Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Oct 8, 2014 8:19:37 GMT -5
The upshot of this entire incident and what happened have shown this community that once again this MANBOD does NOT know what they are doing, don't care to get anything straight or be true and are still continuing to lie to everyone--including the police. They just continue to want to get cross-threaded with this resident that they have been harassing for quite some time.
This MANBOD does NOT have any people skills and have shown their asses to residents too many times as well their lies--which they have been involving SEVERAL outside agencies in.
Instead of leaving Mr. Grnt alone, they specifically came to his house to spray chemicals while the wind was out of the North, blowing right towards this residents' BBQ grills, tables, and other outdoor cooking items. If RED QUILL RESIDENTS GOT A PASS ON BEING SPRAYED WHY DID YOU SPRAY POISON CHEMICALS DOWN MR. Grnt'S THROAT? Bet you don't have an answer for that one!
DB did NOT: have to call the police and did NOT have to lie to the police, or even take what Mr. Grnt may have said, and twist it, just so he could get the cops out here sooner--that's why he LIED TO POLICE AND SAID MR. Grnt HAD A GUN WHEN MR. Grnt DID NOT HAVE A GUN. DB did NOT have to do or say anything--that's his biggest problem; opening his pie hole to flex his flaccid muscles with his FALSE AUTHORITY.
YOU DO NOT spray harmful chemicals into the air, with a prevailing wind blowing those chemicals onto people standing nearby. What idiot does that? Well we all know that IDIOT IS THE MANAGER WHO DOES NOT KNOW HER JOB. This manager has also lied to police by telling them that they--the management company she works for, OWNS EVERYTHING IN SLR! Of course, Mr. Grnt set police straight on that one--being the TRUTHFUL person he is, and that sure did change their tune!
The only thing this manager knows how to do is: LIE & HATE. That's all I see coming from her and the looks on her face really show it. She hates residents in here because we all have our retirements and are living life the way we want to and she has to work to pay off her large mountain of debt. This really bothers her, she can't stand it and lashes out the only way she knows how--with lies, anger, vindictiveness, and hate. We residents do NOT need her and we do NOT need a manager--what we need is an entirely new board of directors who are going to be honest with ALL residents AND outside agencies and to FOLLOW THE LAW.
WE NEED A CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP IN S.L.R.--A.S.A.P.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 8, 2014 8:40:16 GMT -5
Anonymous Environmentalist wrote:
Thanks for clarifying that. It demonstrates your integrity to relate the actual chitchat and the context of the supposed DB allegation to police that you said you had a gun. What you said was nothing like Dbag's kneejerk panic report and it sounds just like something you would do--poke fun at and ridicule the MANBOD buttheads and the unnecessary scenario created by so-called management.
TRUTH is the absolute defense! It may not always be as quick and expedient as LIES but it will eventually expose the parties who practice deceit and LIE.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Oct 8, 2014 8:52:23 GMT -5
Well I have a few question for DB myself since he is BOD... MR BD, wasn't it you who wasted time on submitting your own plans instead of getting real Engineer's plans for the new Library/common area? Did you have to pay a real engineer in the end to over see the project anyway??
This is because dbag pretended to be an engineer/architect when he is neither--this is what inflated the cost of the new annex. The old annex, if you all recall was never permitted by the county to be built because it was in a flood plain.
dbag is also pretending to be a board member when he is NOT.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Oct 8, 2014 9:20:33 GMT -5
Anonymous Environmentalist wrote:
I would like to clarify this. Dbag was originally appointed to the BOD by his cronies when a chair was vacated back in 2011 (I think-not sure of the year). The Bylaws provide that this is an acceptable way to fill the mandated 9 director chairs in the event of a vacancy. At the end of that term, he ran for an additional term as an incumbent and was elected (not surprising considering the "security" of the ballot process).
Per the Bylaws, Dbag is not permitted a THIRD term; having already served TWO terms--one as an "appointed" director and a second one as an "elected" director. The Bylaws make NO distinction between the circumstances of a "term"; therefore, a term is a term if it has a beginning and an end point, regardless of how the service period came into being.
