Post by Admin on Oct 16, 2013 0:08:52 GMT -5
Cross-post AnonNews
September 1, 2013
Now I'm starting to understand why not one of the other 5 that ran against this current BOD got elected two elections ago. Not Only did this bunch buy their votes with the mention of a reduction in fees but they also had to keep secret that the CC&Rs had in fact been expiring.
If even one other had been elected they could have blown the lid off of the big cover up that was known about since Bxx Dxxxxx was President and acting Manager when Nxxxxxx Mxxxxxx was let go .
There must certainly have been some tampering done to Ballots for this to have happened. Some of us know exactly how it was done and some involved have even made mention of it.
Odd how that election had the largest number of votes cast ever .
_____________________________________________________________________--
October 10, 2013
To above : the first thing that needs to happen is a complete overhaul of our balloting and vote counting procedure .
There is no chain of custody when bods are handling ballots and delivering them to the election committee who are friends with some on the ballots .
It was observed in the past that rules with the ballots were broken and manipulated to produce the outcome to keep certain people from being elected and to hide the truth .
There is no doubt in my mind that if some of the people that were not elected in the past had been elected the Expiration of CC&Rs would have been made public and this Management Co. contract would NOT have been renewed and no 13.8% increase granted without negotiation .
But when you have folks running for a seat on the Board and they buy their votes by offering a discounted Fee how can they loose ?
Very unscrupulous doings and I for one do not trust people that are dishonest and manipulative.
___________________________________________________
What discounted fee was offered. Can that be proven? I do not trust them. The Ballots are to easy to access in a file cabinet, I do believe. My spouse ran for the BODs and the vote count just did not add up. But that is just my view. The current BOD just Vote Present or Rubber Stamp all business. Never a No Vote !!!
____________________________________________________
Dozens of Deadbooks
Oh you're getting me started! SLR elections are not and have not been conducted in accordance with the Deadbook for a very long time. The Deadbook specifies an election process that is not even close to being what SLR is/has been doing. Here are some examples:
1) SLohA is still under a 9 district system whereby a Nominating Committee submits candidate-nominees from each district to run for an open seat. Bylaws specify 8 District directors and one Director-at-Large to compose the Board. To change this would require a 2/3 affirmative vote of all parcels. This has never been done. Instead, a Board of the Past decided that it just didn't work and decided to change it without due process.
More troubling, this section was simply deleted from revisions of the bylaws in Redbooks. This can be seen in the several reincarnations of the Redbook which have been distributed over the years. I have seen 3 different versions of the Redbook but there have been so many changes to the R & R's recorded, there might be dozens of Red Deadbooks.
2) Elections are required to be conducted during the annual member meeting. Inconvenient-yes. SLohA Bylaw--Yes. There is NO alternate provision in the bylaws-nor the Florida HOA statute--to change or override this requirement except by a 2/3 affirmative vote. Such a vote has never been done. There is NO permission to conduct elections using a 2 envelope voting system, yet SLohA is conducting (cH allengable) elections using this method.
FS720.06(9) ELECTIONS AND BOARD VACANCIES.—
(a) Elections of directors must be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the governing documents of the association.
3) According to Deadbook, election terms are STILL 2 years; the 3 year term was balloted and failed in 2007. History of recorded changes show that terms were changed to THREE 2-year terms on 6/5/2002. The term limitations again morphed to TWO 3-year terms and were recorded 8/21/2008 (false filing because the ballot failed).
After the failed ballot (changing to 3 years) in 2007, owners cH allenged legitimacy of 3 year term. BOD demanded to rewrite history and reinterpreted the voting results, referencing Robber's Rules at a BOD meeting in the fall of 2011. Another BOD head-scratcher, since Robber's Rules is only applicable to the procedural conduct of meetings and has nothing to do with Bylaws. (Remember Mik's wacky and wonderful politoon in the NewsHound?)
We currently have a director serving a 3rd term justified by "an appointed term is not a REAL term". This protest despite the fact the the Bylaws themselves refer to the filling of a vacated seat during a term as assuming an "unexpired term".
This one is particularly troublesome, as BOD recorded a false document on 8/28/2008 of the altered bylaw in the county public records. Had they recorded the minutes of the meeting at which the balloted item was voted on, and it would have been apparent that the ballot item had failed. However, those meeting minutes still exist and plainly show that the 3 year term was voted down. It will be up to a future Board to correct this mess. Unless SLohA CC&R's are adjudicated "expired".
