COFFEE WITH THE DIRECTORS 10/15/2008

After the Pledge of Allegiance, Vice President Young started the meeting saying that the comments will be available three days after the Coffee meeting for later review by owners at the Library. Lot #155 asks the Board make owners more aware of new lawsuits and what they involve. President S. said his feeling is that we all should know what’s going on. Director Burke then gave her legal summary of the procedure. President Sullivan finally said it will be posted on Channel 2 to review such info in our library as it materializes.
Lot #686 commented about the lawsuit brought against the directors. They said they were unaware that our Village had an unlicensed security. Their third item was that they felt this board member doing the suing should not be able to participate with board business.
Lot #281 said all the board members should rerun for the board.
Lot #685 comments were the same as #686 with the addition if the owner who sued the directors was so upset with the way things are, she might consider moving. A member of the SGG asked for their name.
Lot #249 suggested more owner input on issues and that this blog should not represent the majority of the people views.
Lot #245 asked about the Arroyo Cable lawsuit. Director Dodson expressed that they are suing that we owe them over $1,650,000 but will settle for $750K. The thinking is that they have a weak case but a judge decides. LIV had a long history of each month monitoring how many units were occupied using the service and that is what we paid. Now they want LIV to pay for the past years the full number whether occupied or not.

Questions from the audience

Selba Campbell gave information about voting and asked for permission from the board to have a little campaigning done on the first chicken night. The OK was given.
Our general manager said our LIV email was hacked into and is ruined. He said he’s got the FBI working on solving this huge problem. Armando had a stint put in for the second time and is doing ok. Our general manager said he also had bypass surgery but would be back to work on Monday.
A sea cottage owner complained about the numerous sets of golf clubs being stolen and asked to enforce the after dark rule that workers have to leave by sunset.
Lot #65 said that our gate keepers were letting people in the park without checking.
An owner came up said that she thought security was on the ball most of the time.
Lot #312 owner said his guests were not being stopped at all by security. They gave passes with no expiration date and never looked at the pass when coming in the park.
Lot #689 wanted the butterfly garden to be taken care of when time permits.
Someone from the audience name John was kept from voicing his opinion when our general manager said he was not an owner.
An owner asked about adding a third employee towards the much needed grass cutting on the golf course. The answer was they added a part time this year already.

WORKSHOP

Director Peterson discussed the problem about a resident staying at lot #254 in which our Village had a TRO put on. It was brought up to clarify that he is suppose to help in this matter.
Director Dodson asked to mow the grass at the corner exit stop sign just pass the security gate and our general manager said that Marcus would take care of it.
Director Mulch wanted to present the three bids to the outdoor pool repair and put that on the agenda, along with the sidewalks at four locations and have the bath house be debated.

Director Steffensen brought up that on April 23rd she had allocated $27K to cover bath houses #1&3, not $27K for just for #1. A discussion took place about how to obtain an accurate dollar figure and it was put on the agenda.
The subject of this new fire hydrant was brought up. Our general manager said he talked to the fire marshal and was told he had no legal jurisdiction in our Village, but discussed what was legal. He told our manager that they too have to dig around some of their hydrants but failed to tell him if they were originally installed that way and approved. The fire marshal said he had no problem with ours and our general manager said he was going to dig around it some more. It was suggested to have the hydrant install correctly and the general manager said he has to have some standard to show them that it’s incorrect, which at this moment he doesn’t have. The people who had us wait ten months to install this according to our GM have not yet been paid. It was also asked if this hydrant had been tested. Our GM said no.
Robinson Pools gave a bid of $65,000, Berry Pools $58,500 to fix the pool bottom. It was discussed why only two bids and our GM said he contacted five or six.
Mary Steffensen said we had allocated $32,000 in the budget for the pool repair.
Mary Steffensen talked about revenues and the increase in prices for the cost of goods that will reflect on what we charge in the restaurant. The credit card charges have went up and a 3% credit card charge is to be reviewed for the Pro shop and rental department.
Director McBride asked to have shutoff valves to replace the pneumatic valves for the sprinkler systems.
Director Peterson requested that we start to work on the weed burr problem.
Mary Steffensen said we need to search for a cheaper transportation cost for our golf course sand.
Director Burke said that the Board had an outstanding variance to look at and put it on the agenda list.
It was put on the agenda if our Village should add to the employee appreciation fund raiser.

