Wednesday, August 27, 2008

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 8/27/2008

The board meeting started with the Pledge of Allegiance with our President ruling a two minute limit on agenda items afterward.

He asked if there was anyone from the floor who wishes to speak about agenda items only. Owner Rita Priest walked up and said she wanted to talk about the evaluation committee agenda. After the go ahead nod she began talking about the long ago meeting to remove the general manager, the evaluation afterward, and that these actions were unacceptable. She said these are a request by the people for the removal of three directors. These requests were sent to all home owners. She then quoted the by-laws for the removal of the directors. She said the requirements have been met. She said she have in her possession the affirmative votes. She said she received 534 total votes. She broke down her figures that averaged around 434 for removal of said Directors. She directed the board to immediately remove these Directors or immediately discontinue the meeting. She demanded that the said Directors not participate in any Board action.

Our President responded with an acknowledgement of her concerned with the apparent intention of moving on to the next subject, when Director Burke brought the subject back. She just happens to have that paragraph on Director Removal handy and read it once more. After which she said we should adjourn this meeting until the validity of the vote can be decided. This went on with various directors speaking their minds and people from the audience including me.

It all boiled down to either accept or invalidate them right then and move on with the meeting or postpone the meeting until a later time and have our attorney present to give advice on whether to accept or invalidate the recall. The President chose the latter. The executive session started at 2pm and was to also include the Cowen issue. This meeting lasted until 4:45pm and neither outcome was disclosed. I will keep you posted.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

WOW! 434 votes to recall/remove those directors? Sounds like a whole lotta owners are completely dissatisfied with the new board members, so much so that they would actually recall them in an action like this! So what's next...hold a new election, or just instate those candidates that received the next highest number of votes from last election?

Anonymous said...

May I please be the first to say "Bye-Bye" to those three recalled dirtectors?

BYE-BYE!!!!

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't get too far ahead of yourselves. As it says in the blog these are Rita's figures , not true figures. Is that enough votes anyway?

Anonymous said...

okay, so the board knew about this recall action for some time, yet they walk into the board meeting today completely unprepared to counter this?

Are these board members so inept as to allow their meeting to be hijacked, even though they had prior knowledge of the recall action?

And they have the audacity to criticise the GM and want to fire him whenever he makes the slightest mistake?

Amazing...

Anonymous said...

According to our by-laws there has to be a 51% 'AFFIRMATIVE' votes there was not that many 'AFFIRMATIVE' votes. So don't be saying 'Bye'Bye' to any of the directors.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. The By-Laws state:

"At any duly convened regular or
special meeting, anyone or more of the Directors may be removed with
or without cause by the affirmative vote of the Voting Members casting
not less than a majority of the total of members in the Association,..."

So does that mean if the majority of the owners cast a vote, and the end result of that vote is affirmative, then the directors are removed? Or does it mean that the majority of the owners must cast an affirmative vote?

Anonymous said...

I sure am glad that level heads prevailed & we have the 3 directors that care about our village still with us. The fat lady didn't sing....but rumor has it she sure did talk a lot....to no avail! YES!

Anonymous said...

RE:okay, so the board knew about this recall

This recall was to be in the hands of the President to address, not the other directors. Your good directors are working to better the park, not working to protect themselves from stupid innuendoes, rumors, and lies from people who just don’t get it. But speaking of inept, how much more useless would our GM be if Armando would argue, postpone, and act subversive towards him at every turn like a current director is doing on our Board.

Anonymous said...

Thank you to our newest directors. Keep up the good work. Right will prevail.
The SGG has no leg to stand on.

Anonymous said...

RE:Interesting. The By-Laws state:


The word “total” of the members in the association means all 1024. Just change the word affirmative to yes and it reads right that you have to have a majority of yes votes.

Anonymous said...

RE: 'Interesting. The By-Laws state:'
This means that 51% of the owners must cast an affirmative (yes) vote to remove the directors.

Anonymous said...

Ain't life grand?

Captain Midnight said...

Let's see 51% of 1024 is 523. That's not the number of affirmative votes I saw.

Anonymous said...

The meeting yesterday was an embarrassment to all who live here. If I had just purchased and went to the meeting for the first time, I would have thought I made a huge mistake. It was similiar to a witch hunt. I want to thank the three new board members for their time and patience during all of this nonsense. Hopefully with the attorney in the closed meeting, this was resolved once and for all!

Anonymous said...

RE: Board new about recall action

The BOD was not 'inept', SGG was INEPT with the so called 'facts/truths' about the new BOD members and they were so intent on their revenge and underhandedness that it just didn't happen for them.
Once again TRUTH PREVAILED!!!

Anonymous said...

