**Click here**
We would love your suggestion that will improve our Village. Suggestion may be viewed by those visiting. We will renew the display each month. Anonymous are welcomed. So throw one in the box.
Read more on this article...
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
IS THIS RIGHT?
There has been a majority shift within our Board of Directors. All the owners who had voted for the new Directors to help our Village be a better place to live have had their representation taken away. Your vote now belongs to director Leroy Mulch and his suing partner Reta Priest. Priest is the ring leader of this invalid recall and is a possible director replacement. They have sued six of our Directors. Three of those six also received restraining orders.
This action has made Directors Burke, Mulch, and Steffensen to instantly become a majority on our Board. It’s no secret that these three have been against the other Directors on issues, the latest being about the replacement of our unlicensed security to which our general manager and Aramark currently benefit from.
Does this seem to be in our Village’s best interest when one out of nine directors is allowed to sue and eliminate enough directors so as to create his own possible majority? Is that what the owners had wished and voted for?
Directors Mulch, Burke, and Steffensen have never once as a group attempted to work out their implied differences with these six Directors. Do you feel its right for them to obtain an authoritative majority from past selective mayhem caused at board meetings and these lawsuits?
Does anybody see something terribly wrong with this?
What did the six Directors do that was so wrong?
The answer is they tried to replace the Long Island Village General Manager. All other reasons seem to have come after or have spread from this action.
The answer is they tried to replace the Long Island Village General Manager. All other reasons seem to have come after or have spread from this action.
Prior to these six being sued, here are just a few things they allowed in part or as a whole in what is now a failed attempt to satisfy these disgruntle three amigos (Directors Burke, Steffensen, and Mulch).
1. They postpone replacing the General Manager in order to do a 90 day evaluation. This was also done in hopes management would attempt to do better. These six Directors even allowed the GM to participate in his own evaluation scoring.
2. They reluctantly but did allowed this recall to be recognized in a regular meeting, even though the procedures done by Reta Priest were clearly not within our By-Law guidelines.
3. They stopped this same regular board meeting in order to meet with the association attorney to obtain her opinion on the validity of the recall proxies being presented. This was to insure owner’s voting rights and that the By-Laws were adhered to. LIV (you) paid the attorney fee.
4. After these recall proxies were determined by our Association Attorney as overwhelmingly invalid for numerous reasons, these six Directors still allowed a members meeting discussion be put on the agenda to entertain again the issue of these invalid and tainted recall proxies.
1. They postpone replacing the General Manager in order to do a 90 day evaluation. This was also done in hopes management would attempt to do better. These six Directors even allowed the GM to participate in his own evaluation scoring.
2. They reluctantly but did allowed this recall to be recognized in a regular meeting, even though the procedures done by Reta Priest were clearly not within our By-Law guidelines.
3. They stopped this same regular board meeting in order to meet with the association attorney to obtain her opinion on the validity of the recall proxies being presented. This was to insure owner’s voting rights and that the By-Laws were adhered to. LIV (you) paid the attorney fee.
4. After these recall proxies were determined by our Association Attorney as overwhelmingly invalid for numerous reasons, these six Directors still allowed a members meeting discussion be put on the agenda to entertain again the issue of these invalid and tainted recall proxies.
Here are a few things our six Directors had to contend with before the lawsuit?
1. After agreeing to a 90 day GM evaluation, Directors McBride, Hansen, and Peterson had a voter recall started against them containing eleven reasons why they should be thrown off the Board. These reasons to date have never been proven. Reta Priest was known as an active participant in lobbying recall votes against these Directors.
2. Each Board member had received court documentation about a long ago divorce hardship experienced by Director Peterson. It was requested to the board that because of this very ancient past, they should take action to rid Director Peterson from the Board. It was a tasteless and shameful action by this recall bunch
3. Director Young was accused of mail tampering because he received mail that’s addressed to him. Director Burke gave a speech about this nonsense at a Board meeting and mentioned he should resign. Reta Priest initiated this accusation.
