pp
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
POSTED 7/30/07
I received my LIV newsletter and read something interesting. In Mary Steffensen's front page column was an update about our current sewage problem. She wrote that she was told an agreement was made with the Laguna Water District to truck our waste out starting on Fri. July 13th and would end on Mon. July 16th. This being the case, why would our Aramark management want to negotiate their hauling agreement with LMWD on Tues. July 17th, a day after they stopped using them?
In this day and age would any average manager or attorney accept a handshake as being a solid agreement from a person who they didn't know personally, especially when they're representing large sums of other peoples money. This handshake was considered by our manager and Board President as being a solid agreement from a person who wasn't authorized to make such an agreement.
It should be asked why they did not take immediate action to follow up this handshake agreement with a written agreement with the L.M.W.D. that same Friday afternoon, or at least make arrangements for an emergency meeting with the LMWD that following Saturday or Monday? It was advailable to them.
Most people feel making a decision involving thousands of dollars of other people’s money, a handshake just doesn't cut it.
I believe after the fifth day of our sewer pipe problem, our management finally realized their error. They found an unsuspecting concerned LIV owner to point blame who was asking the Water District questions as a concerned owner. This person did not represent herself as a L.I.V. representative. You might note it was all conjecture our Management and Board expressed and not the facts.
We need to ask why our management and Board President didn't chose to pursue a written agreement. Is there some intelligent reason for this inaction?
Why Aramark didn't immediately send us a qualified professional to instantly point us in the right direction with our sewage problem? What we got instead was management fumbling about while we LIV owners were paying through the nose to truck our poop out.
L.I.V. pays a lot for what Aramark calls "support".
It seems to me that if Aramark would have put the same effort into our sewer problem as their security division and legal departments supposedly gave our Board in selling us on reasons why their management team should run our unlicensed security staff, we might be using our toilets by now. Could one reason be money? Aramark wouldn't make a dime off this big LIV shitty problem while thousands of dollars will be made off running a staff of unqualified and unlicensed security want-a-bees? It kinda makes you wonder what's important here. Was there an attempt even made to ask Aramark for qualified help? Where's Aramark's effort?
I know it's easy for anyone to second guess things, but come on, this whole issue stinks.
This sewer problem should also set an example of showing how desperately we need to focus on forming a long term infrastructure reserve plan. Borrowing this $200,000 for our sewer repair shows that this park has spent all and saved not. Read more on this article...
I received my LIV newsletter and read something interesting. In Mary Steffensen's front page column was an update about our current sewage problem. She wrote that she was told an agreement was made with the Laguna Water District to truck our waste out starting on Fri. July 13th and would end on Mon. July 16th. This being the case, why would our Aramark management want to negotiate their hauling agreement with LMWD on Tues. July 17th, a day after they stopped using them?
In this day and age would any average manager or attorney accept a handshake as being a solid agreement from a person who they didn't know personally, especially when they're representing large sums of other peoples money. This handshake was considered by our manager and Board President as being a solid agreement from a person who wasn't authorized to make such an agreement.
It should be asked why they did not take immediate action to follow up this handshake agreement with a written agreement with the L.M.W.D. that same Friday afternoon, or at least make arrangements for an emergency meeting with the LMWD that following Saturday or Monday? It was advailable to them.
Most people feel making a decision involving thousands of dollars of other people’s money, a handshake just doesn't cut it.
I believe after the fifth day of our sewer pipe problem, our management finally realized their error. They found an unsuspecting concerned LIV owner to point blame who was asking the Water District questions as a concerned owner. This person did not represent herself as a L.I.V. representative. You might note it was all conjecture our Management and Board expressed and not the facts.
We need to ask why our management and Board President didn't chose to pursue a written agreement. Is there some intelligent reason for this inaction?
Why Aramark didn't immediately send us a qualified professional to instantly point us in the right direction with our sewage problem? What we got instead was management fumbling about while we LIV owners were paying through the nose to truck our poop out.
L.I.V. pays a lot for what Aramark calls "support".
It seems to me that if Aramark would have put the same effort into our sewer problem as their security division and legal departments supposedly gave our Board in selling us on reasons why their management team should run our unlicensed security staff, we might be using our toilets by now. Could one reason be money? Aramark wouldn't make a dime off this big LIV shitty problem while thousands of dollars will be made off running a staff of unqualified and unlicensed security want-a-bees? It kinda makes you wonder what's important here. Was there an attempt even made to ask Aramark for qualified help? Where's Aramark's effort?
I know it's easy for anyone to second guess things, but come on, this whole issue stinks.
This sewer problem should also set an example of showing how desperately we need to focus on forming a long term infrastructure reserve plan. Borrowing this $200,000 for our sewer repair shows that this park has spent all and saved not. Read more on this article...