Making a motion to ask for the GM resignation created havoc. I can see that now. Some board members have a friendship with him. Some might think they made a mistake supporting him. It can take months of denial guilt and anxiety for the board to realize the GM must go.

I think the BOD are hurting right now especially their egos. They need to be supported and do some healing before they can take the right action. Perhaps their feeling a little guilty also, having to tell a friend and neighbor that they are longer needed. Just maybe the board can't proceed because they wished this situation would have been handled a little different! No matter..I do believe the motion to ask for the GM resignation and what transpired was for the well being of LIV. No way of voiding humiliation at this point guys. It went on to long. I'm wondering .... will all the decisions go through this same process?

If this is the direction the board is heading, I'm speculating now, our organization will fail .

Anonymous said...

Can we please get it in our By-Laws or something that, in the future, General Managers may NOT live in LIV? They may own property, investment if you will, but PLEASE, PLEASE do not let them live here. It is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Anonymous said...

I totally agree! A big part of the GM/SGG problem is Mrs. Larry. NO more GM's living at LIV PLEASE.

Anonymous said...

A question for Director Burke and the SGG:

What did these three men ever do to you, or anyone, to make you act like you have?

Everyone of you owe them an apology espcially Jim Petersen. Your hate and ire have been horrible and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Please just go back to your lives and let everyone else enjoy themselves, even if you won't!

Anonymous said...

I always said that too. Him and his wife should have never moved there.
Sometimes I think it would be nice to have a city official. Or a student from the SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT in Austin..
We can look into a student graduating with a MBA in Management
http://som.utdallas.edu/students/prospective/

Or a student from UTB School of Business.
We cans still keep Armark we just dont need their manager.

Anonymous said...

Ditto on the questions to Burke and her SGG?
Talk about slander!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Funny how a comment directed to several people (referred to as Nazi's) doesn't get posted but a comment directed to ONE person (referred to as a FAT LADY)DOES get posted. Joey, you said you would not post comments that contained personal attacks. Guess it depends on who we get personal about, don't it?

And then, how much more personal can you get when you mention names, like Mrs. Larry, sayin' that she's a problem?

The problem is a group of people who have tried to band together and defeat the system that has been in place since LIV's beginning. If you people didn't like Long Island Village and the way it was ran, then why did you buy property and move in?

Could it be that some just like to fuss/fight, argue and cause problems?

Glad to see from the results of the recall ballots that some of you are getting a clearer picture of how the MAJORITY feels!

Whether it takes the majority of voters or the majority of the votes in a single election only matters in the recall count. The TRUE FACT that has come OUT of it is that if these three men were up for election TODAY, now that we've all seen what they're like, they would NOT be elected. In FACT, the only place one can find people who admit they voted for them in the FIRST place is on this page!

The majority has spoken.

Anonymous said...

Re: The majority has spoken.

You have not had a problem lashing out with personal attacks! Once again, what have McBride, Hanson and Peterson done? I have been to all the meetings and have not seen these men lash out at the SGG yelling from floor, nor have they treated Larry rudely. They HAVE held him accountable for his actions as manager. This is something that the previous BODs have NOT DONE. If previous BODs had done evaluations maybe we would not have this problem now.

You and the SGG are NOT showing true facts. In fact you all have not given us, the majority, any facts.

Anonymous said...

I will differ with the above statement. There is no doubt the 3 gentlemen WOULD get elected. They have done nothing wrong. They were blamed for things they had nothing to do with.
Also change will happen, it's just sad some don't see the benefits to change and want to continue to do things the way they have always been and continue to get the same results.

Anonymous said...

SHHHHH its over..

Anonymous said...

Re: SHHHHH its over...

I wished it was true, but seriously doubt it. Frankly I don't see PB & the SGG just fading away. Maybe a miracle will happen and they will become happy campers, but once again, I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, everybody just Shhh!

Anonymous said...

Keep it simple!!!

Anonymous said...

I just completed the little survey and it brings to mind...

Maybe it would be a good idea to have our attorney present for all board meetings, or at least until we get a new manager.

Anonymous said...

AUUHH we alrady have three!

Anonymous said...

I have heard that, back when Charlie Steel (don't know if I have spelled it correctly) was GM, we had these same similar problems. A GM who lived in LIV causing divisiveness between residents. I was told that it got so bad that they had to have the county Constable present at all Board meetings, they got so out of control. Are we headed for that?

Anonymous said...

Three? I am only aware of Ms. Burke and Mr. Hansen. And it is obvious that Ms. Burke doesn't always know best since our LIV attorney ruled against her group of petitioners. Yes, I believe it would be a good idea for the LIV attorney to be present. Might keep future problems, issues in check.

Anonymous said...

Why don't they hire the constable who is becoming so familiar with LIV to referee the meetings?