Thursday, August 28, 2008

There will be a board meeting on Sept 4th at 9am. This will be the continuance of last Wednesday’s attempt. There will be an official recall determination declared along with the agenda grocery list to discuss. Read more on this article...

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.
Read more on this article...

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

IS OUR VILLAGE PHENOMENA A POSSIBLE THREAT?

Does our Village have a phenomena far more threatening than another Hurricane Dolly?


Might it come from some petty group with this dire need to victimize certain individuals and strived to dismantle repeatedly our Board of Directors in every way imaginable?

From a small crowd launching salvos of rumors, innuendoes, and blatant lies as an apparent punishment to any concern owner whose crime was voicing an opinion towards Village management? A management they were paying for.

Can it be a tiny throng who has every Village owner afraid of reprisal when keeping company with somebody who had publicly disagreed with this so called “cackling choir?”

Or maybe it’s that petite pack who tells owners if they don’t like it, move?

Don't you feel a touch of shame emerge for not reacting strongly towards a heartless beldam, who enjoyably went about flaunting an owner’s ancient personal past through our Village just because it was in the public records?

Have you felt yet that warm sense of ire towards this tiny horde for their reason lacking recall letter that’s trying to rid our Village of the very directors who made management, for the first time, accountable for their actions? The only Directors that have shown real concern at what owners had to say in every Coffee with the Directors meetings?

Are we seeing this unchallenged horde-pack-throng-crowd-group being successful at creating a plethora of enmity growing at every turn? Am I the next one to have a rumor, innuendo, or a blatant lie accusing me of doing something for writing this, or possibly you for reading it?

Do you not find it especially disturbing to have a member riding rough-shod over our entire Board?

It would seem to be the most poignant moment in our Village history.

Does our Village deserve a better manager, or one that needs to be force to do better? Does our Village seek a perfect manager, or one who won’t think of himself as perfect? Does our Village need to hire a manager that has all the answers, or one that gives you all of an answer? It may be difficult for our Village to know for sure if they have hired the right manager, but it should not be hard for our Village to know when we have an apparent wrong one.
Which do we have?

This is just such a waste. Is it not the time for a change of direction?

Read more on this article...

Monday, August 25, 2008

NFL channel has been added to our cable network. It will be on channel 29. There’s nothing negative about this unless you hate football. Read more on this article...
Below is a reintroduction of three earlier posted articles. I feel it necessary to remind everyone of these events that are current issues soon to be addressed by our Board. Read more on this article...
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.
Read more on this article...


THE EVALUATION FLOP

Would you like to predict what our general manager’s evaluation score will be in August for a second time?

Don't bother, it should be AVERAGE.

Would you like to bet a few of the directors will loudly say the board cannot replace our general manager with an evaluation score that’s average? Go ahead and you’ll win big.

Why in the world are our directors and general manager putting on this extravaganza. It doesn’t take a psychic to see that this whole process has an apparent predetermined and predictable outcome.

One should ask why there is a need for this evaluation in the first place. Is it to create an accurate paper trail? If so, this fastidious trail is full of mud, cracks, and potholes.

This particular evaluation format poses 21 specific questions to a committee of four partisan board members. They will render one multiple choice verdict for each question.

It's my understanding that before a verdict is applicable, the subject of this query has been allowed to be in the presence of each individual committee member to review, argue, and influence their answer. Such things our general manager might or has argued is how can this director award an average grade when the evaluation question itself appears to require a yes or no answer? (E.G. possible evaluation questions # 2, #5 , #8, #10, #14, #16, and #18.) Our general manager might or by now declared that this evaluator has no way of knowing what he did so as to be able to give him an accurate grade. ( E.G. possible evaluation questions #11, #12, #17, #19, #20, and #21.) As a matter of record, our general manager has stated he will not give the maintenance records on Aramark equipment to any director, only to the president. How can these four committee evaluators grade #19? In my unassuming opinion his whole evaluation forum appears to be nothing but a charade.

It as plain as the nose on your face that this meaningless evaluation procedure was concocted to buy time. Time for certain people to do everything as humanly possible at making our current board appear dysfunctional, so as to cast doubt towards every board member’s action or decision. So far that has succeeded. Having a few people creating a petition to recall three board members for meaningless reasons was brilliant. It had every board member looking over their shoulder. As a follow up, a new trend was started to argue every board topic to the boiling point and then try to spin any decision off as being an attack on our general manager or Aramark. This is having a disheartening divisional effect on everyone here in the Park as well as on the board..

That being said, I would like for someone to show me where Aramark’s contract says a paper trail is necessary to replace any general manager they provide. it may say specific but not a trail. I would like to also read anywhere in that contract that our Village has to justify anything to them. We pay for them to provide a service. They are accountable to our Village. We by no means are accountable to them.