Read more on this article...

THE LAWSUIT

The lawsuit was dropped after the both parties finally negotiated an agreement. The recall is out. All nine directors are back. Conditions agreed on were that our GM stays, Aramark stays, and all nine board member seats will be up for re-election in March. The new security starts the first of the year and we will revise our voting ballots and proxies.

In the courtroom Reta Priest told a bailiff that she wanted to have the courtroom cleared because she was being disturbed and was near a nervous breakdown. Director Burke said she was there not to give support to Priest and Mulch, but because she was given a subpoena.

This result seems to show the GM was what this lawsuit was all about, causing grief, turmoil, and loss friendships. This has set a standard, of what exactly is still unclear but it’s definitely not good. It’s still unclear who’s paying the lawyer’s tab, but in the long run the attorney fees will seem small in comparison to the future losses that our park may incur as a result of this event.

This one dance is over but the music I feel will keep on playing. Many wrongs have been done to too many good people over this. I hope I'm wrong. Read more on this article...

THE LAWSUIT

It appears nothing has been settled in this lawsuit today that Reta Priest and Leroy Mulch started. I will update any information tomorrow. Read more on this article...

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/user1/ptisabel/093008_to_members.pdf

VILLAGE OWNERS; Please click above to read the very important info from our Association attorney. It's your money my friends! Read more on this article...

AND THE HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING!

Would you be surprised at receiving a letter from this recall clan targeting our Village attorney for doing her job? Well you shouldn’t be because that’s seems to have been their M.O. for months. Attack anyone who doesn’t agree and then distort, insinuate, and draw sympathy (the DIDS). You might note the one thing that might be missing in this surprise possible letter as was in their failed recall attempt letter, is detail information such as times, places, who had witnessed those involved, you know those silly things called FACTS or PROOF! It seems only things you hear or read from this crowd are conjecture, hearsay, innuendoes, and fabrications, topped off like a cherry with a touch of fear.
The Condominium Act states our By-laws must provide provisions for the removal of directors. Our By-law provides one such procedure using a recall, but Priest and Mulch appear to think they are somehow above this By-law. These governing By-laws were simply not followed and the way the proxies were prepared had absolutely no chance of validity. For all we know Priest, Mulch, and their recall gang could have made up or changed all of them.

Why on earth would Directors Burke and Steffensen see this recall as anything other than invalid? Are they also thinking suing over this seems to be OK?

Consider the possibility of having a legitimate Board election if we held it in July using this same recall procedure to elect our Directors. We would have no quorum of voting owners present. One director wannabe and his/her constituents will mail out every ballot to the Village owners as a proxy with an attached letter stating their opinions about all the opposing candidates. This information is all you are left with to make an intelligent voting decision that has to be mailed back to this wannabe’s group. They themselves do the tally but after seeing your vote are allowed to grill you on how you voted wrong and try to make you change it. Would you tolerate such a process? Is there something just a little wrong with this picture?

The above was the exact method done for this Recall and is a shameful way to try to force three of our directors off the Board.

Our three elected directors have never been against the association. They were against a previous board that did not recognize owner’s ratifying rights on substantial additions and alterations to our Village. They were for managerial accountability that the previous board seemed to ignore.

This unacceptable recall along with the ridiculous lawsuits against our six Directors may site several reasons why they are doing it, but appears to have only one true agenda, to regain a majority control of the Board to insure that your general manager stays. That’s it, end of story.

The friends of the general manager have turned this park upside down leaving us, the owners, with an undisclosed cost that could last for years. If this bunch really wants a recall, they should do it in a legitimate way and have the facts for a change be given to every owner and let them designate their vote without being questioned. Let’s obey our By-laws for a change.