4. Since considering the removal of the general manager, all six have appeared to come under unnecessary verbal attacks from what seems to be always the same small group of friends associated with the general manager’s wife and Reta Priest. Meetings seem to have taken on an adversarial tone from both sides.
The new directors followed through on their campaign promises in trying to make Aramark management accountable for their actions, but were met with opposition from this management and their friends.
It should be importantly noted these new directors did not initiate the request to replace our general manager, our board President did. Those few who have wish to stop any accountability of this Aramark management has thrust our Village into a social chaos, pitting neighbor against neighbor. These same few have yet to provide owners proof of any wrong doing done by these six Directors.
This appears to have come down to this one issue. Do we keep our current general manager with no accountability towards his actions and at what cost to our Village, or let our elected board work this out and hold our general manager accountable or maybe even replace him at what cost to our Village?
Speaking of cost, this will make it the eighth lawsuit pending against our association. Even though these Directors are being sued as individuals, I read in our By-Laws the Association’s is on the hook to protect them with legal counsel. Below is our Indemnification By-Law. See how you read it. It should also be noted that Mulch and Priest wish to be reimbursed for their Attorney Fees. Guess who will pay for that?
ARTICLE XII. INDEMNIFICATION
The Corporation shall indemnify every Director and every Officer, and their heirs, executors and administrators, against all loss, cost and expenses reasonably incurred in connection with any action, suit or proceeding to which said Director or Officer may be a party, by reason of their being or having been a Director or Officer of the corporation, including reasonable counsel fees to be approved by the Corporation, except as to matters wherein said Director or Officer shall be finally adjudged in such action, suit or proceeding to be liable for or guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct. The foregoing rights shall be in addition to and exclusive of all other rights to which such Director or Officer may be entitled.
Friday, September 26, 2008
MINORITY + LAWSUIT = MAJORITY
9/26/08 Today six Directors of our Board have been sued by Director Leroy Mulch and Reta Priest. Details are sketchy, but it’s known that these three, Directors Hansen, Peterson, and McBride have been sued and served restraining orders until this matter is brought to court. Also sued were Directors Dodson, Young, and President Sullivan. What has our Village become? It appears that Long Island Village may not be “the place to be.” Read more on this article...
9/26/08 Today six Directors of our Board have been sued by Director Leroy Mulch and Reta Priest. Details are sketchy, but it’s known that these three, Directors Hansen, Peterson, and McBride have been sued and served restraining orders until this matter is brought to court. Also sued were Directors Dodson, Young, and President Sullivan. What has our Village become? It appears that Long Island Village may not be “the place to be.” Read more on this article...
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
September 14TH, 2008 Coffee with the Directors
After the Pledge of Allegiance we heard from the Suggestion Box
Lot 677 Asked that all suggestions make it to the regular board meeting. He suggested to have comments from the audience on the suggestions submitted. Plus hold over any suggestions not read to the next meeting if there were a considerable amount of comments.
Lot 143 to avoid a possible lawsuit, asked for the recall to be brought up again and be entertained by the Board and have some way to voted on it.
President Sullivan made a statement that he felt it seemed evident the recall has caused turmoil and division of the Board and asked the Board to quickly resolve its differences. Director Burke responded by saying the suggestion is worthy of consideration and disagreed with President Sullivan that the Recall group was the cause of the turmoil.
From the Audience
Lot 251 Asked how much the new security would cost us and what would it get us? Director Dodson explained the License officer will better enforce our rules, reduce liability, and more. Director Steffensen said in January, February, and March of 2007, LIV was still paying bills to Securitas. Director Burke felt a need to clarify the original 2008 budget figures only to say the obvious; if wages increase, the amount could reach higher and then made it quite clear this was not her decision to back a security change.