Concerned owners have asked if this is the best general manager Aramark can provide? Disquieted owners have also asked is this a manager whom you can trust? Some owners have questioned if this is the type of manager who can bring future harmony and prosperity to our Village? Many have asked these questions and received no answers. Some have witness our general manager being rude to both customers and owners. Even our own director Burke said he’s been rude because at times he was in a bad mood, after which she asked the audience if they ever have been in a bad mood. Director Burke should have asked the audience if at your work, would it be tolerated if you were rude to customers and those people who pay your wages?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Here is the committee’s evaluation form.

LONG ISLAND VILLAGE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION GENERAL MANAGER EVALUATION.
Reporting Structure
The General Manager is responsible to the Board of Directors of Long Island Village Owners’ Association. The General Manager is responsible for Implementing the policies and procedures passed by the Board in a prudent and expedient manner. The General Manager recommends to the Board all procedures and policy changes which will improve the operation of the Village.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The General Manager is responsible for the day to day operations of the Village and delegates authority to those individuals who have been assigned supervisory responsibility for performing dally activities,
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
The General Manager has the responsibility for the Implementation and monitoring of the budget as approved by the Board, The General Manager has the responsibility to report revenues and expenditures to the Board as required. This position makes recommendations to the Board as to the need for emergency expenditures and keeps the board informed about the future fiscal needs of the Village.
PERSONELL RESPONSIBILITY
The General Manager is responsible for all the personnel who perform functions for Long Island Village Owners' Association. The General Manager reports to the Board about dismissals, resignations, and hiring; follows policy In filling vacated and new positions; recommends to the Board and. receives approval for new positions to be added and recommends to the Board those individuals selected to fill managerial (salaried) positions.
EVAUATION
The Board of Directors is responsible for the quarterly and annual evaluation of the General Manager. The General Manager is responsible for implementing an evaluation process that assures that every employee's performance \s evaluated a minimum of once per year.
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF THEGENERAL MANAGER; -
"Evaluate each function by marking (1) Outstanding (2) Satisfactory (3) Satisfactory but needs some improvement (4) Not satisfactory and needs improvement.
Administration

1. Supervises and provides direction to Office Staff, Hospitality Manager, Facility Manager and Security Service.

2. Conducts the operation of the Village within the context of Board adopted policies and bylaws.

3. Ensures that the Association's rules and regulations are enforced and assesses and collects penalties for violations.

4. Provides reports to the Board as required by the Association’s policies or as requested by the Board.

5. Prepares a realistic annual budget for the Village in conjunction with Board Treasurer.

6. Communicates with owners and guest and addresses their concerns.

7. Initiates recommendations to the Board for improvements to the Village.

8. Is accountable to the Board for managing within the approved budget.

9. Provides budget and financial reports to the Board on a regular basis.

10. Assures compliance with generally accepted accounting principles.

11. Reviews and approves journal entries, bank Account reconciliation, and payment of invoices and cash management transactions.

12. Regularly inspects the Village for violation of rules and regulations, landscaping improvement and visual attractiveness.

13. Develops and implements procedures for operating 1he Rental Office efficiently.

14. Issues damage refund checks and owners' commission checks in a timely manner.

15. Responds to requests and inquiries by members of the Board in a timely manner.

16. Complies with legal. Tax, licensing, permitting governmental and other regulatory requirements.

17. Tracks delinquent accounts receivable, approves payment plans for delinquent owners, submits accounts for foreclosure to attorney.

18. Supervises payment of appropriate State, Federal and hotel occupancy taxes in a timely manner.

19. Assures effectiveness of maintenance, repairs, lawns, recreational amenities mechanical equipment and common areas.

20. Assures effective functioning of Atrium Room, special events, catering service, golf course, Residence Center operations and events scheduling.

21. Creates and maintains necessary records relating to personnel, finance, maintenance, board activities and other services, activities and functions.

Read more on this article...
Note: There has been a correction made in the security article. I wish to thank the person who brought it to my attention through the comment sector. My apologies for the 14 words pasted twice in this article and any confusion it may have created.