Priest and company continually say they are the voice of the people and are working in your best interest. I for one have heard only their one voice and yes, they are working, but for who’s interest?

One more item to note is that no one is associated with this blog other than me. I don’t recall stating in any of my articles that Aramark is trying to buy out our Village. To also say that this blog is not reputable and not founded on the truth is saying that information I acquire and used from the general manager, Directors, the Board minutes, our Village Newsletter, and Board meetings are therefore lies. I can back up what I say, I question if the same can be said from this recall group. Read more on this article...

SEPTEMBER SUGGESTIONS

**Click here**

We would love your suggestion that will improve our Village. Suggestion may be viewed by those visiting. We will renew the display each month. Anonymous are welcomed.
So throw one in the box.


Read more on this article...

IS THIS RIGHT?

There has been a majority shift within our Board of Directors. All the owners who had voted for the new Directors to help our Village be a better place to live have had their representation taken away. Your vote now belongs to director Leroy Mulch and his suing partner Reta Priest. Priest is the ring leader of this invalid recall and is a possible director replacement. They have sued six of our Directors. Three of those six also received restraining orders.

This action has made Directors Burke, Mulch, and Steffensen to instantly become a majority on our Board. It’s no secret that these three have been against the other Directors on issues, the latest being about the replacement of our unlicensed security to which our general manager and Aramark currently benefit from.

Does this seem to be in our Village’s best interest when one out of nine directors is allowed to sue and eliminate enough directors so as to create his own possible majority? Is that what the owners had wished and voted for?

Directors Mulch, Burke, and Steffensen have never once as a group attempted to work out their implied differences with these six Directors. Do you feel its right for them to obtain an authoritative majority from past selective mayhem caused at board meetings and these lawsuits?

Does anybody see something terribly wrong with this?

What did the six Directors do that was so wrong?
The answer is they tried to replace the Long Island Village General Manager. All other reasons seem to have come after or have spread from this action.

Prior to these six being sued, here are just a few things they allowed in part or as a whole in what is now a failed attempt to satisfy these disgruntle three amigos (Directors Burke, Steffensen, and Mulch).
1. They postpone replacing the General Manager in order to do a 90 day evaluation. This was also done in hopes management would attempt to do better. These six Directors even allowed the GM to participate in his own evaluation scoring.
2. They reluctantly but did allowed this recall to be recognized in a regular meeting, even though the procedures done by Reta Priest were clearly not within our By-Law guidelines.
3. They stopped this same regular board meeting in order to meet with the association attorney to obtain her opinion on the validity of the recall proxies being presented. This was to insure owner’s voting rights and that the By-Laws were adhered to. LIV (you) paid the attorney fee.
4. After these recall proxies were determined by our Association Attorney as overwhelmingly invalid for numerous reasons, these six Directors still allowed a members meeting discussion be put on the agenda to entertain again the issue of these invalid and tainted recall proxies.

Here are a few things our six Directors had to contend with before the lawsuit?
1. After agreeing to a 90 day GM evaluation, Directors McBride, Hansen, and Peterson had a voter recall started against them containing eleven reasons why they should be thrown off the Board. These reasons to date have never been proven. Reta Priest was known as an active participant in lobbying recall votes against these Directors.
2. Each Board member had received court documentation about a long ago divorce hardship experienced by Director Peterson. It was requested to the board that because of this very ancient past, they should take action to rid Director Peterson from the Board. It was a tasteless and shameful action by this recall bunch
3. Director Young was accused of mail tampering because he received mail that’s addressed to him. Director Burke gave a speech about this nonsense at a Board meeting and mentioned he should resign. Reta Priest initiated this accusation.
4. Since considering the removal of the general manager, all six have appeared to come under unnecessary verbal attacks from what seems to be always the same small group of friends associated with the general manager’s wife and Reta Priest. Meetings seem to have taken on an adversarial tone from both sides.

The new directors followed through on their campaign promises in trying to make Aramark management accountable for their actions, but were met with opposition from this management and their friends.