Lot 249 asks if Securitas was the same firm that had an employee steal from us? Director Dodson’s answer was yes and that this was not the reason we replace them. She said they were replaced because Aramark wanted to run security giving us the promise they would obtain a security license. Plus, our GM was at that time having conflicts with Securitas staff. She went on to say the Board will meet with them once a month and will have them on a one year probation. Director Burke again wanted to clarify that there is a warrant out for that former employee of Securitas and her boyfriend, who stole checks. She gave several other opinions of what Securitas did.
Lot #97 said for the extra money we spend on security, we will get what we haven’t had before. That would be to have someone that will enforce the rules. Director Burke again spoke contrary to that.
SC #111 criticized the fact the people didn’t appoint the security company and thought that the board had no right to do this themselves. She mentioned my name as if she had a problem with my minute impute I gave to the Security Committee. She went on a somewhat mini tantrum saying the Village is in a crisis, neighbors are turning against neighbors, and on and on. She eventually said the majority is not being heard while there are a few voices that are anonymous group on a blog that don’t speak the truth. She went on to say when we send information to the blog, many times it doesn’t get on there. You only hear one side, and that one side wants to get rid of Aramark and Larry. She then said that you have six people that can do anything they want, that's you Mr. Peterson, Mr. McBride, Martha Nell, Mr. Young, and you (President Sullivan), we have all heard you say that.( Not sure heard what it was that was said?) President Sullivan said everyone has a right to voice their opinion and told her that this was uncalled for.
Lot #806 said if there was a problem with someone drunk at the pool; why not make it a non-alcohol area.
Selba Campbell said she was available to register you to vote and provide you an absentee ballot.
33840 S. Garcia is starting to replace 950 S. Garcia on certain mail. This may or may not change back. Either are said to work until April of 2009. It was suggested not to change anything until the new postmaster is replaced to review our situation. Our GM spent five minutes on his experience with the number change.
Director Dodson reminded everyone of the employee appreciation party.
Lot #726 asked questions about function and who controled of the Bridge Board. Director Burke gave a five plus minute summation.
SC #2 said she would like to thank Mr. Peterson for raising the bounty on my husband’s head.
With that stupid and unrelated to the meeting remark, the meeting was adjourned.
Workshop
Agenda
Only one Bid was received on remodeling the bath house. The amount to do it as designed by Don Pelletier was $26129.
The sidewalk to nowhere, as it has been called from the letter lots to guard house, along with sidewalk by the helicopter pad, sidewalk in front of the activity center, and sidewalk in front of Rec. Hall parking lot was said by our GM to cost around $13,000.
Only one bid for the repair of the outdoor pool bottom has been received so far.
Director Dodson asked our GM if the Berry Pool chemicals were included with the $800 they charge us? The GM said yes, but only up to a certain amount. Director McBride said he had read the Berry contract and did not recall reading that chemicals were included. The GM then stated he was not sure but will look into it.
Insurance adjusters have given LIV a $20000 advance to fix the restaurant roof.
Meeting adjourned. Read more on this article...
After the Pledge of Allegiance we heard from the Suggestion Box
Lot 677 Asked that all suggestions make it to the regular board meeting. He suggested to have comments from the audience on the suggestions submitted. Plus hold over any suggestions not read to the next meeting if there were a considerable amount of comments.
Lot 143 to avoid a possible lawsuit, asked for the recall to be brought up again and be entertained by the Board and have some way to voted on it.
President Sullivan made a statement that he felt it seemed evident the recall has caused turmoil and division of the Board and asked the Board to quickly resolve its differences. Director Burke responded by saying the suggestion is worthy of consideration and disagreed with President Sullivan that the Recall group was the cause of the turmoil.
From the Audience
Lot 251 Asked how much the new security would cost us and what would it get us? Director Dodson explained the License officer will better enforce our rules, reduce liability, and more. Director Steffensen said in January, February, and March of 2007, LIV was still paying bills to Securitas. Director Burke felt a need to clarify the original 2008 budget figures only to say the obvious; if wages increase, the amount could reach higher and then made it quite clear this was not her decision to back a security change.