Dbag, when advised that he could not seek another term, protested that this "appointed term" did not count and was not a "real term". BullSHITE! It is my theory that the third term was desired to ensure continued input into the commercial enterprise operating illegally on SLohA property against the Covenants. But, owners either didn't know, didn't care or didn't choose to pick the fight last December 2013.
Additionally, the State of Florida provides NO avenue of appeal or arbitration for such matters, thereby, forcing homeowners to file a lawsuit or suck it up. Leadership knows this and are routinely advised by attorneys that "It is against your governing documents, but I can only advise you of the law" while winking and saying "Owners are NOT going to S u e you over this". And, that is how owners come to be lied to and the PRIVILEGED do whatever they please.
The current term of 1 year that Dbag will be thankfully completing in a few months represents a third--and therefore--illegal--term. However, it has not been cH allenged. Who knows if his "service" could be nullified--all his motions, votes etc vacated--in the event of a cH allenge? With his involvement in a commercial business operating illegally on the property and the unfolding of the facts of that, who knows?
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Oct 8, 2014 19:38:03 GMT -5
Baglady wrote: Baglady must have been sipping merry merlot when she wrote that! Actually, it would not matter if DBag's input was vacated in the future; it would make no difference to any outcome... Attachment Deleted ...since ALL the Directors vote YES 99.9% of the time! |
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Oct 9, 2014 23:25:58 GMT -5
Below is a Copy/Paste from The December 2013 BOD Meeting. This is the Unofficial Transcribe of the Meeting audio..
"A HISTORIC December SLohA BOD MEETING"
DB: "I have a Utliity trailer for sale." I have had 5x8 trailer for several years I don’t use it any longer; it was used for temporary internet at tennis courts for year. I was gonna price at $1500; I looked up on internet was listed for $1800 same year same everything. I paid $2100 and it comes with lock hitch and will sell it to resort for $1300 and if we do that I want someone else to make motion to avoid conflict of interest. KL: I had trailer 6 x 10 for my motorcycle and paid $16-17K and sold it last year for $1K and D’s pricing is well in line. But does the resort need the trailer? What use do we have for it? JC said something about using it for irrigation projects we always have going on but I don’t see where we are going to be having any such projects planned in the foreseeable future. We’re always going to have repairs but I can’t imagine that we are going to need it for periodic limited repairs. JC suggested they made a lot of trips when they repair pipes they never know what they are going to need and run back and forth for parts and need to have materials in one place. "MK hasn’t steered us wrong yet;" I would like to hear from her. She agrees with KL we don’t have a need and JC should know what he needs for any job. Agree price is good and it might be a time saver under some conditions. Motion to buy or let it die? No motion. (Comment from BOD: I want to buy it for use for myself)
Two things: Election committee: close to having everyone on the list for counters and judges for the election. Interesting that nobody is running against the board so the same slate on the officers on the ballot. All three are running for three year terms. Putting things together at the office and moving along. 2nd thing: taken a lot of time is ML who has done a great job. More research than the rest of us put together. We have been in contact with attorney and changes we feel are important in rules and regulations and covenants and have provided input with what we wanted done and they came back with suggestions as far as covenants and you will be seeing this at Jan 6th KK for presentation and there will be a forum on Jan 8th and we will go through all the changes that we are recommending. Want you to know what we did and I need to make motion to put changes on the ballot for your vote. Motion: R & R changes to documents be placed on the ballot and distributed with the ballot as presented as the informational meeting on Jan 8th. Discussion? Unanimous.
KL: This will be super-important so we have 30 people—talk to your neighbors and get people out so people can hear answers to question. Attorney R & R changes; recommendation move forward with amendment to Declaration enabling language referred to 1972 Declaration there should be reference to each amendment to incorporate all amendments and authority to amend the documents. We need to take all these documents and bring them into One document as to how it was approved and show legally where we stand. Motion: Create one cohesive document to incorporate all prior amendments documents, as well as authority to amend documents.