It should be importantly noted these new directors did not initiate the request to replace our general manager, our board President did. Those few who have wish to stop any accountability of this Aramark management has thrust our Village into a social chaos, pitting neighbor against neighbor. These same few have yet to provide owners proof of any wrong doing done by these six Directors.

This appears to have come down to this one issue. Do we keep our current general manager with no accountability towards his actions and at what cost to our Village, or let our elected board work this out and hold our general manager accountable or maybe even replace him at what cost to our Village?

Speaking of cost, this will make it the eighth lawsuit pending against our association. Even though these Directors are being sued as individuals, I read in our By-Laws the Association’s is on the hook to protect them with legal counsel. Below is our Indemnification By-Law. See how you read it. It should also be noted that Mulch and Priest wish to be reimbursed for their Attorney Fees. Guess who will pay for that?

ARTICLE XII. INDEMNIFICATION
The Corporation shall indemnify every Director and every Officer, and their heirs, executors and administrators, against all loss, cost and expenses reasonably incurred in connection with any action, suit or proceeding to which said Director or Officer may be a party, by reason of their being or having been a Director or Officer of the corporation, including reasonable counsel fees to be approved by the Corporation, except as to matters wherein said Director or Officer shall be finally adjudged in such action, suit or proceeding to be liable for or guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct. The foregoing rights shall be in addition to and exclusive of all other rights to which such Director or Officer may be entitled.

Read more on this article...

MINORITY + LAWSUIT = MAJORITY

9/26/08 Today six Directors of our Board have been sued by Director Leroy Mulch and Reta Priest. Details are sketchy, but it’s known that these three, Directors Hansen, Peterson, and McBride have been sued and served restraining orders until this matter is brought to court. Also sued were Directors Dodson, Young, and President Sullivan. What has our Village become? It appears that Long Island Village may not be “the place to be.” Read more on this article...

September 14TH, 2008 Coffee with the Directors

After the Pledge of Allegiance we heard from the Suggestion Box

Lot 677 Asked that all suggestions make it to the regular board meeting. He suggested to have comments from the audience on the suggestions submitted. Plus hold over any suggestions not read to the next meeting if there were a considerable amount of comments.
Lot 143 to avoid a possible lawsuit, asked for the recall to be brought up again and be entertained by the Board and have some way to voted on it.
President Sullivan made a statement that he felt it seemed evident the recall has caused turmoil and division of the Board and asked the Board to quickly resolve its differences. Director Burke responded by saying the suggestion is worthy of consideration and disagreed with President Sullivan that the Recall group was the cause of the turmoil.

From the Audience

Lot 251 Asked how much the new security would cost us and what would it get us? Director Dodson explained the License officer will better enforce our rules, reduce liability, and more. Director Steffensen said in January, February, and March of 2007, LIV was still paying bills to Securitas. Director Burke felt a need to clarify the original 2008 budget figures only to say the obvious; if wages increase, the amount could reach higher and then made it quite clear this was not her decision to back a security change.
Lot 249 asks if Securitas was the same firm that had an employee steal from us? Director Dodson’s answer was yes and that this was not the reason we replace them. She said they were replaced because Aramark wanted to run security giving us the promise they would obtain a security license. Plus, our GM was at that time having conflicts with Securitas staff. She went on to say the Board will meet with them once a month and will have them on a one year probation. Director Burke again wanted to clarify that there is a warrant out for that former employee of Securitas and her boyfriend, who stole checks. She gave several other opinions of what Securitas did.
Lot #97 said for the extra money we spend on security, we will get what we haven’t had before. That would be to have someone that will enforce the rules. Director Burke again spoke contrary to that.
SC #111 criticized the fact the people didn’t appoint the security company and thought that the board had no right to do this themselves. She mentioned my name as if she had a problem with my minute impute I gave to the Security Committee. She went on a somewhat mini tantrum saying the Village is in a crisis, neighbors are turning against neighbors, and on and on. She eventually said the majority is not being heard while there are a few voices that are anonymous group on a blog that don’t speak the truth. She went on to say when we send information to the blog, many times it doesn’t get on there. You only hear one side, and that one side wants to get rid of Aramark and Larry. She then said that you have six people that can do anything they want, that's you Mr. Peterson, Mr. McBride, Martha Nell, Mr. Young, and you (President Sullivan), we have all heard you say that.( Not sure heard what it was that was said?) President Sullivan said everyone has a right to voice their opinion and told her that this was uncalled for.
Lot #806 said if there was a problem with someone drunk at the pool; why not make it a non-alcohol area.
Selba Campbell said she was available to register you to vote and provide you an absentee ballot.
33840 S. Garcia is starting to replace 950 S. Garcia on certain mail. This may or may not change back. Either are said to work until April of 2009. It was suggested not to change anything until the new postmaster is replaced to review our situation. Our GM spent five minutes on his experience with the number change.
Director Dodson reminded everyone of the employee appreciation party.
Lot #726 asked questions about function and who controled of the Bridge Board. Director Burke gave a five plus minute summation.
SC #2 said she would like to thank Mr. Peterson for raising the bounty on my husband’s head.
With that stupid and unrelated to the meeting remark, the meeting was adjourned.