Lot 249 asks if Securitas was the same firm that had an employee steal from us? Director Dodson’s answer was yes and that this was not the reason we replace them. She said they were replaced because Aramark wanted to run security giving us the promise they would obtain a security license. Plus, our GM was at that time having conflicts with Securitas staff. She went on to say the Board will meet with them once a month and will have them on a one year probation. Director Burke again wanted to clarify that there is a warrant out for that former employee of Securitas and her boyfriend, who stole checks. She gave several other opinions of what Securitas did.
Lot #97 said for the extra money we spend on security, we will get what we haven’t had before. That would be to have someone that will enforce the rules. Director Burke again spoke contrary to that.
SC #111 criticized the fact the people didn’t appoint the security company and thought that the board had no right to do this themselves. She mentioned my name as if she had a problem with my minute impute I gave to the Security Committee. She went on a somewhat mini tantrum saying the Village is in a crisis, neighbors are turning against neighbors, and on and on. She eventually said the majority is not being heard while there are a few voices that are anonymous group on a blog that don’t speak the truth. She went on to say when we send information to the blog, many times it doesn’t get on there. You only hear one side, and that one side wants to get rid of Aramark and Larry. She then said that you have six people that can do anything they want, that's you Mr. Peterson, Mr. McBride, Martha Nell, Mr. Young, and you (President Sullivan), we have all heard you say that.( Not sure heard what it was that was said?) President Sullivan said everyone has a right to voice their opinion and told her that this was uncalled for.
Lot #806 said if there was a problem with someone drunk at the pool; why not make it a non-alcohol area.
Selba Campbell said she was available to register you to vote and provide you an absentee ballot.
33840 S. Garcia is starting to replace 950 S. Garcia on certain mail. This may or may not change back. Either are said to work until April of 2009. It was suggested not to change anything until the new postmaster is replaced to review our situation. Our GM spent five minutes on his experience with the number change.
Director Dodson reminded everyone of the employee appreciation party.
Lot #726 asked questions about function and who controled of the Bridge Board. Director Burke gave a five plus minute summation.
SC #2 said she would like to thank Mr. Peterson for raising the bounty on my husband’s head.
With that stupid and unrelated to the meeting remark, the meeting was adjourned.
Workshop
Agenda
Only one Bid was received on remodeling the bath house. The amount to do it as designed by Don Pelletier was $26129.
The sidewalk to nowhere, as it has been called from the letter lots to guard house, along with sidewalk by the helicopter pad, sidewalk in front of the activity center, and sidewalk in front of Rec. Hall parking lot was said by our GM to cost around $13,000.
Only one bid for the repair of the outdoor pool bottom has been received so far.
Director Dodson asked our GM if the Berry Pool chemicals were included with the $800 they charge us? The GM said yes, but only up to a certain amount. Director McBride said he had read the Berry contract and did not recall reading that chemicals were included. The GM then stated he was not sure but will look into it.
Insurance adjusters have given LIV a $20000 advance to fix the restaurant roof.
Meeting adjourned. Read more on this article...
Friday, September 12, 2008
VILLAGE SECURITYAt the September 4th Board meeting, Director Dodson’s security presentation did not immediately determined how much higher it would cost for our new licensed security company. We spent over $230K for gate keeping last year. This year $206K has been budgeted and that appears to be on track. During the security presentation, Directors Steffensen and Burke threw out figures they believed should be added to these bids in order to show its true cost. These figures were ranging from $16K to $27K, depending upon who was talking.
It has been established to this date we will pay $18K more than this year’s budgeted cost in order to have Securitas as our new licensed security.
It’s interesting why we even accepted an unlicensed security group in the first place? Here’s some history towards how all this came about..
Jan. 2005 Our GM proposed to our Board of having Aramark replace Securitas. The board approved this idea.