CM: Feel like I am preaching to the choir; the people who support and back us and are happy seem to be the only ones who come to board meetings. Detractors are elsewhere. Comment is that all of us retired from corporate or municipal or some form of work and we all know what job descriptions are . I want to go on record that we are blessed with probably the "THE best manager in the state of Florida" and her crew are fabulous. The people here see her on weekends on her own time and I want to record our gratefulness that she and her crew are never taken for granted <clapping>
Gratefulness to ML and his crew; they took on a job that usually attorneys get paid to do and I want to also thank them for the work of the committee.
Owner’s Comments:
Golf cart registration; is there a procedure still in place for putting double sets of numbers on golf carts. I want to know if you do that before people start to get harassed.
KL: No just put own numbers on myself. No procedure just do what you want as long as there is a number on there so it can be traced if a problem. Go to the hardware store and get numbers yourself
Owner: Suggestion for KL: You asked at beginning how to get message out to get attendance for meeting. How about video recording meetings? We have equipment and video KK and Sunday morning services.
BOD: No response.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Owner: To DB about cargo trailer; did you buy this or did SLR purchase it?
DB: I purchased it. I let them use my trailer because we needed somewhere to store the battery pack and the routers and other internet equipment.
Owner: So the trailer was used for Kay c. In the past, you said you did not have ties and it seems that SLR would go out and buy a trailer if it was needed--not a board member in charge of communications. In past, there have been several requests for paperwork associating SLohA with Kay c and the response is always “None”. I find it hard to believe we have a commercial business in here with antennas added to towers—"3 towers on your house"…
(Owner Interrupted by KL): You are beating a dead horse. There is no relation between Kay c and SLR. The trailer was used for storage on the premises.
Owner: Where is the transparency that this Board promised us? You can’t tell me that there has been no correspondence between Kay c and SLR in 3 years!
BOD: Unintelligible grumbling
Owner: About the sewer project: I have not seen any engineering report associated with that bid. How come?
BOD: No answer.
KL: Didn’t I understand that was sent out for bids and is not back yet?
Owner: The question was “How come we do not have an Engineering overseer for a quarter million dollar project? There should be an engineering report.
KL: It’s not on the agenda.
Owner: That is always your excuse -you are not straightforward with people.
(KL Interrupting Owner) Please sit down.
"A Brief Comment from Owner, told to Sit Down;"
I have said this before: ONLY IN SLR !! BOD Member (DB) tries to sell his cargo trailer to the association. Says Bb (KCNet) used his cargo trailer to place KCNet equipment inside, while new annex was being built. DeeB also has KCNet's Antennas on his rooftop and several antennas on a large pole at his house.
But, DB denies having any affiliation with Bb's S KCNet Internet Enterprise. How many residents believe Mr. D B's answer to my quest. None that I know . Does he speak with a Fork Tang? Is his word creditable? Is he Trustworthy?
PS. After the mtg. was over, I had to sit down and take it all in. "Complete Fools I do Believe" !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Oct 10, 2014 8:33:46 GMT -5
Good post, Dick, to remind us of the deceptive and dismissive behavior of this BOD toward owners. The attitude reflects in these Minutes, where owner input, questions, discussion is typically summed up with the afterthought notation "8 owners spoke". It is totally within BOD's option to render "business-only, statute-mandated" Minutes or extended "inclusive and descriptive" Minutes so that owners are heard and fully-informed of the discussions at BOD meetings. BOD frequently reminds owners that Board meetings are THEIR meetings, thus setting the tone to owners that OWNER input is only tolerated and not taken seriously. And, then they wonder why no one will attend a Board meeting except the all-approving Clappers?
This should also remind us of the importance of attending BOD meetings and asking direct questions. Due to an owner recording all meetings last year, we have a "word for word" record of all statements and unofficial transcription/minutes. These meetings are Very Different from the published Minutes, which only give documented business decisions. Many people have said to me "I was AT that meeting and I didn't remember hearing that!" or "The actual meeting Minutes are Nothing Like the unofficial transcript". My response is "The audio recording does not miss anything except rude body language". It is possible that the owner recordings will come back to haunt BOD some day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Dec 6, 2014 10:49:59 GMT -5
After the events that took place in the conference room on Dec. 5th at the records request meeting, I know longer have any respect for our BOD's President. A bully, with something to hide, surly not a leader.