SECURITY

This article is being renewed for a second time. It will use the board minutes as reference to the actions taken. They will be colored in red, highlighted, and will not be altered for corrections in grammar. This hopes to show the path that was followed in obtain the current security department contract.
Board giving our G.M.’s position the power.
Minutes
LONG ISLAND VILLAGE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Regular Board Meeting
March 26, 2003
Management Responsibility I Micro-management
Dodson made a proposalto shift to management everything that is management like facilities! security!and building codes and then hold them accountable for. Hold Fletcher accountable and then he in turn hold his employees accountable. The Board to meet once every quarter and discuss any concerns! complaints and/or compliments with General Manager and Regional Manager. Still will have certain committees that will still be run by volunteers. Cain asked how would the process be handled. She wanted specification on how the process would be
different if Armando did it as opposed to the Board. Dodson said she would expect the Facility Supervisor, Armando Zamora, would be responsible for interpreting the building codes and if he had questions having to do with variances or the building codes then he must bring it up to the board! plus check building construction! issue building permits. There would no longer be a
Building Committee! which has done a great job but would like to turn over to made a motion that ARAMARK be awarded the contract for gate attendants and patrol. Board would then hold Armando responsible through Fletcher.
Call for a vote. All in favor except for Halbach who abstained. Motion approved.

Larry DeMalade was introduced on August 25th, 2004 as our new G.M. replacing Dave Fletcher. Four months later he wanted our board to have Aramark run our security.
At that time Business articles were being published talking about a new Texas franchise tax bill.
This new bill is design to correct all dissimilar and unfair practices that most of the out of state Services Corporations like Aramark, use to avoid paying most if not all Texas franchise taxes. It would seem plausible that every Aramark pencil pusher had their eye on this new bill because of the tremendous tax effect it would have for every Aramark business subsidiary doing business in Texas.

Securitas gets the boot.
APPROVED MINUTES
Long Island Village
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 26, 2005
9 AM-Recreation Hall

MOTION: Mulch made a motion to proceed to give 90 days notice to Securitas and Cain
seconded the motion. Short discussion took place. Larry proposed having an in-house Security
force
and how it will save money and be better having them under our supervision. Not all
security guards will be hired by us. All in favor. Motion unanimously carried.

The following four months our general manager was thought to be acquiring a Texas security license.
.
Securitas gets un-booted.
MINUTES
Long Island Village
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
MAY 25, 2005
9 AM-Arts/Crafts Room

Security Contract - last week signed a new one-year contract with Securitas. Had wanted in-house security but ARAMARK would not take security because the State of Texas has outrageous liability. This contract has 6 month probation and Security must perform to our rules. I cut cost around $30,000.00 a year since they don't supervise their people. (Twice in 8 months). Making changes in some of their personnel. Gave instructions that only bi-lingual security guards are needed.


It took four months for Aramark to figure out that Texas had an outrageous liability and to say we’re not interested. I’ll have to look a little closer at this $30,000 cost cutting at a later time.
.
For the next sixteen months there seemed to be nary a word about in house security. During this interlude the new Texas franchise tax bill had passed. The news article below gives a brief explanation of this new tax bill.
.
Texas / South Central News
Texas Business Tax Winners and Losers
May 8, 2006
The Texas Legislature has approved a bill that would enact a new, broader-based tax on businesses while granting businesses and homeowners some relief from school property taxes.
Industries that are expected to see their taxes reduced in 2008 include: - Mining, including oil and gas production, by 12.1 percent. - Finance, insurance and real estate, by 9.8 percent. - Wholesale and retail trade, by 3.8 percent. - Utilities and transportation, which includes the state's three big airlines, 2.5 percent.
Those that are expected to pay higher taxes: - Construction, up 25.7 percent; firms get little help from property-tax relief. - Services, up 19.7 percent; most now avoid the franchise tax. -Information, up 13.6 percent. - Manufacturing, up 8.3 percent.
House Bill 3, sent to Gov. Rick Perry this week, would replace the 4.5 percent franchise tax with a tax of 1 percent on a company's gross receipts minus either its cost of producing goods or payroll expenses (including wages and benefits).

Starting in 2008, Aramark being a professional services company will now have to pay its fair share of franchise taxes in the State of Texas.
.
Let try this again, Securitas gets the boot again.
MINUTES
Long Island Village
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
August 23, 2006
9 AM - Arts/Crafts Room

In-house Security-Larry Since we have been moved to Business and Industry we got approval by Senior Vice-President to pursue getting Security in-house. Brought in proposal which is less than we are paying now with current Security plus also give increase to security employees. Need memo in writing to approve it. Better costing, $187,660 and now paying $190,000+, increase goes to employees. Guerra asked that this item be tabled to the next workshop. The
other board members said that they were present or had heard the discussions on getting in-house Security last year. The previous board had agreed to it but ARAMARK at the time was not able to accommodate them.
MOTION: Guerra made a motion to go ahead and approve getting Security in-house and to issue a 30 day notice in writing as required to current Security firm terminating their services. Burke seconded the made motion that ARAMARK be awarded the contract for gate attendants and patrol. All in favor except for Young who abstained. Motion passed.
MOTION: Burke made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Martin seconded the motion. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 AM.1
Minutes Taken By
APPROVED
Virginia Martin, Secretary
Board of Directors


Did our general manager, Aramark, and the board forget the reason why Aramark declined doing this the first time? Did the State of Texas all of a sudden change having outrageous liability?
The motion to give Securitas only a 30 day notice would seem to indicate that our management could obtain this security license quickly. Au contraire, after ten months our general manager was still handing out his list of security license excuses to the board. Our Village began paying Aramark during this interim to run our security until they got around to getting a license.