May 2005 Four months later with no security license, our GM said his company changed their minds because Texas has outrageous liability costs. Securitas receives a new one year contract.
August 2006 Aramark’s Senior VP gave our GM the go ahead to pursue contracting LIV for security. Aramark’s bid was approximately $3K less than Securitas. Motion was made to award Aramark the security contract and Director Burke seconds it. Motion was approved. It was decided that Aramark will run security while getting a security license.
June 2007 Ten months later and no security license; our GM stated that his company changed their minds and will not get a security license due to, in his words, a $20,000 Texas out of state fee. The Board ordered bids be obtained from license security companies for review.
August 2007 Besides his own, our GM acquired only two licensed security company bids to choose from. Both companies were apparently based substantially further than the maximum mile radius set by the board. Aramark was awarded the contract. The Board reasons were cost savings, more services, and direct control. Current Board members that served then were Directors Burke, Mulch, Steffensen, and Young. Director Young was the only Director to vote no.
To note; This $20K Texas out of state fee was later found to actually be a new franchise tax past in 2006 to start in 2008 that applied to all businesses located in and out of Texas, and had no apparent bearing at acquiring a security license?
Current reasons for the replacing our unlicensed gate keepers.
1. They are powerless to enforce most of our Village protocol legally.
2. Wanting to reduce our Village liability. Our Village is continually displaying the illusion of having a licensed security. It begins with being a gated community and continues with posted guards, vehicle screening, patrols, security cameras, uniforms, being called for problems, being called for emergencies, realtors advertising 24 hr security, accidently calling them security at board meetings, and more. This illusion increases our liability exponentially. Simple example would be a renter lets her guard down thinking we have train security and gets injured or abused by a perpetrator. Could our Association show we were diligent in securing our property or show we reduced the protection with untrained and unlicensed personnel in order to save a buck.
3. Untrained personnel
4. Untrained management training their untrained personnel.
5. Management failing to design adequate procedures for updating personnel on changing LIV needs.
6. Personnel not being trained properly. Unable to read the LIV Owners directory correctly and directing vehicles to wrong addresses. Unable to provide simple information when called.
7. The apparent need of trained and licensed personnel to communicate with the proper etiquette and be able to properly document current events.
Original reason to have our non licensed security
1. Cost
2. More services
3. Direct control
Is it worth it?
Ask yourself if it is worth $18 a year to better protect your physical well being, property, and enforce the Village regulations using licensed personnel that are trained and tested in this area.
How much is it worth to improve our Village’s posture towards future litigations? Having a License Security might it not even be possible to recoup this increase and more in the long run through lower insurance premiums and attorney fees ?
Are we really getting our $206K + money’s worth with this unlicensed Aramark team?
Shouldn’t we be looking after Long Island Village interests instead of the GM’s or Aramark’s?
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
HURRICANE COMMITTEE
The hurricane committee and all the contributors have done a great job on thinking ahead of the CONE. Ed McBride was the host of the meeting and explained very clearly the general design of the plan. They have figured it in two evacuation stages, recommended and mandatory. Recommended evacuation means they recommend but leave it up to you, the owners, renters, and workers. The park utilities and bridge should stay usable unless an outage is caused by the elements. Mandatory means all but owners will be forced to leave. Owners that stay need to tell the office and provide numbers to contacts if needed. They will not be the park’s responsibility. The power will be left on, but water will be turned off. The bridge will be locked open and not passable.
While in the hurricane’s projected cone, we will be in the mandatory evacuation stage. It is currently being requested everyone leave by 7pm Thursday. From that point on the bridge may close at anytime. This of course is subject to change as weather updates dictate every six hours.
Information numbers are 943-5670, 943-3113, 572-5670, 572-5671. Read more on this article...