"WE MUST HAVE A CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP IN SLohA"!! PLEASE, YOUR HELP IS NEEDED.....
|
|
|
|
Post by courious on Dec 6, 2014 12:13:51 GMT -5
Sounds to me that you were asking Peet Brdun for his first born child! Why oh why cannot residents know the full truth about the increases in the budget AND the many ways our
(not the Board ) money is being spent. The cloak and dagger technique is a true failure method, but typical of what I would expect from the manbod.
In the meantime, why were the Board members not part of the conflict management class? Seems only appropriate with mr. Suthrd ' s hostility with his van against a resident,
mr.. Brnd ' s calling in 3 squad cars against a resident, mr. Brdun ' s verbal abuses including calling our WW II veteran e vigilantes, that they need it the most.
Whoops, forgot about mr. Hayven who is just now going back on patrol alone after having to be baby sat for almost a month by other Security employees.
The Shadow + 21 will now need to re - engage.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Mar 28, 2015 16:03:37 GMT -5
Can Prez. Norley D show any proof as to why the water bill portion of our Hoa dues went up by $10/qtr. with absolutely NO plausible proof to explain WHY?
Will you, Mr. President PLEASE give us the answer to this question--oh, and bring proof you board members needed to approve a budget that TAKES, WITHOUT EXPLANATION another $31+K/yr. collectively from all us residents?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Mar 28, 2015 21:32:29 GMT -5
A & E, Norley can not show any proof as to why we have a 20 % increase in our water/sewer assessment.
A official records request was made to the BOD's, and they did not provide any information as to why we needed a 20% increase. They overloaded us with stacks of paper work, but Management did not for fill the original records request.
Contrary to what they say at Meetings, they hope to keep members in the dark. So if one seeks the truth, you are labeled a trouble maker, or worse.
Soon the Truth will be known for all to see, they can not misled us, unless we let them. Be a informed resident and do you own homework.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 19, 2016 21:53:39 GMT -5
I noticed that the HUD issue was not on the agenda. SLohA currently has at least 4 active legal investigations pending and one more that has not yet been filed; a premises liability claim, the so-called assault on an Owner by an Owner at a BOD meeting, the DEO cH allenge and the HUD investigation for discrimination. Nothing on the agenda for 3/4 of these cases and I think owners should be informed to know as much as the Owners can reasonably discover. Since I read the SLohA answer to the HUD Complaint, as well as the Hearing transcript, I thought it merited a comment about the general direction that SLohA is leading the Owners.
To remind those who may have thought this issue was "over"--it is not. This issue concerns an accusation of discrimination on the part of SLohA against Owners. Unfortunately, the subject issue of discrimination is only the tip of the iceburg! It is not charges of discrimination that SLohA needs to worry about. It is the multiple lies SLohA gave to the State HUD Investigator "Lisa" (with whom I personally spoke with at some length, as did many owners in the park and "changed stories" offered into evidence.)
1) SLohA-namely Clf Jnsn-stated that the Owners alleging discrimination knowingly brought in an unapproved unit.
(False, the Owners had a written approval by the BOD's agent, Melonknee Kreeow and a photograph was taken which clearly shows Ms. Kreeow permitted the unit through the front gate. Both these documents are posted on this forum.)
2) SLohA stated the Architectural Review Committee DENIED the owner building plans.
(SLohA has no Architectural Review Committee. The building plans were voluntarily submitted and approved by the Board's agent, Melonknee Kreeow. The written approval is posted on this forum.)
3) The rewritten and non-existent March 2014 Rules were submitted by the SLohA Attorney as "evidence".
(The alleged unauthorized unit arrived on February 18, 2014 prior to the adoption of the rewritten and partially-fabricated "Rules". Rules were fraudulently promulgated by a Board who had knowledge that Covenants/Rules had expired on the Owners' parcel 2 years prior.)
4) Clf Jnsn stated that the Complainants were "deceitful."
(False. The facts clearly show that the Complainants did everything they were asked to do by MANBOD, even when architectural compliance was not required by the expired Covenants.)