Posted in our June 2007 newsletter was, “Our long awaited license to operate a security unit in the State of Texas is close to arriving at LIV, says general manager Larry DeMalade.”
The license never came. Neither did an answer as to why.
.
As a result of the consistant pressure from the Concerned Citizens of Long Island Village, the general manager requested time in the following board meeting to explain his side of this security debacle. At this meeting he addressed each divergence separately. He paraded a real show and tell. His orchestration ended with him saying it’s not that management wasn’t able to get a security license but it is Aramark who chose not to obtain it. He explained the State wants to charge Aramark a $20,000 out of state fee. He finished by saying this was the State’s way to keep all out of state security companies from taking away contracts from Texas based security companies.

Read between the lines on this one.
MINUTES
Long Island Village
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
June 27, 2007
9 AM - Arts/Crafts Room
Security/Patrol: Discussion about present security issues. Larry DeMalade shared that Aramark legal department is working on clarification with Austin. There was discussion about bids to outsource this service or keep it in house and the level/types of security. Board will discuss and define what services we want to provide in the area of security. Larry will seek bids from security companies within 70 miles to present at the August Coffee. Don Nixon will work with· Larry to attain bids and information. Additional information will be in next newsletter.

Does it seem just a bit odd that after 10 months of struggling to try acquiring a security license, that Aramark legal department is now working hard on getting clarification towards operating an unlicensed security?
A security info flier was inserted in the next LIV newsletter as promised. Many owners have said they thought the flier information was somewhat bias in wanting an unlicensed company. In addition to the way the insert read, the director who wrote it had previously seconded the made motion that ARAMARK be awarded the contract for gate attendants and patrol.

Disappointedly, our Village security concern has evolved from looking for the best apple in the barrel to now looking at apples and oranges.
.
An orange is picked
MINUTES
Long Island Village
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
August 29, 2007
9 AM - Arts/Crafts Room

Les' Report
Security -Still doing our own Security through ARAMARK. We are currently taking bids from out source companies. Currently have 2 bids.

Security Bids - DeMalade
Larry reported that he has received 3 bids - 2 licensed and 1 is not. South West Texas Security - no overtime, basic service such as check gate, issue passes, contact owners, call Sheriff Department and patrol every 2 hours for $215/000. Fort Knox Security-same services for $250/000. ARAMARK with no license only for $187/000-same services including additional duties of pool monitoring, setup/work after hours.
MOTION: Mulch made a motion that ARAMARK be awarded the contract for gate attendants and patrol because of cost savings and the fact that we get more services. Also, another factor to consider is that this way, we have direct control of these people and Halbach seconded
the motion. Discussion took place with owners allowed to participate in discussion. Steffensen reported that 71 Security surveys were received of which 36 owners in favor of ARAMARK and 33 in favor of outside security and 2 letting BOD decide. Burke asked for a roll call vote:Halbach-yes; Martin -yes; Mulch-yes; Pelletier-yes; Steffensen-yes; and Young-no. Motion carried.


So there you have it.
Our previous board gave Aramark a in-house unlicensed gatekeeper contract for the following reasons.
1. To save a diminutive amount of money. An amount that appears less than our Village paid to truck our poop out for a couple of weeks during the sewer fiasco.
2. Our general manager said our gatekeepers would do more. Owners have told me the only more they have seen is more of the same.
3. Management will have direct control of the gatekeepers. This they appear to basically already have.
4. This may not be a reason because it’s hard for me to believe the board could be swayed by just 36 yes email votes wanting Aramark, especially when there was only questionable flier information to draw from.
Recently, on May 21, 2008, our general manager had reiterated that a $20,000 fee was Aramark’s reason for not acquiring a security license. When asked to clarify what that fee was; this license fee turned into a franchise tax. I’m not sure of all the revenues Aramark receives from our Village or which subsidiaries apply in total scheme of franchise taxable revenues, but I’m pretty confident that a one percent franchise tax on our current $187,660 gross security revenues is $1876.60, and not $20,000. Since the franchise tax rationale wouldn’t fly after such an elucidation, the general manager came up with a new reason. In the letter he received from Aramarke were now two reasons. The second reason was the Aramark person in charge of this did not want to be personally liable or be held responsible for signing the security license contract.
.
Imagine that!
.
Over two and a half years of Aramark and management wanting to run our Village’s security. Over fourteen months having our general manager saying they’re trying to get a Texas Security License. The many hours of deliberation and promises to the board and owners of LIV, and it unbelievably comes down to someone not wanting to sign a simple security license agreement?
.
The more I review these events, the more incredulous my thinking has become.It has me ask myself; has our general manager been giving forthwith accurate answers? Has our management and Aramark been serious towards the acquisition of this security license? ... Or is this all a Potemkin village?
.
I leave it to your own discretions on what to make of all this. What do you think?
Read more on this article...