The hurricane committee and all the contributors have done a great job on thinking ahead of the CONE. Ed McBride was the host of the meeting and explained very clearly the general design of the plan. They have figured it in two evacuation stages, recommended and mandatory. Recommended evacuation means they recommend but leave it up to you, the owners, renters, and workers. The park utilities and bridge should stay usable unless an outage is caused by the elements. Mandatory means all but owners will be forced to leave. Owners that stay need to tell the office and provide numbers to contacts if needed. They will not be the park’s responsibility. The power will be left on, but water will be turned off. The bridge will be locked open and not passable.
While in the hurricane’s projected cone, we will be in the mandatory evacuation stage. It is currently being requested everyone leave by 7pm Thursday. From that point on the bridge may close at anytime. This of course is subject to change as weather updates dictate every six hours.
Information numbers are 943-5670, 943-3113, 572-5670, 572-5671. Read more on this article...
BACK TO SQUARE ONE
My original purpose for this Blog was to bring out more of the facts while exposing any half truths and unclear answers when exercised by our management and Board of Directors. It was to help keep our board from lying idle towards owner’s concerns. It was created to help identify your owner’s right to ratify, by vote, on our Village’s substantial additions and material alterations that were denied to you by previous boards. It tries to make our management more accountable for their actions and was thought to be needed because our newsletter was never published in a timely manner. I felt the people in our Village also needed a means to express themselves. Pitifully, for fear of reprisals, most have to do it anonymously. I will continue to post comments within the same guidelines that have been previously set forth with the hope that someday people here can agree to disagree without being targeted.
I’ve tried to make every discourse be based on solid facts and posed questions from those particulars.
A board member’s wife made the comment recently that” it’s too bad the synopsis writer of this blog can’t take a more object view.” She right because for the most part I try to let a reader derive their own opinion about an issue. I try giving all the facts available and pose from them legitimate questions. But if she wants a synopsis about the current state of affairs that our Village has with our general manager, I’ll try to provide this simple one just for her.
For years our Village has encountered numerous problems with management. Many were with maintaining various entities of our common grounds, especially with the pool facilities and lawn care. Six months ago the majority of the voting owners elected four board members whose main campaign promises were to hold management accountable for their actions and show an active concern towards owners comments. Because they held to these promises, they have been made the bad guys by management and some senior board members. Friends of the GM and these certain senior board members have tried to rid three of the four directors by way of a recall. At best it was done in a most despicable way and failed to succeed. We are now left with a very disgruntled board that just needs to get on with the business at hand and either vote our general manager out or vote him in. Read more on this article...
My original purpose for this Blog was to bring out more of the facts while exposing any half truths and unclear answers when exercised by our management and Board of Directors. It was to help keep our board from lying idle towards owner’s concerns. It was created to help identify your owner’s right to ratify, by vote, on our Village’s substantial additions and material alterations that were denied to you by previous boards. It tries to make our management more accountable for their actions and was thought to be needed because our newsletter was never published in a timely manner. I felt the people in our Village also needed a means to express themselves. Pitifully, for fear of reprisals, most have to do it anonymously. I will continue to post comments within the same guidelines that have been previously set forth with the hope that someday people here can agree to disagree without being targeted.
I’ve tried to make every discourse be based on solid facts and posed questions from those particulars.
A board member’s wife made the comment recently that” it’s too bad the synopsis writer of this blog can’t take a more object view.” She right because for the most part I try to let a reader derive their own opinion about an issue. I try giving all the facts available and pose from them legitimate questions. But if she wants a synopsis about the current state of affairs that our Village has with our general manager, I’ll try to provide this simple one just for her.
For years our Village has encountered numerous problems with management. Many were with maintaining various entities of our common grounds, especially with the pool facilities and lawn care. Six months ago the majority of the voting owners elected four board members whose main campaign promises were to hold management accountable for their actions and show an active concern towards owners comments. Because they held to these promises, they have been made the bad guys by management and some senior board members. Friends of the GM and these certain senior board members have tried to rid three of the four directors by way of a recall. At best it was done in a most despicable way and failed to succeed. We are now left with a very disgruntled board that just needs to get on with the business at hand and either vote our general manager out or vote him in. Read more on this article...