5) Management publicly made assertions that denied its knowledge and involvement in the activities of the then-Manager, Melonknee Kreeow. One such statement was made by Toneesha to an owner in December of 2015.
(During the hearing, Exhibit 4 was introduced on behalf of the Complainants--a March 16, 2014 memo from Melonknee Kreeow to Toneesha Shrodr which stated that no one should meet with the Owners without attorney involvement. Obviously, Management had knowledge of a legal dispute brewing.)
Now, Baggers are being asked to foot the bill for not only legal expenses, but for transportation and probably meals and other ancillary expenses! All to support a Board and Management Company who has not only provoked Owners to S u e SLohA but is telling tall tales to investigators and the court!
Perhaps you will agree that SLohA has problems which go far beyond the brewing HUD discrimination case. It has a much bigger problem with lack of integrity and truth-telling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Jul 20, 2016 6:57:21 GMT -5
I noticed that the HUD issue was not on the agenda. SLohA currently has at least 4 active legal investigations pending and one more that has not yet been filed; a premises liability claim, the so-called assault on an Owner by an Owner at a BOD meeting, the DEO cH allenge and the HUD investigation for discrimination. Nothing on the agenda for 3/4 of these cases and I think owners should be informed to know as much as the Owners can reasonably discover. Since I read the SLohA answer to the HUD Complaint, as well as the Hearing transcript, I thought it merited a comment about the general direction that SLohA is leading the Owners. To remind those who may have thought this issue was "over"--it is not. This issue concerns an accusation of discrimination on the part of SLohA against Owners. Unfortunately, the subject issue of discrimination is only the tip of the iceburg! It is not charges of discrimination that SLohA needs to worry about. It is the multiple lies SLohA gave to the State HUD Investigator "Lisa" (with whom I personally spoke with at some length, as did many owners in the park and "changed stories" offered into evidence.) 1) SLohA-namely Clf Jnsn-stated that the Owners alleging discrimination knowingly brought in an unapproved unit.
(False, the Owners had a written approval by the BOD's agent, Melonknee Kreeow and a photograph was taken which clearly shows Ms. Kreeow permitted the unit through the front gate. Both these documents are posted on this forum.)2) SLohA stated the Architectural Review Committee DENIED the owner building plans.
(SLohA has no Architectural Review Committee. The building plans were voluntarily submitted and approved by the Board's agent, Melonknee Kreeow. The written approval is posted on this forum.) 3) The rewritten and non-existent March 2014 Rules were submitted by the SLohA Attorney as "evidence". (The alleged unauthorized unit arrived on February 18, 2014 prior to the adoption of the rewritten and partially-fabricated "Rules". Rules were fraudulently promulgated by a Board who had knowledge that Covenants/Rules had expired on the Owners' parcel 2 years prior.)
4) Clf Jnsn stated that the Complainants were "deceitful." (False. The facts clearly show that the Complainants did everything they were asked to do by MANBOD, even when architectural compliance was not required by the expired Covenants.)
5) Management publicly made assertions that denied its knowledge and involvement in the activities of the then-Manager, Melonknee Kreeow. One such statement was made by Toneesha to an owner in December of 2015. (During the hearing, Exhibit 4 was introduced on behalf of the Complainants--a March 16, 2014 memo from Melonknee Kreeow to Toneesha Shrodr which stated that no one should meet with the Owners without attorney involvement. Obviously, Management had knowledge of a le gal dispute brewing.)Now, Baggers are being asked to foot the bill for not only legal expenses, but for transportation and probably meals and other ancillary expenses! All to support a Board and Management Company who has not only provoked Owners to S u e SLohA but is telling tall tales to investigators and the court! Perhaps you will agree that SLohA has problems which go far beyond the brewing HUD discrimination case. It has a much bigger problem with lack of integrity and truth-telling. The above information IS true and accurate. I, Lra, met with leery listerine in February 2016 right after he became President of SLohA. It was important to Gngr and myself to NOT have these lies move forward. I urged him to sit down with me and one other Board member to correct the lies and then jointly submit it as our joint appeal. He came back a week later and said: "NO". Why should we Saddlebaggers have to pay when this could have and should have been resolved for nothing. |
|