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
POSTED 7/28/07
Security at LIV has been an interesting subject this year. Management told everyone for almost a year that they could get a security license. Management gave numerous excuses to our Board when questioned about their progress obtaining it. The truth is management did not qualified to get a Security License in the state of Texas.
This charade came to an end when a mysterious and still undiscriptive $20,000 out of state charge became managements "way out" not to obtain a Texas security license.
Even without a license, management still wanted to run what is now best described as a patrol staff and get paid at this time more money. Certain members of the Board are currently trying to persuade LIV owners that a non-security staff ran by our unlicensed management will be good for them and for their park.
The bottom line is the state of Texas did not qualifiy our management to manage a staff for security. Every LIV visitor will have the perception of a " security " staff. There is a tremendous possible liability being started here which screams for mega lawsuit.
Owners should question deeper why our management didn't acquire a security license.
Pat Burke's insert in our Village newsletter on security vs. non security choices struck me as being totally bias. She seemed to have displayed little neutrality and even less information. The choice she gave frankly was; do you want to pay $25,000 more for real licensed security when an unlicensed and unqualified staff will serve you just as well.
Our Board President knocked our current security company because they hired someone who stoled and implied this should solve such hiring problems. She did not mention Aramark's hiring track record though. I recall our Village being involved in a rape lawsuit. I understand the person charged for this rape was a Aramark employee.
Our Board President said our current security company had proposed a rate hike, but didn't disclose the amount. Was that increase amount $10 or $10,000?
Our President also said Aramark filed for a Level 1 security license. I believe this may show that neither Pat Burke or management knew what license Aramark actually needed. Information I received said a Level 1 is the training course available to security license applicants. Class B License is what should be obtained by Aramark.
Finally, Pat Burke said there were "various" reasons why Aramark will not be getting a Texas security license. Only one reason was expressed and without much clarity. I would like to know these other reasons and an explanation about this $20,000 charge.
It would be a pleasant change to just be told all the facts about an issue instead of being force fed certain pieces of information. There are things not being said about this security issue that needs to be addressed before the owners should try to make any final decisions that may put our beautiful Village in harms way.
I'm just a person sharing worried concerns. Read more on this article...
Security at LIV has been an interesting subject this year. Management told everyone for almost a year that they could get a security license. Management gave numerous excuses to our Board when questioned about their progress obtaining it. The truth is management did not qualified to get a Security License in the state of Texas.
This charade came to an end when a mysterious and still undiscriptive $20,000 out of state charge became managements "way out" not to obtain a Texas security license.
Even without a license, management still wanted to run what is now best described as a patrol staff and get paid at this time more money. Certain members of the Board are currently trying to persuade LIV owners that a non-security staff ran by our unlicensed management will be good for them and for their park.
The bottom line is the state of Texas did not qualifiy our management to manage a staff for security. Every LIV visitor will have the perception of a " security " staff. There is a tremendous possible liability being started here which screams for mega lawsuit.
Owners should question deeper why our management didn't acquire a security license.
Pat Burke's insert in our Village newsletter on security vs. non security choices struck me as being totally bias. She seemed to have displayed little neutrality and even less information. The choice she gave frankly was; do you want to pay $25,000 more for real licensed security when an unlicensed and unqualified staff will serve you just as well.
Our Board President knocked our current security company because they hired someone who stoled and implied this should solve such hiring problems. She did not mention Aramark's hiring track record though. I recall our Village being involved in a rape lawsuit. I understand the person charged for this rape was a Aramark employee.
Our Board President said our current security company had proposed a rate hike, but didn't disclose the amount. Was that increase amount $10 or $10,000?
Our President also said Aramark filed for a Level 1 security license. I believe this may show that neither Pat Burke or management knew what license Aramark actually needed. Information I received said a Level 1 is the training course available to security license applicants. Class B License is what should be obtained by Aramark.
Finally, Pat Burke said there were "various" reasons why Aramark will not be getting a Texas security license. Only one reason was expressed and without much clarity. I would like to know these other reasons and an explanation about this $20,000 charge.
It would be a pleasant change to just be told all the facts about an issue instead of being force fed certain pieces of information. There are things not being said about this security issue that needs to be addressed before the owners should try to make any final decisions that may put our beautiful Village in harms way.
I'm just a person sharing worried concerns. Read more on this article...
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
POSTED 7/25/07
While we were having our sewage problem this July, there was a "private" party at our Rec Hall for non-owners. I'm sure this party was scheduled way before we had our sewer problem and half done remodeling in Rec. hall bathrooms. It may have even been scheduled before we had a "staff "instead of security to monitor this party.
Aw, what the heck, the Village can use this extra money. The park has been so broke this spring that the workers were let go and reduced to a skeleton crew while management suffered a pay increase.
It got so bad that management was demanding these few remaining workers not to file any accident reports in fear of the medical costs.