The BOD also attempted to lobby members to change the wording of the bylaws specifying only "valid votes" were applicable; however, the wording itself cannot be changed without affirmative approval of 2/3 parcels. BOD cannot legally alter one letter of CC&R's without due process. It was motioned at a Board meeting and supposedly approved to be included on an upcoming ballot, though it is unclear from the minutes what the actual intent of the motion was and no one recalls it ever appearing on a ballot. However, I think I actually saw this wording change appear in one of the Redbook versions but it has never been publicly recorded that I can find. Notwithstanding the absence of due process, it was vigorously asserted as a valid basis for passing the ballot item by the BOD when the member cH allenged it during a board meeting in 2011.
Supposedly, the language change would allow the (re)interpretation of an "abstained" vote to be counted whatever way the Board wanted to serve its interests. This would be a dangerous change to approve. In the case of 2007, Board wanted to increase the YES votes by asserting that an absention vote was equivalent to an affirmative vote. This transformation would have passed the ballot item.
The reasoning is another head scratcher but is essentially illegal in determining a vote. Only an Affirmative vote is counted towards passage and the rest--whether Absentions or No votes, are not counted ie they are null and void. Probably should not even be on the ballot to invite such monkey business by devious players.
4) Conduct of the ballot process. Who can ever know what actually goes on? The ballot box is available to be tampered with by the very persons who have an interest in election results--MANBOD. There is no integrity in the custody of ballots between submission and recording contents of the envelopes. Elections can be total fiction and are subject to cH allenge with the Division.
And don't get me started on the proxy process that went down a on past election. Phone records only available to BOD and active solicitation of members for proxy votes. Invisible to members and no way to validate those proxies. Am I repeating hearsay? Yes, I want to be clear on that point. There are people in SLR who know things and details that make sense of the nonsensical.
In my opinion, if members want to tolerate the illegal conduct of an election, they should AT LEAST require ballots to be mailed to a post office lock box accessible only by multiple non-MANBOD members simultaneously, envelopes delivered to the member meeting securely sealed, opened and validated in public and then counted at the member meeting in view of members. Inconvenient-yes. Contrary to Bylaws-yes. Less tampering--yes. Still an illegal fix but would be a huge improvement from current tamper-friendly box in the office with keys on every BOD keyring.
Physical handling of ballots is a very easy thing to corrupt. Insider solicitation using member facilities and information not available to members is corrupt. If I were queen, a new bylaw would be balloted requiring all elections to be password-secured electronic with a quick, gradual transition out of paper ballots/proxies.
Elections are the birthmother of the kind of HOA bratboards members are going to be living with. The old saying is true: "You are always one Board away from a tyranny" (or some variation of that).
Ok I feel better now. Done.
___________________________________________________________
September 1, 2013
Now I'm starting to understand why not one of the other 5 that ran against this current BOD got elected two elections ago. Not Only did this bunch buy their votes with the mention of a reduction in fees but they also had to keep secret that the CC&Rs had in fact been expiring.
If even one other had been elected they could have blown the lid off of the big cover up that was known about since Bxx Dxxxxx was President and acting Manager when Nxxxxxx Mxxxxxx was let go .
There must certainly have been some tampering done to Ballots for this to have happened. Some of us know exactly how it was done and some involved have even made mention of it.
Odd how that election had the largest number of votes cast ever .
_____________________________________________________________________--
October 10, 2013
To above : the first thing that needs to happen is a complete overhaul of our balloting and vote counting procedure .
There is no chain of custody when bods are handling ballots and delivering them to the election committee who are friends with some on the ballots .
It was observed in the past that rules with the ballots were broken and manipulated to produce the outcome to keep certain people from being elected and to hide the truth .
There is no doubt in my mind that if some of the people that were not elected in the past had been elected the Expiration of CC&Rs would have been made public and this Management Co. contract would NOT have been renewed and no 13.8% increase granted without negotiation .
But when you have folks running for a seat on the Board and they buy their votes by offering a discounted Fee how can they loose ?
Very unscrupulous doings and I for one do not trust people that are dishonest and manipulative.
___________________________________________________
What discounted fee was offered. Can that be proven? I do not trust them. The Ballots are to easy to access in a file cabinet, I do believe. My spouse ran for the BODs and the vote count just did not add up. But that is just my view. The current BOD just Vote Present or Rubber Stamp all business. Never a No Vote !!!
____________________________________________________
Dozens of Deadbooks
Oh you're getting me started! SLR elections are not and have not been conducted in accordance with the Deadbook for a very long time. The Deadbook specifies an election process that is not even close to being what SLR is/has been doing. Here are some examples:
1) SLohA is still under a 9 district system whereby a Nominating Committee submits candidate-nominees from each district to run for an open seat. Bylaws specify 8 District directors and one Director-at-Large to compose the Board. To change this would require a 2/3 affirmative vote of all parcels. This has never been done. Instead, a Board of the Past decided that it just didn't work and decided to change it without due process.
