|
|
Post by BagLady on Nov 26, 2014 19:21:24 GMT -5
Nothing has been published on CHUG about the upcoming board vacancies. Many people thought 2--some thought 3.
The ACTUAL # is FOUR--three 3-year terms and one 2-year term.
This was belatedly revealed as an afterthought to Clf Jnsn's Election Report on Nov 19th; when he finished reading the duties of directors, AK asked "how many vacancies?" and he answered 4 (as above). There was no naming of which directors were vacating. I think the vacancies are Alln Rss (who resigned and whose vacancy was not filled by appointment), Chrly Mnc and Clf Jnsn. Anyone know who the 4th is?
Candidate Petitions are at the office.
I going to refrain from going on about the irregularities in our elections; everyone is aware that Elections are a contrived quasi-legal activity and not conducted according to our Bylaws (which have been altered without the benefit of a vote). The actual terms from the original Bylaws is--2 years. There are no staggered terms provided by Bylaws; there is no such thing as a 1-year or a 3-year term except in the imaginations of boards who apparently had no knowledge or respect for SLohA governing documents.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Nov 26, 2014 21:24:42 GMT -5
Nothing has been published on CHUG about the upcoming board vacancies. Many people thought 2--some thought 3. The ACTUAL # is FOUR--three 3-year terms and one 2-year term. This was belatedly revealed as an afterthought to Clf Jnsn's Election Report on Nov 19th; when he finished reading the duties of directors, AK asked "how many vacancies?" and he answered 4 (as above). There was no naming of which directors were vacating. I think the vacancies are Alln Rss (who resigned and whose vacancy was not filled by appointment), Chrly Mnc and Clf Jnsn. Anyone know who the 4th is? Candidate Petitions are at the office. I going to refrain from going on about the irregularities in our elections; everyone is aware that Elections are a contrived quasi-legal activity and not conducted according to our Bylaws (which have been altered without the benefit of a vote). The actual terms from the original Bylaws is--2 years. There are no staggered terms provided by Bylaws; there is no such thing as a 1-year or a 3-year term except in the imaginations of boards who apparently had no knowledge or respect for SLohA governing documents. I was up at the post office a couple days ago reading the "Bullsh*t Board" and the latest meeting minutes say there are 3-3 year terms and one 2-year term. The info is at two places, on the side of the P.O. and the other side of the "For Sale/Rent" Notices board, but no info on who the 4 are. |
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on Nov 26, 2014 22:15:34 GMT -5
At last, the BOD Minutes are now posted on the Forum, under BOD Meetings. Copied from the Chug Site, I do believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 4, 2014 6:48:24 GMT -5
Office stated the 4th vacancy is Chrls Schlz, who filled Kn Lws's unexpired term and (has apparently) declined to run for office as an incumbent. There is nothing on record as to his intention. (Indeed, there has never been any announcement as to who the four board vacancies are.)
The other three are 1-Alln Rss's unfilled resignation, 2- Clf Jnsn expired term and 3-Chrly Mnc expired term.
As a side note, I have been hearing some chatter about reducing the # directors to 5. This would be contrary to the requirements of SLohA bylaws and would require an amendment ratified by 2/3 of the membership.
It would also be dangerous to what sm all measure of membership input remains in SLohA. Remember what the Board attempted on last year's ballot. It instructed the Rule Book Committee to add to the ballot a measure that would place ALL decision-making regarding the use of SLR property in the hands of the Board. This was done in an attempt to circumvent the prohibition against conducting commercial business on the property. (It was defeated but just barely. That is pretty scary to me considering that there is no legal way to amend the Covenant in the first place and the board presented an illegal ballot to members!)
It is frightening to think that a quorum of 5 invested, self-serving directors could turn S-bag into a hub of commercial activity overnight--all by themselves without any input from the owners--but it is more terrifying to think that a quorum of 3 idiots could do the same!
As long as there is a mandatory HOA in S-bag (which might not be much longer), any talk of reducing # directors --especially from the directors themselves--should be cause for great concern and caution.
|
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Dec 6, 2014 9:10:16 GMT -5
Office stated the 4th vacancy is Chrls Schlz, who filled Kn Lws's unexpired term and (has apparently) declined to run for office as an incumbent. There is nothing on record as to his intention. (Indeed, there has never been any announcement as to who the four board vacancies are.) The other three are 1-Alln Rss's unfilled resignation, 2- Clf Jnsn expired term and 3-Chrly Mnc expired term. As a side note, I have been hearing some chatter about reducing the # directors to 5. This would be contrary to the requirements of SLohA bylaws and would require an amendment ratified by 2/3 of the membership. It would also be dangerous to what sm all measure of membership input remains in SLohA. Remember what the Board attempted on last year's ballot. It instructed the Rule Book Committee to add to the ballot a measure that would place ALL decision-making regarding the use of SLR property in the hands of the Board. This was done in an attempt to circumvent the prohibition against conducting commercial business on the property. (It was defeated but just barely. That is pretty scary to me considering that there is no legal way to amend the Covenant in the first place and the board presented an illegal ballot to members!) It is frightening to think that a quorum of 5 invested, self-serving directors could turn S-bag into a hub of commercial activity overnight--all by themselves without any input from the owners--but it is more terrifying to think that a quorum of 3 idiots could do the same! As long as there is a mandatory HOA in S-bag (which might not be much longer), any talk of reducing # directors --especially from the directors themselves--should be cause for great concern and caution. Anyone know who is running for the Board? When is the deadline to submit application for Board? Let's hope we have folks at S-bag that will represent the masses and not believe in politics as usual. The selective enforcement policy currently in effect and ignoring Polk County building codes does not improve property values nor protect owners from liable suits. The two main reasons to live under a HOA. |
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Dec 11, 2014 15:46:40 GMT -5
Anyone know who is running for the Board? Thought yesterday was the last day for filing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Dec 11, 2014 22:09:11 GMT -5
We may have a surprise or two running for a Board position. It would make it easier to make some positive changes. One would also be in the inner circle, save money on records request by certified mail. Also add some common sense to the decision making in SLR. Damn, it looks like I am talking myself into running. "Taking Things One Day at a Time"
|
|