Sunday, August 24, 2008

THE COFFEE WITH THE DIRECTORS 8/20/2008

Pledge of allegiance was followed by the comment/suggestions from the suggestion box, which had to open by cutting the lock off.
Lot#400 Owner upset at an unauthorized trailer on his lot.
Owners at Lot #356 had a complaint about two ladies harassing them for about twenty minutes.
Lot #836 wanted more ping pong tables, outlet plugs to use, and more DVD players for owner’s residences.
Lot # 599 said the hot tubes (as written in the suggestion) temperature was not consistent and wishes that thermometers were available. The general manager said all the hot tubs stays at temperature of 102 degrees and never changes. He said this numerous times and that temperature is a standard. When asked if they could be set at different temperatures he answered yes. He went on to say he never recalled though it ever being over 102 degrees and looked at Les for a response. Les said the indoor spas are set at 104 degrees and outdoor spa at 102 degrees.
Lot #--- complained that kids under the age of 14 were frequently using the spas, the rope needed replaced, and if the pool monitor could possibly stay longer. They also asked at the bottom for this suggestion for it not to be read at the meeting, which is why the Lot # is blank.
Lot # 306 said needed more electrical outlets for the computer.
SC# 64 said a few years ago Aramark said they were to install accessible shutoff valves to the sea cottages so water for the sprinklers could be turned off when it rains. It has yet to be done because they belong to the owners.
Lot #828 said the nonpayment of condo fees should be posted with the amount due and owners names, along with owners be given the heads up to have first choice to purchase foreclosures. Manager said when he hands it over to our attorney that’s the last he hears about it. He said he had no knowledge whatsoever of recent foreclosure purchased by a Brownsville residence at a pretty nice price.
Lot #158 complained about the lack of security. They had four trespassers fishing off their property and the neighbors. We asked where they were from and the four said Weslaco. We asked how they got in the park and the trespassers said they told security they were seeing a friend. They said this same friend told them they could fish anywhere they wanted but when asked, didn’t want to disclose the name. Their truck was parked I believe on lot #136 with no visible LIV pass. They left with headlights off when told the sheriff was called. Owners stated this has happened before with us having to clean up the mess they leave behind. It was requested for the board to take action. Management questioned why they didn’t call security. The owner who wrote this comment got up and said they saw no need to waste their time because when security was previously called last year, they laughed and joked with the trespassers and left with their arms around each other. Why call?
SC #57 Owner stated the shame that both pools water have been consistently inconsistent. They said you never know what you’ll find when coming to the exercise class. This has been too ongoing and needs to be addressed once again. Another owner stood up and said the indoor pool has been green, green, and green. It was mentioned too that there have been skin irritations.
An owner stood up to ask a question on security. He asked why vehicles aren’t being checked when leaving. Director Burke said it was against the law. Security doesn’t have police powers. She went on and on until one of the new owners said he understands this law applies to public property but not to private property. He said we have that right to inspect anything that leaves our private property. No response from Director Burke.
Lot #525 wished to take the time to thank Gene Rutland for his efforts toward getting our bridge open during the hurricane.
There was also a special thanks to Bill Gagan for his multiple efforts.
There was a suggestion to give bonuses to the grounds and housekeeping crew for their twelve hour a day efforts.
There was comment from the floor on what are the hurricane plans for the future? The responses were varied, but generator access seemed to come up the most. Management said we need to get a three phase for the bridge and that the sewage pump stations can be made to run off either one or two phase. It would seem certain that we will not be without generators in the future.
From the audience our general manager’s wife said she had a problem with me and this blog, saying I should remove certain comments that are supposedly not true.
Another owner from the audience made a suggestion about wind power to operate our electrical needs.
Another person made the comment that this blog is a waste of time, some of the comments are true but you can read between the lines. Most of it is a bunch of BS she said, and all the comments are signed anonymous. No guts no glory. Sign your name she said.
Director Hansen asked management what it meant in the hurricane plan to check generators. Answer was gas and oil change. Director Hansen asked how many do we have. Answer, one small one, now.
An owner said a fund raiser for a generator would be a good idea. Another owner said why not makes arrangements with a rental agency for them ahead of time.
Director Burke made the statement it was the board’s responsibility for what happened during this hurricane crisis and to sit down and go over what we did wrong and what we did right.
It was said that our general manager arranged with the coast guard that during this crisis, we could keep our bridge closed to barge traffic for long periods of time.
SC#36 made a comment on what a fantastic job our general manager has done in the past and present. It criticized Directors Hansen, Peterson, and Mc Bride on attempting to replace him.
Lot #301 gave a special thanks to Kirk and Jennifer Holberg for their help in ferrying employees and owners across the channel. Bill Gagan was also mentioned by Director Burke for the same.
Lot #768 The final written comment from the suggestion box was from Director Burke addressing her problem with Director Young. In short, she made an insinuation that Director Young has denied LIV owners their right to vote. Her charge was the petition to remove three of our board members has been willfully violated by Director Young actions, telling voters to mail their votes to him instead of the address on the pre-paid envelope. She said he admits to having received these ballots and refuses to release them. She said in the comment, if this is true, it borders on being illegal and Director Young should resign. Director Young said he received three or four letters that were address specifically to him, unknown to him ahead of time why. He never solicited anyone. They were mailed to him personally and told Director Burke that she was completely out of line with this. Director Burke question Director Young and started to ramble about how she didn’t vote because she on the board and other subjects. After which she had Rita Priest, who is running this petition, stand up and explained that she was told by an owner that they were instructed to return her ballot to a box 155 (Director Young’s box) and was holding an envelope he supposedly sent in her hands like an apparent exhibit A. She said she went to Director Young who refuses to give her his mail. She said she then went to President Sullivan to no avail. She then turned to the audience and stated that if anyone of you has mailed your vote to any address other than box 199 or what was designated on the return envelope, it will not be counted.
She was told by some to give it a rest but didn’t.
Dick Stabler rose and asked permission to say a few things. He said forget what address this or that goes to, it’s over. Let’s forget about all this and live with our differences. We’ve raised our kids and are here now to enjoy ourselves. He pointed to our general manager and said you do your job and then to Director Burke with saying the same. We’re supposed to be adults, but right now we are acting like kids.
Director Burke continued to slay on this voting rights tirade towards Director Young. Mr. Stabler finally stopped her rants by asking her why she didn’t vote. She answered with she is on the Board and had to live with these people. He said he didn’t vote either because he knew everyone of you. This should not go on! This has happened to both sides, forget it! That just seemed to accelerate Director Burke’s verbal motors. Finally Dick Stabler said that sending your vote to an unknown address is just as wrong. He said he agreed with her the right to vote, so now forget it. All we should be doing here is to make sure things we enjoy are working properly and that we are spending our money right. Then he finalized it all by apparently looking at Director Burke and Rita Priest and told them to grow up!