More troubling, this section was simply deleted from revisions of the bylaws in Redbooks. This can be seen in the several reincarnations of the Redbook which have been distributed over the years. I have seen 3 different versions of the Redbook but there have been so many changes to the R & R's recorded, there might be dozens of Red Deadbooks.
2) Elections are required to be conducted during the annual member meeting. Inconvenient-yes. SLohA Bylaw--Yes. There is NO alternate provision in the bylaws-nor the Florida HOA statute--to change or override this requirement except by a 2/3 affirmative vote. Such a vote has never been done. There is NO permission to conduct elections using a 2 envelope voting system, yet SLohA is conducting (cH allengable) elections using this method.
FS720.06(9) ELECTIONS AND BOARD VACANCIES.—
(a) Elections of directors must be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the governing documents of the association.
3) According to Deadbook, election terms are STILL 2 years; the 3 year term was balloted and failed in 2007. History of recorded changes show that terms were changed to THREE 2-year terms on 6/5/2002. The term limitations again morphed to TWO 3-year terms and were recorded 8/21/2008 (false filing because the ballot failed).
After the failed ballot (changing to 3 years) in 2007, owners cH allenged legitimacy of 3 year term. BOD demanded to rewrite history and reinterpreted the voting results, referencing Robber's Rules at a BOD meeting in the fall of 2011. Another BOD head-scratcher, since Robber's Rules is only applicable to the procedural conduct of meetings and has nothing to do with Bylaws. (Remember Mik's wacky and wonderful politoon in the NewsHound?)
We currently have a director serving a 3rd term justified by "an appointed term is not a REAL term". This protest despite the fact the the Bylaws themselves refer to the filling of a vacated seat during a term as assuming an "unexpired term".
This one is particularly troublesome, as BOD recorded a false document on 8/28/2008 of the altered bylaw in the county public records. Had they recorded the minutes of the meeting at which the balloted item was voted on, and it would have been apparent that the ballot item had failed. However, those meeting minutes still exist and plainly show that the 3 year term was voted down. It will be up to a future Board to correct this mess. Unless SLohA CC&R's are adjudicated "expired".
The BOD also attempted to lobby members to change the wording of the bylaws specifying only "valid votes" were applicable; however, the wording itself cannot be changed without affirmative approval of 2/3 parcels. BOD cannot legally alter one letter of CC&R's without due process. It was motioned at a Board meeting and supposedly approved to be included on an upcoming ballot, though it is unclear from the minutes what the actual intent of the motion was and no one recalls it ever appearing on a ballot. However, I think I actually saw this wording change appear in one of the Redbook versions but it has never been publicly recorded that I can find. Notwithstanding the absence of due process, it was vigorously asserted as a valid basis for passing the ballot item by the BOD when the member cH allenged it during a board meeting in 2011.
Supposedly, the language change would allow the (re)interpretation of an "abstained" vote to be counted whatever way the Board wanted to serve its interests. This would be a dangerous change to approve. In the case of 2007, Board wanted to increase the YES votes by asserting that an absention vote was equivalent to an affirmative vote. This transformation would have passed the ballot item.
The reasoning is another head scratcher but is essentially illegal in determining a vote. Only an Affirmative vote is counted towards passage and the rest--whether Absentions or No votes, are not counted ie they are null and void. Probably should not even be on the ballot to invite such monkey business by devious players.
4) Conduct of the ballot process. Who can ever know what actually goes on? The ballot box is available to be tampered with by the very persons who have an interest in election results--MANBOD. There is no integrity in the custody of ballots between submission and recording contents of the envelopes. Elections can be total fiction and are subject to cH allenge with the Division.
And don't get me started on the proxy process that went down a on past election. Phone records only available to BOD and active solicitation of members for proxy votes. Invisible to members and no way to validate those proxies. Am I repeating hearsay? Yes, I want to be clear on that point. There are people in SLR who know things and details that make sense of the nonsensical.
In my opinion, if members want to tolerate the illegal conduct of an election, they should AT LEAST require ballots to be mailed to a post office lock box accessible only by multiple non-MANBOD members simultaneously, envelopes delivered to the member meeting securely sealed, opened and validated in public and then counted at the member meeting in view of members. Inconvenient-yes. Contrary to Bylaws-yes. Less tampering--yes. Still an illegal fix but would be a huge improvement from current tamper-friendly box in the office with keys on every BOD keyring.
Physical handling of ballots is a very easy thing to corrupt. Insider solicitation using member facilities and information not available to members is corrupt. If I were queen, a new bylaw would be balloted requiring all elections to be password-secured electronic with a quick, gradual transition out of paper ballots/proxies.
Elections are the birthmother of the kind of HOA bratboards members are going to be living with. The old saying is true: "You are always one Board away from a tyranny" (or some variation of that).
Ok I feel better now. Done.
___________________________________________________________
