For years our board has been asked to follow our Village by-laws in allowing the owners their right to ratify the many alterations and substantial additions that have occurred in our park. The response from our Director Burke and others has been the babble of one lame excuse after another. Excuses such as we aren’t able to define the word “substantial”, or you need 75% of the owners to approve it. Other excuses were if owners ratify everything, you don’t need us as a Board, or it’s why we were voted in as directors, to make these kinds of decisions for the owners. This latest excuse from Director Burke was you haven’t ratified the concrete cartpaths on the golf course, so why the need to ratify our new sidewalk to nowhere, leaving a person thinking the theory that two wrongs will make a right.Many of us believe that this by-law was not put there just to fill up space. We believe it was to ensure that the power of changing the appearance within our Village will always be in the hands of concerned owners and not a majority of nine directors. The previous Boards, from which several senior directors are still serving us, have led Village owners to believe this task is virtually impossible because they say this by-law requires at least 75% of the owners to ratify (768 owners out of 1024).
We believe their assessment of Article VII is wrong We believe these very concerned people who painstakingly wrote our by-laws, would not have expressed Article VII if they meant to tie the owners hands on input towards our Park's appearance. If that was their intention, we feel they would have simply said the directors shall have sole authority instead.
Please read this phrase of the by-law and tell me if we are interpreting it correctly.
ARTICLE VII. SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS
There shall be no substantial additions or alterations to the Common Elements or Limited Common Elements by the Association unless the same are authorized by the Board of Directors and ratified by the affirmative vote of the Voting members casting not less than 75% of the total votes of the Unit Owners present at any regular or special meeting of the Unit Owners called for that purpose.
We read at any regular or special meeting at least 75% of the owners present must cast a vote, and of these votes, 51% must say yes to ratify the subject item.
E.g. There are 100 owners at the meeting, 75 wish to and do vote (75%) and 38 of those vote were yes (50.7%), the item is ratified. Otherwise it is not approved and the board finds out the reasons why so they can compromise towards ratification.
So far we have had a new parking lot, gazebo, new concrete area between the pools, doubled the restaurant’s patio area, altered the locations of the activity office and mail boxes just to name a few.
We feel we are reading this By-Law correctly and that this is a check and balance right to all the concerned owners of our Village. We feel owner’s ratification rights have been ignored far too long.
How do you read Article VII ?
27 comments:
I believe the KEY WORD is
SUBSTANTIAL
of considerable worth or value; important
Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent:
RATIFY
to confirm (something done or arranged by an agent or by representatives) by such action.
75% of the total votes of the Unit Owners present at any regular or special meeting of the Unit Owners called for that purpose.
I can see SPECIAL meeting...But not just a REGULAR meeting..
BUT again I thought bylaws say 75% of ALL the owners.. Did someone change that wording?
Jean Cain apologized for the parking lot at one meeting. So she knew it was wrong to put the parking lot in.
Leroys reply to that was ..It is easier to ask forgiveness then to ask for permission. I have never heard that expression before, But its my new motto now!
Apparently its the boards also.
I asked the GM to please ask the people about the gazebo.
GM reply to the gazebo question was.. HAD TO GET IT RIGHT AWAY OR I WOULD HAVE LOST IT.
The old Chucky Chicken gazebo sat in PI a few years.. it could have sat there a little long. We asked him to please put together a plan and a cost for the project and bring it to the people.
He said he didn't have time.
He was told it wasn't going to be a wise idea and there would be repercussion for sure.
So people in charge know what their doing.. they know what the proper proceeder's are .
I believe the board hangs heavily on the word SUBSTANTIAL HOW MUCH IS TO MUCH? HOW MUCH IS NOT ENOUGH?
Perhaps we can use a dollar amount.
All project work should be listed at the beginning of the year. We should have an emergency fund. A tree cutting fund etc..
If we make a penny we should Know where that penny went.
Build an Association Website
A community calendar, governing documents (sometimes called CC&Rs or Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions), budgets, meeting minutes, community handbooks, rules & regulations, newsletters and other items of interest to your community can be posted there.
All these items can be made available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to owners, real estate agents, lenders, title companies, prospective buyers or anyone else that has a need to know.
Just think of the time and cost savings to the association by eliminating the need to duplicate piles of documents! Instead, when documents are requested, you simply direct them to the association website and let them copy or print out whatever they want, when they want it! The cost of designing and maintaining a website is very modest and there are a number of companies that specialize in association websites.
Providers that will host your website for under $50 a month which includes email service for the board members and property manager.
This one is just too good to pass up.
And video tape the meetings!
Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent
Substantial
Joey, we appreciate what you are saying & agree but PB was wrong to compare the sidewalk to nowhere & the cart paths. Our golf course was originally built with cart paths. They have been neglected for so long they were hard to see but were there never the less. The cement paths are a definite improvement over the original gravel & wood paths.
First of all you cant, then you can.. because theres the word UNLESS. Then you can if 75 % of a regular meeting votes but your not suppose too... unless you have a SPECIAL meeting for the purpose!
YEP its pretty clear to me!
They do what they want... A statement for all occasions.
In the last 15 years, the only improvement that owners voted on was the road project in 1998.
The tennis courts were improved to the tune of $75,000+ without a vote and as Joey stated, there have been many more unauthorized projects since the landing of this GM.
This BOD as well as many before them, have been made aware of the By-Laws which state the proper avenue to travel when making changes to the village and all have chosen to ignore these By-Laws. Instead, they carry on with their own agendas in mind and to hell with honor and integrity.
I remember well the "golf cart path" meeting. It was brought up by owners in the audience that such an endeavor cannot be undertaken without the vote of the owners to which the then pres Don Hallbach answered that since there was once a gravel path (which no longer existed) the path was not an addition but an improvement and thus needed no vote. Talk about stretching it!!
Take the checkbook away from MS and don't let anything happen until there exists a BOD who are knowledgable, righteous and good.
Joey, keep reminding owners of the By-Laws and Covenants. Surely some day it will sink in - someday before LIV is bankrupt.
And get rid of Larry and his mob!
Placing the cart path in there prospected places are very nice. And I applaud the golfing group and others for there energy in promoting donations and paying for the project themselves. BUT never the less someone should have gone through the correct proceeder's. Bring it to the people.. So everyone would have had the correct information. There where ugly roomers going around, the right people where not getting acknowledged . And it made the golfing people seem higher then almighty. Lets face it, life stinks sometimes.. But you can never go wrong when you tell the truth and follow the rules. No one can expect anything else.
Thanks will come one way or another!
The gazebo was a Judy Voss brainstorm. Somehow, it was figured that it was "free" - never mind the cost of transporting it, rebuilding it and then building an entire area with a fountain around it! And since this gazebo was "free" it didn't matter that the common ground was transformed to what it is today without a vote of the owners but with a lot of ignored protests from the owners. The then BOD, Don Hallbach, Judy Voss, Martha Knell, Jean Cain, Leroy Mulch and Pat Burke all said this project could be undertaken because the gazebo was "free". The fact that this remodeling was being done on common ground without a vote fell on deaf ears. It's free, it's free!!
The $12,000 parking lot was Larry's first official act of screwing the owners with the full approval of the BOD. When brought up about the common ground, the BOD did admit that they were wrong, but, oh well.
I hope that the small group of owners who were responsible for bringing Aramark into LIV and then defending the management teams no matter what, are feeling real bad about the demise of LIV.
You should all be kicked out of LIV.
I find Art.VII an easy read because while a member of a different HOA, they had a near identical by-law. If you have an issue of changing the appearance or adding to a common ground area, it was put forth as an agenda item at the next a regular or special meeting and the owners who were concerned would appear at this meeting. When they came to this agenda item, it was up to the directors to then sell this change and emphasize the need to have at least three fourths of the owners in front of them to cast their vote to nay or yea. They would count the number of owners present by the number of ballots handed out and upon the tally, it was disclosed, for our minutes, what number of owners that were present, what number of votes were received, and what the affirmative number was. There were only two times out of dozens that an affirmative vote was not received. One item was totally unnecessary with an insane cost that never was ratify thank God, while the other was discussed and then amended to a successful ratification. I see no reason why the directors here, past and present, seem to have such a problem with this by-law unless they wish not to give you your right to ratify or are too lazy to go through the simple process. This by-law is pretty clear to me because I’ve seen it in action and is a necessary way to check and balance the board’s power to change the community as this article states. I for one total agree with the way this blog writer reads Article VII.
Judy Voss knows better then to OK a project like that. Someone can have an idea. Thats not the problem..its how the dream becomes a reality.
And the gazebo was not free it cost a $1000.00.
Please take the CB away from ms NO NEW SPENDING TILL THIS BOARD IS GONE GONE GONE!
Re: Please take the CB away from MS.....
What you mean is take the checks away from P. Burke. Only when a screw up happens does anyother BOD get to sign and/or even see the checks going out...PB & MS sign the majority.
Also, remember the GM DOES NOT have to ask the BOD to do anything if it is under $1000. Many people wonder if we are getting $1K to death by the GM.
A REAL aduit is needed.
According to the Texas Condo Law, ANY owner has the right to see ALL the books. It might also be mentioned in the By-Laws or Covenants. Any accountants out there? Do an audit please!