WORKSHOP

1. Sea wall issues -- Larry will talk to Corp of Eng for recommendations.
2. Variance requestof 6" on Lot 564. Board will look at and grant at next board meeting.
3. Electrical plugs at computer table - Larry put in a work order for this.
4. Burke wants owners to give a employee appreciation party and take up money for a Dolly bonus for them.
5. Owners in valley want BOD meeting to be held on Sat AM instead of Wed so they can attend.
6. Hurrican readiness was discussed at length and will be discussed some more.
7. The park management contract is up for cussing & discussing.
8. Larry wants PMs to be allowed to be 22" off the ground instead of 36" and wants to change the building codes to reflect this.
9. SC roofs need to be 30 yr shingles to withstand 120 mile per hour winds instead of 40 yr ones that only withstand 90mph winds. Need to change building codes.
10.PM need to be certified with TDI if you want to get wind insurance for them.
11. There were eight sealed bids received from area security companies. Before the bids were opened, Director Burke started on telling Director Dodson about her demands and how she already knows she would not be ready by the next meeting to make any decisions. This continued for twenty minutes. Director Burke seemed again upset. The committee will review and make their recommendations. Director McBride praised the idea of sealed bids for a change. It was said to their knowledge, this has that been done only one other time
12. Hansen asked about having over $100,000 in two banks. Are we insured fully and are we drawing interest on our money. Review of additional bank account in progress.
13.Hansen wants a detailed accounting of petty cash monies.
14. Hansen wants to readdress the garbage collection issue.
15. Hansen wants to present 6 programs and wants to collect donations to pay the speakers for an appreciation dinner. Wants board approval.
16. Burke wants to set up meeting with Vega.
17. Last thing talked about was a decision to cancel a restraining order on an owner. Any incorrect information previously is being corrected or removed. Thankyou.
Adjorned a little after 1PM
Read more on this article...
The outdoor pool was opened Monday. Leo the pool tech worked hard like always to clean up the debris that has been sitting in the outdoor pool since Hurricane Dolly. (28 days) The indoor pool and outdoor pool may be a topic of discussion at the Coffee with the Directors this Wednesday. It seems that the indoor pool has had some issues on clarity again. Read more on this article...
The following is the Island Breeze article about the Cowen Group request to LMWD.