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Board of Directors Meeting 9/4/2008
After the Pledge of Allegiance, it was announced the recall ballots were invalid.
From the floor we had three people giving their endorsement to our general manager. Selba Campbell was one of them. Selba also said that the Cowen Group will be part of our Bridge Board since they now own island property. She hinted that certain things are cooking that are positive towards our bridge funding.
Reports
Manager’s report was short due to a non board issue speech he wanted to read. It pertained to a reward flier that was posted. The general manager claimed this person owning the phone number on said reward flier has constantly bothered him, his employees and had also threatened him and his wife. Director Burke made a motion to act upon this. The board complied.
The Treasury Report had nothing out of the ordinary to express.
D&E report had conveyed there will be numerous activities for the month of October.
Golf Committee reported they still had $18419 leftover from their fundraisers the previous year and construction on green #6 should be completed by October.
Swimming Pool Committee report said 1988 wrist bands were sold in nine weeks and netted a profit of around $4550 to be spent on pool chairs this year. At the request from the board there are now five more bids that will be considered for the outdoor pool repair.
Audit Committee report on the Rental Department recommended changes in the Declaration, a renter repair checklist, an emergency only list on units to be rented for emergencies, a change in the deep cleaning charges, a change in our advertising, and a rating system.
Security committee recommended three Security companies as finalist. Director Dodson motion Securitas to become our new security replacing Aramark. Motion passed. Aramark is to be given a sixty day notice.
Safety Committee wished to be given more time to recruit volunteers but wanted to immediately to sit down with management and form a better hurricane plan.
Evaluation Committee report said our general manager scored just above satisfactory. Director Dodson moved there were improprieties of this evaluation for allowing the employee to be present not after but during the evaluations proceedings, arguing any low scores, and causing one committee member to resign after being told to change their evaluation. A request to enter a closed session for discussion of this evaluation was voted down.
Old Business
Reflectors to indicate property for sell or rent was tabled to the workshop.
Director McBride had a safety issue and inquired as to why a fire hydrant was out of commission for 10 months so it could be move for $6000 when the hydrant valve could have been relocated to solve the original problem of it being under an owner’s concrete pad and deck. The estimated cost to do this would be under two hundred dollars. It will be an item of discussion at the workshop.
Director Peterson brought up issues with bath house #1. The possibility of a ceiling leak along with the current plans of remodeling. He deemed the plans as unnecessary and overly costly. It will be an item at the workshop.
Time Warner Cable is planned to be operational Jan 1st. Bundle packages will be introduced when received.
Director McBride asked the general manager why the golf course pump has to be shut off at low tide instead of extending the intake pipe further out so as to always be in the water. The cleaning of the screen was the answer.
Director McBride asked if the float valve and the backflow valve was installed for the single phase emergency sewer pipe. Answer was yes.
Emergency Modular Housing idea was downed.
New Business
There will be an employee appreciation party September 19th.
An additional bank account was started at Wells Fargo to protect LIV money under the Federal Insured Limits.
Truck paint and wheels was brought up as a question to our general manager after Director Peterson had been misinformed by office personnel that the work was approved to be done by the board. The general manager became very upset and loudly stated his displeasure in having this subject brought up.
Director Burke motioned that some regular board meetings be scheduled for Saturdays at 9 am. Motion passed.
Motion to accept True Line material for the seawalls was passed along with proper depth considerations.
Lowering the park model minimum height building code rule died from lack of motion.
There will be a modular home seminar in November for those interested. Exact date TBA.
Motion for sea cottage using 30 year TDI approved shingles passed.
Variance for Lot 1 is under review and discussion.
Cowen Group closed on their property on the 25th of August. There was a remark by Director Burke that the seller stated the sold property was to have a land easement through LIV.
Director Steffensen asked who took the director’s pictures away from the glass enclosure. It appears that five pictures were first removed and three more days later.
