|
Post by Admin on Nov 4, 2015 20:09:39 GMT -5
The Board apparently believes that the owners are not permitted to know the 3 directors who are vacating their seats. So, I will fill in in the blanks.
The three retiring directors are:
Blingz murksberryry Suthrd
Nttr was elected to a 3 year term in 2013 and would have expired in 2016 but she resigned in 2015. Blingz was appointed to serve her remaining term and therefore is retiring in Feb 2016.
Brnd was elected to a 3 year term in 2013 and would have expired in 2016 but resigned in 2015. murksberry was appointed to serve his remaining term and is therefore retiring in Feb 2016.
Suthrd was elected to a 3 year term in 2013 and is retiring in February 2016.
Thanks Board for keeping the owners informed.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 5, 2015 8:13:52 GMT -5
A Stroll down Memory Lane: SLohA has never been authorized to offer anything except a TWO YEAR term for directors on a board.
No ONE year term is authorized or legal. No THREE year term is authorized or legal.
The Bylaws only authorize a TWO YEAR TERM--period.
Certain agents of the board attempted to change the Bylaw in 2008. It was put on the ballot and the vote failed--very narrowly--but it failed. The numbers do not lie. Details of that vote and the Minutes are posted elsewhere on this forum.
Subsequent cH allenges by Owners resulted in the Board squealing like a stuck pig, waiving around Robber's Rules for Dummies and mindlessly insisting that their reality was the true one and everyone should believe them.
Numbers do not lie. The balloting of three year terms failed. There is no one-year term permitted in the Bylaws.
Unfortunately, the board's penchant for re-writing history and creating falsehoods was, by 2008, a pattern of mal-governance in S-bag. Example: The illegally-balloted Amendment in 1982 creating an over-55 restriction failed. The Minutes acknowledged that it failed-but SLohA persists in the illusion that it is an age-restricted community, has repeatedly made false representations to the State of Florida about its status, publicly misrepresents itself with advertising and is even attempting to revitalize the failed Amendment.
Owners should hope that SLohA does not attempt to ever enforce this false restriction! This could be a whopper of a lawsuit and GaGaKnees et al will love to represent us! IMO--including that false Amendment in the revitalization and ratifying the revite package is an expensive path to a special assessment to pay legal costs if someone decides to S u e SLohA.
|
|