Workshop
Agenda

Only one Bid was received on remodeling the bath house. The amount to do it as designed by Don Pelletier was $26129.
The sidewalk to nowhere, as it has been called from the letter lots to guard house, along with sidewalk by the helicopter pad, sidewalk in front of the activity center, and sidewalk in front of Rec. Hall parking lot was said by our GM to cost around $13,000.
Only one bid for the repair of the outdoor pool bottom has been received so far.
Director Dodson asked our GM if the Berry Pool chemicals were included with the $800 they charge us? The GM said yes, but only up to a certain amount. Director McBride said he had read the Berry contract and did not recall reading that chemicals were included. The GM then stated he was not sure but will look into it.
Insurance adjusters have given LIV a $20000 advance to fix the restaurant roof.

Meeting adjourned. Read more on this article...

VILLAGE SECURITY

At the September 4th Board meeting, Director Dodson’s security presentation did not immediately determined how much higher it would cost for our new licensed security company. We spent over $230K for gate keeping last year. This year $206K has been budgeted and that appears to be on track. During the security presentation, Directors Steffensen and Burke threw out figures they believed should be added to these bids in order to show its true cost. These figures were ranging from $16K to $27K, depending upon who was talking.

It has been established to this date we will pay $18K more than this year’s budgeted cost in order to have Securitas as our new licensed security.

It’s interesting why we even accepted an unlicensed security group in the first place? Here’s some history towards how all this came about..
Jan. 2005 Our GM proposed to our Board of having Aramark replace Securitas. The board approved this idea.
May 2005 Four months later with no security license, our GM said his company changed their minds because Texas has outrageous liability costs. Securitas receives a new one year contract.
August 2006 Aramark’s Senior VP gave our GM the go ahead to pursue contracting LIV for security. Aramark’s bid was approximately $3K less than Securitas. Motion was made to award Aramark the security contract and Director Burke seconds it. Motion was approved. It was decided that Aramark will run security while getting a security license.
June 2007 Ten months later and no security license; our GM stated that his company changed their minds and will not get a security license due to, in his words, a $20,000 Texas out of state fee. The Board ordered bids be obtained from license security companies for review.
August 2007 Besides his own, our GM acquired only two licensed security company bids to choose from. Both companies were apparently based substantially further than the maximum mile radius set by the board. Aramark was awarded the contract. The Board reasons were cost savings, more services, and direct control. Current Board members that served then were Directors Burke, Mulch, Steffensen, and Young. Director Young was the only Director to vote no.
To note; This $20K Texas out of state fee was later found to actually be a new franchise tax past in 2006 to start in 2008 that applied to all businesses located in and out of Texas, and had no apparent bearing at acquiring a security license?