New development proposed near swing bridge
By CARL PHILLIPS Island Breeze

Known as the swing bridge, the structure could be a passageway to a new real estate development, one tentatively named “Palm Island”.
Expensive to maintain, the bridge is currently owned by the Long Island Village Owners’ Association. If the land were ever annexed by Port Isabel, the bridge could be sold to the city or to other private owners.
The new development planned for the property is on the southeast side of the road, just past the swing bridge on S. Garcia Street. The plan was revealed at the meeting Wednesday night, August 13, of the Laguna Madre Water District.
Palm Island is being developed by Cowen Island Properties, a limited partnership consisting of John Cowen, John Cowen Jr., Jeremy Ford and Ryan Harden.
The project is planned for the area to the east of Long Island Village, just across the street from Long Island’s offices.
According to developers, the purpose of the project is to “provide an active adult/second home resort lifestyle…whose physical structure will engender a sense of community that is able to support an evolution towards a self-sufficient village or town.”
They explain that Palm Island will offer residents a quality of life that a large segment of Laguna Madre real estate buyers can afford.
The development promises boat access and amenities, including direct deep water access to the Intracoastal Waterway to the Laguna Madre and the Gulf of Mexico.
Planned are 550 lots, with a sales price of $350,000 to $450,000 each. Fully developed, the total tax value would be in the neighborhood of $227.5 million dollars.
Over a period of 20 years tax revenues for Cameron County, the Point Isabel Independent School District, the Laguna Madre Water District, Cameron County Emergency and Texas Southmost College would total $38,397,340 at current tax rates.
This does not include the estimated $3,785,000 the water district would receive for 550 new water and sewer customers, nor nearly a million dollars in water and sewer tap fees the district would collect.
In return the developer is asking the water district to install and maintain, at district expense, a six-inch sewer line, a lift station and a domestic water line along the edge of the property.
The district is currently planning to lay a raw water line at the edge of the property to serve as an irrigation source for Long Island Village’s Golf Course. Cowen Island Properties pointed out that the lines they need could be laid at the same time, at a considerable savings.

Costs to the water district could amount to half a million dollars, depending on several factors. If the development proceeds as planned, Cowen Island points out, it would alleviate of lot of blowing dust problems that originate from the site of the proposed community.
Water district directors, wanting more information, tabled Cowen’s request for laying water and sewer lines at district expense.
Developers were unavailable for comment on Thursday
Read more on this article...

