The petition 4/30/08

The following (in red) is a petition I’ve received. It reads as follows.

April 28th, 2008

It is with our deepest concern that we are mailing you this letter. This will act as a petition for a three member board recall/impeachment. These board members are Richard Hansen, James Peterson, and Ed McBride.
1. Illegal meetings consisting of five board members making a quorum in violation of LIV by-law Article 3, section 1 thru 3.
Here is this by-law in question: ARTICLE III. MEETINGS OF THE MEMBERSHIP
Section 1. Place -All meetings of association membership shall be held at the Condominium Property, or at such other place and time as shall be designated by the Board of Directors of the Association and stated in the Notice of Meeting.

Section 2. Notices -It shall be the duty of the Secretary to mail a Notice of each annual or special meeting, stating the time and place thereof to each Unit Owner of record, at least fourteen (14), but not more than twenty-eight (28) days prior to such meeting. Notice of any special meeting shall state the purpose thereof. All notices shall be mailed to or served at the address of the Unit Owner as it appears on the books of the Corporation.

Section 3. Order of Business -The order of business at annual members' meetings, and, as far as practical, at all other members' meetings, shall be:

(a) Election of Chairman of the Meeting
(b) Calling of the Roll and Certifying of Proxies
(c) Proof of Notice of Meeting or Waiver of Notice
(d) Reading and Disposal of any Unapproved Minutes
(e) Reports of Officers
(f) Reports of Committees
(g) Election of Inspectors of Election
(h) Election of Directors
(i) Unfinished Business
(j) New Business
(k) Adjournment

RESPONSEI would like for this group to provide the time, place and the 5+ members who attended for what they called the illegal meeting to discuss the replacement of our general manager. If they are able to provide this information, one must ask why not impeach all who participated? The owners of our Village will learn that this meeting actually never took place and these three directors are just easy targets. I am glad though that section #2 was brought up.
Section 2 states owners are to be notified between 2 to 4 weeks prior to any special meeting. This notice is to be done by mail or serve to the owner at the owners address. To my knowledge this has never been done since I have resided here and my question to the previous and older members on the board, why?
This #1 reason for impeachment has no merit because it simply never happened.

2. Letter dated April 19, 2008 sent to Aramark asking for the removal of the general manager. The board meeting was not held until April 23, 2008. Three board members were not aware of letter.
RESPONSEThis letter was never sent to Aramark. I understand Mr. Polo from Aramark first received it on the day of the executive meeting. It is not the responsibility of these three directors to inform other directors of information when thought to have been given to all by the board President.
This #2 reason for impeachment has no substance.

3.Disrespect by Board members to managers, other board members and owners during coffees, workshops, and board meetings.
RESPONSEI’m not sure what meetings they had attended but it appears obvious to me they were not at our last four meetings.
Disrespect towards Management
During the last four meetings I have witnessed our management having to answer more direct questions with validity. When answers were vague or half truths, our directors insisted on their clarity. I feel this strong no nonsense approach is being misinterpreted as disrespect towards management.
Disrespect towards Directors
The only disrespect I’ve witnessed were the rants from Director Burke at the last board meeting over replacing our general manager. The disrespect that these three had supposedly done to other board members must have been in one of these closed executive meetings.
Disrespect towards Owners
Disrespect by these three board members to the owners is an absolute lie. It has been very clear these three along with other directors have made it their mission to listen to owner concerns without prejudice. The most recent example was at our last board meeting when director McBride insisted we do documentation at our coffee with the directors meeting so every owner’s concern or problem would be listed and resolved.
This #3 reason is really a personal perception and not a reason.

4. These board members have been usurping the authority and responsibility of management by directly ordering subordinate management and employees.
From section of Village bylaws
Powers and Duties -The Board of Directors shall have the powers and duties necessary for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation and may do all such acts and things as are not by law or by the March 2005 Restated Declaration or by these March 2005 Restated Bylaws directed to be exercised and done by the Unit Owners. Such powers shall specifically include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
c) To employ, dismiss and control the personnel necessary for the maintenance and operation of the project and of the common areas and facilities, including the right and power to employ attorneys, accountants, contractors and other professionals as the need arises.

