Resignation from the SLohA Board of Directors; due to selling their property and no longer property owners in SLR.
5] Letter from Les & Phyllis Calkins, 21 Blue Quill, RE: Opening swimming pool by 6:30 a.m.
Stv Suthrd: Treasurers Report
1] June 2014 financials are in and available at office or on website. Duck Engerny in June financials is showing over budget due to deposit for accounts. As soon as bond is received by Duke, those monies will be refunded back.
2] Final Audit Report is still pending.
Clf Jnsn: No Report, Chrls Schlz: No Report
Old Business:
1] Tennis Courts. We received 3 bids as follows: Tkr Paving: $95,107.20; Varsity Courts: $130,357.00; Sport Surfaces: $129,900.00. Bids did not include fencing. Yesterday we went back to Varsity Courts and asked if they were to include the fencing how much would it change their bid. [Note: the bid for doing the fencing ONLY [above the cost of replacing the courts] was $21,560.00]. Varsity Courts proposed including installation of court fencing for an additional $12,137.00 for a total of $142,494.00. Discussion. NorleeDee Brnd made motion to approve the proposal from Varsity Courts for an amount not to exceed $142,494.00 for replacement of the tennis courts and related fencing issues. Stv Suthrd seconded motion. Roll Call vote of all present directors voted in favor. Motion passed unanimously.
2] Stv Suthrd made motion to pay Ellison RBM, Inc. for maintenance at the north waste plant that the maintenance department is not equipped to perform in the amount of $1,237.83. NorleeDee Brnd seconded motion. Motion passed unanimously.
3] Alc Nttr made motion to approve payment to Central Florida Irrigation, Inc., for parts for the north waste plant that the maintenance department did not have on hand in the amount of $1,308.72. Chrls Schlz seconded motion. Motion passed unanimously.
4] Stv Suthrd made motion to approve the change order to LMK Pipe Renewal to reinstate service connections from the cleanouts which were previously undercut when initial main lining and reinstatements were done on the sewer mains & laterals. Adjustment for additional work in the amount of $2,100.00. NorleeDee Brnd seconded motion. Motion passed unanimously.
5] Discussion on walkways and carport overhangs. Per existing rules 4-7A, owners can tie in walkways to carport but sH all not exceed more than 6 feet from dwelling. Projections may not be enclosed and may not be used for licensed vehicles or other storage.
6] NorleeDee Brnd announced that the divider wall in Memorial H all has been replaced. Looks good.
"NOTE THIS # 2] $3,200
New Business:
1] Stv Suthrd made motion to repair fountain in lagoon due to a boating mishap and rewire all of the wiring due to corrosion and brittleness of old wiring by Stwd Elctc in the amount of $3,500.00. Chrly Schlz seconded motion. Discussion. Motion passed unanimously.
2] Alc Nttr made motion to approve acquiring a permit for the footers of the internet towers and engineer drawings which are required to be submitted upon request of the permit from Polk County Building Department. Engineers drawings for the four internet tower footers on SLohA property in the amount of "$3,200." Stv Suthrd seconded motion. Discussion. Complaints to the county on the internet towers prompted our having to get engineers drawings for each tower. Motion passed unanimously.
3] NorleeDee Brnd made motion to approve payment for the concrete replacement provided by KMR Concrete at the horseshoe pits in the amount of $1,900.00; and that the board accept the donation of $1,500.00 from the horseshoe club. Stv Suthrd seconded motion. Motion passed unanimously.
4] Stv Suthrd made motion to approve transfer of employee payroll from ADP to Prodigy at a savings of approximately $5,000.00 per year. NorleeDee Brnd seconded motion. Discussion. Motion passed unanimously.
5] Alc Nttr made motion to replace the fence surrounding the maintenance department and water plant due to damage/deterioration [was previously budgeted for], not to exceed $4,300. Chrls Schlz seconded motion. Discussion. Motion passed unanimously.
6] Discussion of opening swimming pool at 6:30 a.m. Board approved opening pool early with lights being turned on as needed for safety just as for evening hour swimming.
7] NOTE: It was agreed thru mediation that Mr. Lochran's carport, 4 Parson Tom Circle, is to be removed [within 60 days of this mediation settlement of July 22, 2014].
8] Stv Suthrd brought up the need to replace board member with the resignation of Alln Rss. Asked for volunteers. To be addressed at next meeting.
9] NorleeDee Brnd brought up that a stump was removed by an owner who does not like the stumps. Stumps are located on common property, but owners are responsible to maintain them. NorleeDee will try to resolve issue with owner.
Owners Comments: Two
Eleven [11] owners in attendance.
NorleeDee Brnd made motion to adjourn. Alc Nttr seconded motion. Meeting was adjourned at 10:43 a.m.
Respectively submitted:
Alc Nttr, Secretary
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 29, 2014 17:28:26 GMT -5
New (or Old) Clappers: The Editor is very sorry to tell you that you cannot rely on any information that you read on this Forum, despite the impression that content might appear to be factual. You MUST go to 499 (aka "Oz") for an official "rendition du jour" or go to the CHUG website to find the answer to your questions. If you are True Blue Clappers, you were at the Board Meeting where this announcement was made. If you do not recall this advice, then you were not paying attention or clapping too often and/or too enthusiastically.
Someday in the future perhaps the answers will be revealed, if not by MANBOD's recommended sources or Official Records Requests, then by ...subpoena! In the meantime, you might want to get your hands on the CHECK REGISTERS for the Operating and Reserve Accounts by making an written Official Records Request and delivering via Certified Mail. That info will tell you if the SLohA money allocated to the expense was actually spent. (Just because BOD allocates money to a project does not mean that project will be spent e.g. the new Entrance Sign.) If there is an expenditure to an engineering firm, you can then make a second Official Records Request for the Engineering Bid and Contract, and the Engineering Study.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 29, 2014 18:07:18 GMT -5
Re SLohA reply to request for email exchange--I did not know who/what elaminsurance.com was. It appears that Toneesha emailed SLohA's insurance agent in Lake Wales--Edward Lamb & Associates.
The email was directed to the Office Manager i.e. Angie Cozart, CSR, Office Mgr. acozart@elambinsurance.com who apparently made an inquiry to the underwriter at Tower Hill.
|
|