Now about this private party. You can subtract additional money from any profit we received. That money will pay for the broken glass to the door leading into the activity center. The party people had to use the Activity Center restrooms, and boy did it appear they used them by the way they were trashed.
If management didn't charged the party goers extra, the owners picked up the tab for hauling the extra sewage from this large party.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one main reason why the previous board approved non-owners the use of our Rec hall was that every party was to be opened to owners. I'm sure most owners, myself included, would not have attended this party, but advertising it as a private party meant to me that owners were not invited, thus no choice.
Read more on this article...
While we were having our sewage problem this July, there was a "private" party at our Rec Hall for non-owners. I'm sure this party was scheduled way before we had our sewer problem and half done remodeling in Rec. hall bathrooms. It may have even been scheduled before we had a "staff "instead of security to monitor this party.
Aw, what the heck, the Village can use this extra money. The park has been so broke this spring that the workers were let go and reduced to a skeleton crew while management suffered a pay increase.
It got so bad that management was demanding these few remaining workers not to file any accident reports in fear of the medical costs.
Now about this private party. You can subtract additional money from any profit we received. That money will pay for the broken glass to the door leading into the activity center. The party people had to use the Activity Center restrooms, and boy did it appear they used them by the way they were trashed.
If management didn't charged the party goers extra, the owners picked up the tab for hauling the extra sewage from this large party.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one main reason why the previous board approved non-owners the use of our Rec hall was that every party was to be opened to owners. I'm sure most owners, myself included, would not have attended this party, but advertising it as a private party meant to me that owners were not invited, thus no choice.
Read more on this article...
Saturday, July 21, 2007
POSTED 7/21/07
Last year I looked up our revised Declaration of Covenants and Bylaws. I was surprised to read that owners are given an opportunity to ratify every material alteration and substantial addition done to our common elements. There’s been a lot of alterations and additions done since I’ve moved here. I’ve never been asked to ratify a thing. I then brought this up to the board at a Coffee with the Directors and was ignored. I brought it up again this year on 6/20/07 and Pat Burke said that our attorney told her they alone only need to approve these things. She gave me her walking dictionary version on word meanings of our Declaration and By-laws. Our Board President said,” If we did this, you wouldn’t need us as a board.”
Could someone patiently explain to her that she was not elected to remodel our park and our By-laws do specify twelve other written board duties, to which none mention the altering or substantially adding anything to our village.
These are some recent comments from our directors after I brought this subject up.
“We weren’t elected to micro-manage“. From what I read they are, unless they wish to empower hired management and be responsible to oversee their operation of our park.
“ The people in this park can‘t agree on anything, much less 75% of any group. Nothing would get done.” I think that’s a real possibility, but what’s really being said here is this. It’s way too difficult to do things the right way, the way our declaration and bylaws clearly dictate, when it’s so easy to continue doing the things the way we‘re doing them now.
“ We board members were elected by the owners to be their voting voice.” I laughed and thought he was joking, but he was very serious.
“Our Declaration of Covenants is antiquated. It was formed years ago when this place was Outdoor Resorts and a trailer park. This place has since evolved into a village of homes.” He’s right. The Declaration and By-laws are getting old and maybe outdated, but so is our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Old fashion doesn’t mean dysfunctional.
I see only one reason why the originally desired for ratifying all alterations and big additions. They wanted the park to stay beautiful by putting any future appearance changes in the numerous hands of highly concerned owners instead of to a minimal few that’s temporarily on a board.
Please read Article X of our Declaration, plus Articles IV and VII of our By-laws. These are readily available at our Long Island Village.com website.
Please don’t mistake this as an attack on the board. It’s not. I’m just trying to show mistakes occurring towards our right to vote on the many changes being done. If someone can prove me wrong, I’d immediately apologize in the next board meeting. If not, I would hope the board will start obeying and implement what has been clearly stated in our Declaration and By-laws.
From the Declaration of Covenants ( from Article X- A ), the Directors are empowered to do:
1. Maintenance
2. Repair
From the By-Laws ( from Article IV section 10 sub-section h and i ), the Directors are empowered to do:
1. Maintenance
2. Repair
3. Replacement
4. Operation of condominium property
5. Reconstruction of improvements after casualty and the further
improvement of the property.
Note: None above are defined as alteration or addition except improvement.
Written phrases requiring board approval and a 75% owner ratification
From the Declaration of Covenants ( from Article X-B )
“There shall be no material alterations and substantial additions to the
common elements or limited common elements except.”
* Nowhere did it ever indicate cost. Meant as considerable importance, size, or worth.
From the By-Laws ( from Article VII )
“There shall be no substantial additions or alterations to the common
elements or limited common elements by the association unless.”
Material alterations and substantial additions that were not ratified by owners.