Saturday, August 23, 2008

MY PERSONAL OBSERVATION

There has been an interesting scenario developing within the past three weeks. Management’s opportunity to get a reprieve arrived with a Hurricane called Dolly. While management appeared to provide nothing resembling an effective hurricane plan, the free food seemed to buy a lot of support.
Dolly gave us its top north winds that Wednesday morning, avoiding the destructiveness created by its easterly tidal surge winds. When finally coming ashore north of us, we received Dolly's back winds coming from the northwest, west (being the strongest at over 100 mph), and southwest. Only pure luck kept this from being a very deadly and devastating storm.
The following is a short summation of events as I recall.
Monday, July 21st, Stage One was in effect. Supposedly this has us prepare for a possible tropical storm or hurricane within 72 hours.
Tuesday morning a hurricane warning was in effect with no mandatory evacuation. This was the last information posted on the marquis and channel 2.
At midnight I called our gate keepers to ask if Stage One had changed. I also asked about the bridge. They told me they had not been informed as to what Stage we were in and had no idea about the bridge, but offered to call me when they received word, to which I accepted and around 3:30 am I received that call. In a torrential rain storm these gatekeepers began their journey door to door notifying people about the bridge closing. I was told they had to use their personal vehicles to accomplish this, since their golf cart was useless in the storm. There were many people packed and set to leave, but were not notified. I know these gate keepers did their best, but the elements were blistering. The bridge locked down after 5am and Dolly was on the doorstep.
At 7 am I drove around taking photos and checked on a few people who stayed. I pulled into the Activity Center parking lot and was surprised to see the Rec. Hall lights on and vehicles parked near the door. I went back home to sit out the storm, but that was short lived. The 90 mph gusts from the north rocking my park model literally told me to check out the Rec. Hall. There I found three gate keepers and one owner. During the next six hours only a handful of people found shelter there. All took a chance it might be open. I’m sure we would have had a lot more people there if the opening had been made public.
After Dolly wrath left us on Wednesday, it was noticeably apparent no real plan was implemented? For days we had no generator power or comunications, limited and questionable water, sewage disposal backup, and no bridge. Information given by management was sketchy at best and differed. Only by word of mouth did we have a Saturday town hall meeting where we received again accurate and some inaccurate information. One of these accurate items was that owners were to be granted free dinner for the next five days by the grace of Aramark.
I attended the first of these and found it similar to a homeless shelter routine, where the price you pay for the meal is listening to a sermon. I was a little bothered that we had employees cooking, catering, and cleaning up after us when it would seem they really needed to be at home with their families, picking up the pieces left behind by the storm. If they needed the hours, they should have been directed to spend the time on Dolly cleanup and we should have taken care of ourselves about the free food. (just an opinion)
You can put "it is obvious" in front of the following.
First: who worked their tails off at cleaning up this place. The grounds crew along with housekeeping should get more than the lion’s share of credit for an outstanding effort.
Second: who made the boo-boo for not having generators ready to use.
Third: that there was a lack of having or following any predetermined procedural steps.
Fourth: that there was no thought to plan for communication venues.
Fifth: that someone dropped the ball for supervision of water, water contamination, or implementing a schedule for common water use.
Sixth: why people get so upset at what we are to believe? One day we are to believe (as stated in the Board Minutes) that things were done so poorly during Hurricane Emily because our general manager was new and inexperienced. Then at our most recent board meetings this same general manager is having us believe that he had been through four plus major hurricanes up north and knows what’s to be done? Which is true?

Agree or disagree, feel free to express yourself.
Read more on this article...
Our August 4th Town hall meeting.

The August 4th town hall meeting basically only touched on three things. One was the introduction of a man from Aramark who is going to inspect our buildings and prioritize our plan of action. The second was the Ladies Kingfish Tournament will be held in our Rec.Hall on that Friday and Saturday. We are to supposedly to receive $1800 per day. The third is a good will gesture to the Port Isabel School District. This gesture is to allow them to hold their Teacher In-service at our Rec. Hall Facility and our Arts and Crafts Room at no cost to them for seven days in a row.(August 15-21).
Correction to the above being the Ladies Kingfish Tournament, it was to be the Men's Redfish Tournament. It doesn't matter since they used another facility and supposely didn't notify management. Read more on this article...

This is the comment box. If you want to make a comment on anything instead of a suggestion, please place it here. Please refrain from personal attacks and vulgar language. It will not be posted.
Read more on this article...
Besides working to restore the area where I work, I seem to be having some technical problems with my computer and have had to use the libraries computer. I will post as soon as possible the events happening or had happened. Read more on this article...

Friday, August 22, 2008


COMMENT ON WHAT YOU FEEL HAS BEEN THE BIGGEST PROBLEM OR BENEFIT SINCE OUR BOARD REQUESTED THE REPLACEMENT OF OUR GENERAL MANAGER. BLOG POLICY APPLIES. Read more on this article...
OUR VILLAGE HURRICANE UPDATE

1:00 a.m. Wednesday morning.
Our Village started stage one last Monday. This basically meant preparation and voluntary evacuation. Tuesday the hurricane watch changed to a warning and the grounds crew boarded up common building windows and patrolled the area for potential projectile items to secure. Channel 2 first posted the watch and then this warning and said to monitor the news and be prepared to evacuate. We’ve had a little rain but it’s not raining now. Winds are at best breezy. I just got off the phone with the Gate Keepers and was told as far as they know its still stage one with voluntary evacuation. They had not received any information about the swing bridge closing and offered to call me when they do. I accepted and will post that when called. These poor guys are up there without a working TV or radio in that gate keepers building. It appears there are many who are staying here to ride this hurricane out. More later.

At 3:20 a.m.
I was called by one of our gate keepers that they are closing the swing bridge. He mentioned that he was preceeding to let everyone know. It is windy, but not raining. More later.

At 6:30 a.m.
It is blowing pretty hard. My park model is shaking. As soon as it gets light out I'll try to look around. The weather channel said it is going to get worse. Oh well.

At 8:00 a.m.
I cruised the area and took the photos below. The weather channel said the worse is still yet to come. It's blowing real hard now. Amazingly the power is still on. It will be a catagory 2 hurricane within the hour and the eye bands will hit us with the highest winds. It does appear they have the Rec. Hall open for those who wish to go there. It also appears our G.M. is there. Will continue later if the power stays on and I don't get blown away.
Read more on this article...