Meeting called adjourn. Read more on this article...
After the Pledge of Allegiance, it was announced the recall ballots were invalid.
From the floor we had three people giving their endorsement to our general manager. Selba Campbell was one of them. Selba also said that the Cowen Group will be part of our Bridge Board since they now own island property. She hinted that certain things are cooking that are positive towards our bridge funding.
Reports
Manager’s report was short due to a non board issue speech he wanted to read. It pertained to a reward flier that was posted. The general manager claimed this person owning the phone number on said reward flier has constantly bothered him, his employees and had also threatened him and his wife. Director Burke made a motion to act upon this. The board complied.
The Treasury Report had nothing out of the ordinary to express.
D&E report had conveyed there will be numerous activities for the month of October.
Golf Committee reported they still had $18419 leftover from their fundraisers the previous year and construction on green #6 should be completed by October.
Swimming Pool Committee report said 1988 wrist bands were sold in nine weeks and netted a profit of around $4550 to be spent on pool chairs this year. At the request from the board there are now five more bids that will be considered for the outdoor pool repair.
Audit Committee report on the Rental Department recommended changes in the Declaration, a renter repair checklist, an emergency only list on units to be rented for emergencies, a change in the deep cleaning charges, a change in our advertising, and a rating system.
Security committee recommended three Security companies as finalist. Director Dodson motion Securitas to become our new security replacing Aramark. Motion passed. Aramark is to be given a sixty day notice.
Safety Committee wished to be given more time to recruit volunteers but wanted to immediately to sit down with management and form a better hurricane plan.
Evaluation Committee report said our general manager scored just above satisfactory. Director Dodson moved there were improprieties of this evaluation for allowing the employee to be present not after but during the evaluations proceedings, arguing any low scores, and causing one committee member to resign after being told to change their evaluation. A request to enter a closed session for discussion of this evaluation was voted down.
Old Business
Reflectors to indicate property for sell or rent was tabled to the workshop.
Director McBride had a safety issue and inquired as to why a fire hydrant was out of commission for 10 months so it could be move for $6000 when the hydrant valve could have been relocated to solve the original problem of it being under an owner’s concrete pad and deck. The estimated cost to do this would be under two hundred dollars. It will be an item of discussion at the workshop.
Director Peterson brought up issues with bath house #1. The possibility of a ceiling leak along with the current plans of remodeling. He deemed the plans as unnecessary and overly costly. It will be an item at the workshop.
Time Warner Cable is planned to be operational Jan 1st. Bundle packages will be introduced when received.
Director McBride asked the general manager why the golf course pump has to be shut off at low tide instead of extending the intake pipe further out so as to always be in the water. The cleaning of the screen was the answer.
Director McBride asked if the float valve and the backflow valve was installed for the single phase emergency sewer pipe. Answer was yes.
Emergency Modular Housing idea was downed.
New Business
There will be an employee appreciation party September 19th.
An additional bank account was started at Wells Fargo to protect LIV money under the Federal Insured Limits.
Truck paint and wheels was brought up as a question to our general manager after Director Peterson had been misinformed by office personnel that the work was approved to be done by the board. The general manager became very upset and loudly stated his displeasure in having this subject brought up.
Director Burke motioned that some regular board meetings be scheduled for Saturdays at 9 am. Motion passed.
Motion to accept True Line material for the seawalls was passed along with proper depth considerations.
Lowering the park model minimum height building code rule died from lack of motion.
There will be a modular home seminar in November for those interested. Exact date TBA.
Motion for sea cottage using 30 year TDI approved shingles passed.
Variance for Lot 1 is under review and discussion.
Cowen Group closed on their property on the 25th of August. There was a remark by Director Burke that the seller stated the sold property was to have a land easement through LIV.
Director Steffensen asked who took the director’s pictures away from the glass enclosure. It appears that five pictures were first removed and three more days later.
Meeting called adjourn. Read more on this article...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