Current reasons for the replacing our unlicensed gate keepers.
1. They are powerless to enforce most of our Village protocol legally.
2. Wanting to reduce our Village liability. Our Village is continually displaying the illusion of having a licensed security. It begins with being a gated community and continues with posted guards, vehicle screening, patrols, security cameras, uniforms, being called for problems, being called for emergencies, realtors advertising 24 hr security, accidently calling them security at board meetings, and more. This illusion increases our liability exponentially. Simple example would be a renter lets her guard down thinking we have train security and gets injured or abused by a perpetrator. Could our Association show we were diligent in securing our property or show we reduced the protection with untrained and unlicensed personnel in order to save a buck.
3. Untrained personnel
4. Untrained management training their untrained personnel.
5. Management failing to design adequate procedures for updating personnel on changing LIV needs.
6. Personnel not being trained properly. Unable to read the LIV Owners directory correctly and directing vehicles to wrong addresses. Unable to provide simple information when called.
7. The apparent need of trained and licensed personnel to communicate with the proper etiquette and be able to properly document current events.

Original reason to have our non licensed security
1. Cost
2. More services
3. Direct control

Is it worth it?

Ask yourself if it is worth $18 a year to better protect your physical well being, property, and enforce the Village regulations using licensed personnel that are trained and tested in this area.

How much is it worth to improve our Village’s posture towards future litigations? Having a License Security might it not even be possible to recoup this increase and more in the long run through lower insurance premiums and attorney fees ?

Are we really getting our $206K + money’s worth with this unlicensed Aramark team?

Shouldn’t we be looking after Long Island Village interests instead of the GM’s or Aramark’s?

Read more on this article...

HURRICANE COMMITTEE

The hurricane committee and all the contributors have done a great job on thinking ahead of the CONE. Ed McBride was the host of the meeting and explained very clearly the general design of the plan. They have figured it in two evacuation stages, recommended and mandatory. Recommended evacuation means they recommend but leave it up to you, the owners, renters, and workers. The park utilities and bridge should stay usable unless an outage is caused by the elements. Mandatory means all but owners will be forced to leave. Owners that stay need to tell the office and provide numbers to contacts if needed. They will not be the park’s responsibility. The power will be left on, but water will be turned off. The bridge will be locked open and not passable.
While in the hurricane’s projected cone, we will be in the mandatory evacuation stage. It is currently being requested everyone leave by 7pm Thursday. From that point on the bridge may close at anytime. This of course is subject to change as weather updates dictate every six hours.
Information numbers are 943-5670, 943-3113, 572-5670, 572-5671. Read more on this article...

BACK TO SQUARE ONE

My original purpose for this Blog was to bring out more of the facts while exposing any half truths and unclear answers when exercised by our management and Board of Directors. It was to help keep our board from lying idle towards owner’s concerns. It was created to help identify your owner’s right to ratify, by vote, on our Village’s substantial additions and material alterations that were denied to you by previous boards. It tries to make our management more accountable for their actions and was thought to be needed because our newsletter was never published in a timely manner. I felt the people in our Village also needed a means to express themselves. Pitifully, for fear of reprisals, most have to do it anonymously. I will continue to post comments within the same guidelines that have been previously set forth with the hope that someday people here can agree to disagree without being targeted.
I’ve tried to make every discourse be based on solid facts and posed questions from those particulars.
A board member’s wife made the comment recently that” it’s too bad the synopsis writer of this blog can’t take a more object view.” She right because for the most part I try to let a reader derive their own opinion about an issue. I try giving all the facts available and pose from them legitimate questions. But if she wants a synopsis about the current state of affairs that our Village has with our general manager, I’ll try to provide this simple one just for her.
For years our Village has encountered numerous problems with management. Many were with maintaining various entities of our common grounds, especially with the pool facilities and lawn care. Six months ago the majority of the voting owners elected four board members whose main campaign promises were to hold management accountable for their actions and show an active concern towards owners comments. Because they held to these promises, they have been made the bad guys by management and some senior board members. Friends of the GM and these certain senior board members have tried to rid three of the four directors by way of a recall. At best it was done in a most despicable way and failed to succeed. We are now left with a very disgruntled board that just needs to get on with the business at hand and either vote our general manager out or vote him in. Read more on this article...