1. Activity Center
New office and mailboxes being constructed that were redesigned and relocated; drop ceilings; 6 rest-rooms remodeled adding new tile walls and showers being removed; windows and doors replacing sliding doors; wood paneling added.
2. Pool Area
Concrete was poured between our pools; a Gazebo and its concrete foundation installed; a
fountain and its concrete foundation; cool deck was applied over all the new concrete
All between the pools, Indoor pool two restrooms ( tile walls.)
3. Recreation Hall
Large concrete patio installed with large awning to match an existing patio/awning,
4. Other
A large parking lot was made by the tennis ct; a new concrete sidewalk installed near laundry; greenhouse constructed and its foundation in maintenance dump area.
There are numerous changes and additions not listed above that may qualify.
It should be noted that all of the above probably would have been ratified, but the point is that owners weren’t given their rightly due chance to vote..
One concerned citizen of L.I.V. Read more on this article...
Last year I looked up our revised Declaration of Covenants and Bylaws. I was surprised to read that owners are given an opportunity to ratify every material alteration and substantial addition done to our common elements. There’s been a lot of alterations and additions done since I’ve moved here. I’ve never been asked to ratify a thing. I then brought this up to the board at a Coffee with the Directors and was ignored. I brought it up again this year on 6/20/07 and Pat Burke said that our attorney told her they alone only need to approve these things. She gave me her walking dictionary version on word meanings of our Declaration and By-laws. Our Board President said,” If we did this, you wouldn’t need us as a board.”
Could someone patiently explain to her that she was not elected to remodel our park and our By-laws do specify twelve other written board duties, to which none mention the altering or substantially adding anything to our village.
These are some recent comments from our directors after I brought this subject up.
“We weren’t elected to micro-manage“. From what I read they are, unless they wish to empower hired management and be responsible to oversee their operation of our park.
“ The people in this park can‘t agree on anything, much less 75% of any group. Nothing would get done.” I think that’s a real possibility, but what’s really being said here is this. It’s way too difficult to do things the right way, the way our declaration and bylaws clearly dictate, when it’s so easy to continue doing the things the way we‘re doing them now.
“ We board members were elected by the owners to be their voting voice.” I laughed and thought he was joking, but he was very serious.
“Our Declaration of Covenants is antiquated. It was formed years ago when this place was Outdoor Resorts and a trailer park. This place has since evolved into a village of homes.” He’s right. The Declaration and By-laws are getting old and maybe outdated, but so is our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Old fashion doesn’t mean dysfunctional.
I see only one reason why the originally desired for ratifying all alterations and big additions. They wanted the park to stay beautiful by putting any future appearance changes in the numerous hands of highly concerned owners instead of to a minimal few that’s temporarily on a board.
Please read Article X of our Declaration, plus Articles IV and VII of our By-laws. These are readily available at our Long Island Village.com website.
Please don’t mistake this as an attack on the board. It’s not. I’m just trying to show mistakes occurring towards our right to vote on the many changes being done. If someone can prove me wrong, I’d immediately apologize in the next board meeting. If not, I would hope the board will start obeying and implement what has been clearly stated in our Declaration and By-laws.
From the Declaration of Covenants ( from Article X- A ), the Directors are empowered to do:
1. Maintenance
2. Repair
From the By-Laws ( from Article IV section 10 sub-section h and i ), the Directors are empowered to do:
1. Maintenance
2. Repair
3. Replacement
4. Operation of condominium property
5. Reconstruction of improvements after casualty and the further
improvement of the property.
Note: None above are defined as alteration or addition except improvement.
Written phrases requiring board approval and a 75% owner ratification
From the Declaration of Covenants ( from Article X-B )
“There shall be no material alterations and substantial additions to the
common elements or limited common elements except.”
* Nowhere did it ever indicate cost. Meant as considerable importance, size, or worth.
From the By-Laws ( from Article VII )
“There shall be no substantial additions or alterations to the common
elements or limited common elements by the association unless.”
Material alterations and substantial additions that were not ratified by owners.
1. Activity Center
New office and mailboxes being constructed that were redesigned and relocated; drop ceilings; 6 rest-rooms remodeled adding new tile walls and showers being removed; windows and doors replacing sliding doors; wood paneling added.
2. Pool Area
Concrete was poured between our pools; a Gazebo and its concrete foundation installed; a
fountain and its concrete foundation; cool deck was applied over all the new concrete
All between the pools, Indoor pool two restrooms ( tile walls.)
3. Recreation Hall
Large concrete patio installed with large awning to match an existing patio/awning,
4. Other
A large parking lot was made by the tennis ct; a new concrete sidewalk installed near laundry; greenhouse constructed and its foundation in maintenance dump area.
There are numerous changes and additions not listed above that may qualify.
It should be noted that all of the above probably would have been ratified, but the point is that owners weren’t given their rightly due chance to vote..
One concerned citizen of L.I.V. Read more on this article...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