RE: getting $1K to death by the GM.
You bet we are. I understand they buy under $1K, load up and go again for another under $1K load, several times a day at the same place.
How about that?????
Hmm,
Checks and balances! Great idea. Unfortunately we don't have that in LIV.
We are supposedly doing an audit.. Judy Voss and others head it up.. But I didn't hear results. And as far as having the right to view all association books..By the standards of TX CONDO LAWS.. Well we do.. but you have to pay for the service such as the Edinburgh Sand Piper Condo Lawsuit in 2006.
Thats why we are doing a FREE independent AUDIT with people who live in the PARK.. And some are the SGG
Folks. When we see those results then we can pay for one.If we are not happy!
The new auditor should NOT be able to see the old books. They tend to get lazy also. And just copy information.
Asking to see the books is not like taking out a library book. Please!
Thats why we pay auditors already. According to pb we have three audits a year.
But we can see the tax reports that we send to Government for FREE.
They can be posted!
Judy Voss was VERY responsible for bringing Aramark into the park and she was a firm supporter of Larry until recently. And she defended Larry for making that new position for Les Demalade Heier. So, you want her to do an Audit?
You don't have to pay to look at the books - you do have to pay a reasonable fee to have copies made. You have to request a time to see the books. You can bring your own copier and save the cost.
And Pat Burke says there are 3 audits a year, and you believe her?
What's needed is a FORENSIC AUDIT. I'm sure that the association can come up with some money to hire a FORENSIC ACCOUNTANT to look into the financial mess and what happened.
That board and the LIV owners had as much to do with Aramark being here as Judy. Everyone loved our GM until they really got to know him and his continuous half truths. Judy was the only one who caught Aramark for overbilling us on the Isis program and was the only director to match up invoices with receipts in catching other Aramark overbilling mistakes. Yes, I for one think she would do us well if she was able to get all the records and not just what this current head of the audit committee so limitedly gives out. I feel an investigative audit would be more appropriate.
I couldn't agree more....A forensic audit is what is needed. Who really knows what has been done with our money. Between Pat Burke, Larry and all his realitives the books are probably in a real mess...The CPA report at the annual meeting only reflects the figures that were given to them by the GM, MS, PB etc etc etc
According to the GM the gazebo cost was at a minimal. Most was donated work.
"cost was at a minimal"..
Which makes NO difference as the Chicken Hut was rebuilt on COMMON GROUND without the vote of the owners. And let's not forget all the work done between the 2 pools in order to give the Chicken Hut a nice resting place - on Common Ground.
So, how much was the total of the remodeled activity center, the gazebo area and the laundry? Larry will never give a figure. But, a FORENSIC AUDIT would show it all!
Why is Pat Burke still on the Board since she is not an owner?
Has the nepotism surrounding Larry and Les been addressed?
What's happening with Cowan?
Judy Voss and Martha Knell stood side by side with Katherine Demalade and unquestionably supported Larry and Aramark when all of Larry's so-called truthful statements began to unravel and his true nature exposed. Documents from state agencies did nothing to lessen their fervor for the man. They stood firm in their support even when By-Law and Covenant disobedience was proved over and over again. They made excuses for the poor maintenance of the grounds and buildings in LIV. They were not alone. Don't put any of the present or former BOD on a pedestal. They should all be held accountable for what they have allowed in this park.
We really should keep Judy out of this.
She does a lot a hard work for the park. She just loves that library.
Why are people bringing up the Gazebo when it happened two years ago?? Let's look to the future!
You people need to get a hobby! There is more to life than slamming someone else. If you want to run the world get voted in as a Director and see how hard it is to please everyone. Remember when you choose to sling mud you will get as much on you as your target!
Slinging mud... makes me think of deliberate lies. Everything I've read about the BOD past and present is right on the mark. Hey, they did this stuff to LIV - we're not in this mess because of diligent, informed and By-Law abiding directors now are we?
The reason people are bringing up the Gazebo, or anything else that has required $$$ to be spent, is to answer the question of one owner at the Town Hall Meeting last Saturday: "Why can't you board members get along." HISTORY. There are MANY questionable things that have happened since Larry was hired. HISTORY is why we have the concerned board members who are trying to find answers...only to be sued for their efforts. HISTORY is showing us the wasted money...our money. You guys who are fighting to hold Larry accountable: keep on keeping on. HISTORY demands it!
Thank you to Dodson, Hansen, McBride, Peterson, and Young for asking questions.
I attended meetings when I became an owner with the past BOD and not one of them ever ask DeMalade a question when he presented something to spend money on. All they did was nod their heads and agree with everything he wanted.
I will be voting for people who ask questions and made the management accountable.
Post a Comment