Board of Directors Meeting 9/4/2008

After the Pledge of Allegiance, it was announced the recall ballots were invalid.
From the floor we had three people giving their endorsement to our general manager. Selba Campbell was one of them. Selba also said that the Cowen Group will be part of our Bridge Board since they now own island property. She hinted that certain things are cooking that are positive towards our bridge funding.
Reports
Manager’s report was short due to a non board issue speech he wanted to read. It pertained to a reward flier that was posted. The general manager claimed this person owning the phone number on said reward flier has constantly bothered him, his employees and had also threatened him and his wife. Director Burke made a motion to act upon this. The board complied.
The Treasury Report had nothing out of the ordinary to express.
D&E report had conveyed there will be numerous activities for the month of October.
Golf Committee reported they still had $18419 leftover from their fundraisers the previous year and construction on green #6 should be completed by October.
Swimming Pool Committee report said 1988 wrist bands were sold in nine weeks and netted a profit of around $4550 to be spent on pool chairs this year. At the request from the board there are now five more bids that will be considered for the outdoor pool repair.
Audit Committee report on the Rental Department recommended changes in the Declaration, a renter repair checklist, an emergency only list on units to be rented for emergencies, a change in the deep cleaning charges, a change in our advertising, and a rating system.
Security committee recommended three Security companies as finalist. Director Dodson motion Securitas to become our new security replacing Aramark. Motion passed. Aramark is to be given a sixty day notice.
Safety Committee wished to be given more time to recruit volunteers but wanted to immediately to sit down with management and form a better hurricane plan.
Evaluation Committee report said our general manager scored just above satisfactory. Director Dodson moved there were improprieties of this evaluation for allowing the employee to be present not after but during the evaluations proceedings, arguing any low scores, and causing one committee member to resign after being told to change their evaluation. A request to enter a closed session for discussion of this evaluation was voted down.
Old Business
Reflectors to indicate property for sell or rent was tabled to the workshop.
Director McBride had a safety issue and inquired as to why a fire hydrant was out of commission for 10 months so it could be move for $6000 when the hydrant valve could have been relocated to solve the original problem of it being under an owner’s concrete pad and deck. The estimated cost to do this would be under two hundred dollars. It will be an item of discussion at the workshop.
Director Peterson brought up issues with bath house #1. The possibility of a ceiling leak along with the current plans of remodeling. He deemed the plans as unnecessary and overly costly. It will be an item at the workshop.
Time Warner Cable is planned to be operational Jan 1st. Bundle packages will be introduced when received.
Director McBride asked the general manager why the golf course pump has to be shut off at low tide instead of extending the intake pipe further out so as to always be in the water. The cleaning of the screen was the answer.
Director McBride asked if the float valve and the backflow valve was installed for the single phase emergency sewer pipe. Answer was yes.
Emergency Modular Housing idea was downed.
New Business
There will be an employee appreciation party September 19th.
An additional bank account was started at Wells Fargo to protect LIV money under the Federal Insured Limits.
Truck paint and wheels was brought up as a question to our general manager after Director Peterson had been misinformed by office personnel that the work was approved to be done by the board. The general manager became very upset and loudly stated his displeasure in having this subject brought up.
Director Burke motioned that some regular board meetings be scheduled for Saturdays at 9 am. Motion passed.
Motion to accept True Line material for the seawalls was passed along with proper depth considerations.
Lowering the park model minimum height building code rule died from lack of motion.
There will be a modular home seminar in November for those interested. Exact date TBA.
Motion for sea cottage using 30 year TDI approved shingles passed.
Variance for Lot 1 is under review and discussion.
Cowen Group closed on their property on the 25th of August. There was a remark by Director Burke that the seller stated the sold property was to have a land easement through LIV.
Director Steffensen asked who took the director’s pictures away from the glass enclosure. It appears that five pictures were first removed and three more days later.
Meeting called adjourn. Read more on this article...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...