RESPONSE

Our by-laws clearly state any director may control personnel. This could be construed by others as seizing the general manager’s authority. Over the past years I have seen numerous times different directors coming into the maintenance building telling Armando, Gino, and others to do their bidding.
In my opinion, since every director has done this at one time or another and our bylaws state they can, the #4 reason is not valid for impeachment.
5. Allowing non-employees the use of heavy equipment when they are non-insurable. Our LIV attorney has recommended against this practice.
RESPONSEAt the board meeting about this issue, I recall liability was the issue, not insurability. I remember our attorney had been asked for a solution towards such a liability and her response was she could not provide us one. I also recall the only LIV attorney who had recommended against this practice was our Director Burke. As it turned out, the owner who operated the equipment in question signed an injury waiver and saved our Village thousands of dollars while working his butt off for nothing.
Do you think this #5 reason holds water or is it just filling up space?
6. Their original campaign promise was to be the voice of the owners. There has been no progress in the last two meetings. Many of the items on the agenda were tabled. Most of these items on the agenda are only in the interest of these three board members and not a representation of all the owners.
RESPONSEWhen campaigning for their respective positions the number one thing the owners cried out for was for their voice to be heard during board meetings. After their election the first coffee with the directors meeting showed overwhelming that the owner’s voice was not only going to be heard but acted upon.
Director Peterson tabled three agendas, info for saving money on new golf equipment and info on saving money on sand for the golf course, plus discussing Modular housing that was brought up to research by owners from our previous board meeting. There was one other agenda item that these three in question were responsible for that day and that was Director McBride’s insistence that a list of concerns from owners to be kept at the coffee with the directors. That motion was made and passed.
I find it difficult to see how these four agenda items were not in the interest of the owners of our Village who they represent.
I believe this #6 reason must have been confused with the other agendas that these three had nothing to do with. Such as the ongoing TV cable bids, or the new scanner to be leased being tabled, or the funds to refurbish the bath house being tabled or the agenda that really seemed to represent every owner, the Mariachi and dinner event for our summer renters that had been tabled.
This #6 reason appears pretty lame.
7. These members initiated a list of performance issues regarding the general manager. These issues have never been presented to the general manager in the form of a performance evaluation either written or verbal. He has never had the opportunity to respond to these allegations which are not based on fact.
RESPONSE
Did I read that right? These allegations which are not based on fact? How would these few petitioners running this crusade know what the performance issues were? That was expressed in the closed executive meeting. It was interpreted by one director that only half were. Was this provided by an attending director or from our general manager? I would like to read this list of performance issues to decide for myself their validity. I do recall directors at previous meetings making verbal statements and warned that they were not happy with the manager’s performance.
This #7 reason needs a lot more clarity.
8. Mr. Hansen’s behavior and demeanor at meetings is totally not acceptable. He is arrogant, insolent, obnoxious, demeaning, and cavalier. He is an embarrassment to the entire community.
RESPONSELet’s be honest here. It was no secret about Director Hansen’s personality. This was brought up numerous times before he was elected. It was even brought up as a negative comment in the suggestion box that was read at a board meeting. The majority of owners elected him while knowing this. You are just seeing a real lawyer in our park asking direct questions for a change, and wanting to know the real truth, with no patience to hear excuses. I think this community could use a little more of his embarrassment.
9. Mr. McBride seems to be unable to function at board meetings without the direction from his wife.
RESPONSEA big apology is in order here. This stupid statement wasn’t worth the time it took to print it.
10. Mr. Peterson was hired as a temporary employee. When his temporary term was up, he told everyone he was fired. This is when Ed McBride and Jim Peterson conspired to retaliate against the general manager.
RESPONSEI feel this is really close to being as stupid as #9. I’m sure that these two stayed up at night conspiring how to get even over LOSING a six dollar an hour job.

11. Their next target is the dismissal of Aramark and/or reverting to self management. The cost will increase for worker’s compensation, employee health insurance, unemployment insurance, employee liability insurance, and payroll services. We will also lose our buying power through Aramark. Aramark has also help LIV to pay bills until condo fees have been collected.
RESPONSEWhatever these three directors think about Aramark is their own individual thinking. I find it hard to know for sure what people will do in the future. To judge someone on what they haven’t done yet is pure silliness. We elected our directors to do a job for us free that’s filled with tough decisions.
Since this petition has brought the subject up, I think it is a marvelous idea to research the true dollar savings or increases if we didn’t have Aramark. I also would like it explained to every owner what healthcare is provided to the majority of our employees who are hourly as opposed to the few salaried. Would you?

If you were not at the last board meeting on April 23, 2008, you need to be aware of what transpired.
At the end of the meeting an executive session was called. It was not on the agenda. The purpose of the meeting was not revealed. Many owners left thinking the meeting was over. The result of the session was a motion by Ed McBride to direct Aramark to replace the general manager. This motion was super ceded by another motion by Patricia Burke to table for 60 days. The vote on Burke’s motion is as follows:

Ayes were Directors Burke, Mulch, Steffensen, and Dodson.
Nays were Directors Young, Peterson, Hansen, and McBride.
This led President Dennis Sullivan to break the tie. He voted yes.
The timing of this motion was obviously schemed to take place when they knew that most of the owners had left for the season.

RESPONSE
An executive session isn’t required to be on a meeting’s agenda and rarely is.
The purpose of the meeting was disclosed. President Sullivan clearly said that the board was going into a closed meeting with Mr. Polo from Aramark we will reconvene after that meeting. People even immediately asked how long the meeting was going to last and Director Sullivan said around forty-five minutes. Anyone who stayed to the end of the meeting knew it was to continue after the executive session.

When the executive session ended and the regular meeting resumed, President Sullivan said it was requested for Aramark to provide a replacement for Larry as manager. He did not say it was requested originally by Ed McBride. After which the president requested for a director to make the motion to which Ed McBride did.
There was no scheme by these three directors to any motion. The fact is these three directors being racked over the coals by this petition group and others had absolutely nothing to do with the start of this request to replace the general manager. It was another Director’s wish that started this. I’ll let this petition group find out for themselves who, but I will give you a hint. Look in the ayes. You, the owners of our Village should be aware of this and demand that this petition group immediately give these three directors a sincere apology.

I feel many people have signed this petition without knowing the real truth and that the petitioners themselves have been lure by a certain few associated with our general manager.

In closing I would like to be tested on any of my responses if you feel I am in error. Be aware that my responses have been from facts that I can prove and I feel there’s a can of worms waiting to be opened here. Please open it.

I want to thank these petitioners for explaining how Aramark helps the park by paying our bills when we can’t afford it. I am going to find out why our Village is not solvent enough to pay its own bills. Never mind the above paragraph, the can is already open.