VILLAGE UPDATE ON NEW FIVE DIGIT ADDRESSES

Director McBride gave Villagers some good news. The five digit address change will only affect the welcome center and restaurant (because of their liquor license). Your address will remain as before with no changes.

Read more on this article...

COFFEE WITH THE DIRECTORS MAY 21st, 2008

There were many who thought this meeting was going to be some heated debate over the manager’s evaluation or this absurd petition. To their surprise neither came about. There were over twenty submissions in the suggestion box with a handful not read forwarded to the evaluation committee. I recall it was not the first time that a group of Village suggestions with similar context was not read at a coffee meeting. Approximately a year and a half ago, after reading one of over a dozen owner complaints concerning our management not maintaining our pool facilities, the then Vice President Pelletier past them on to Mr. Demalade.

I will give a brief narrative of the suggestion box comments that were read at this meeting.

Lot I. Gloria Fish asked why we have spent money to replace the pools facility’s seemingly undamaged blue shower wall tiles when this facility is in need of more important items. She also suggested installing handicap user friendly steps during the bottom repair of the outdoor pool.

Lot 558 asked how many signatures are required to sign a legal contract obligating our Village. Director Burke said one after a passed motion from the board.

Lot 597 said thanks to management for their great job on repairing her sprinklers and added the pool has too much chlorine.

Lot 229 the director read this was from Rita Priest. This comment says she doesn’t dare leave the park in fear of these directors. She wrote they were underhanded, can’t be trusted and not fair-minded.

Richard Kolu requested the golf course be named after Jim Peterson with a certificate of appreciation.

Lot 678, Bud Sherry asked about Director McBride having an illegal meeting with the Cowen Group at a bar/restaurant called the Icehouse. The board response was they (Director McBride and President Sullivan) met at the Icehouse location to pick up some paperwork from the Cowen Group. The Cowen Group office was located right across the street of this place and both board members thought this was a convenient way for all since the Icehouse was on the way back from a round of golf played in Brownsville. It was no meeting.

Some owners asked some general questions about the Cowen Group issue which is currently in its infancy.

Lot 339, Rick Cole made a comment about Time Warner Cable bid. This started an hour and twenty minute long discussion on what the bids were and what they contained. These are still not firm so I will not provide that info yet.

Lot 143 had a complaint about the cleanliness of the indoor pool. That person also wrote it could use a power wash.

Lot 251 made the comment people should go through the chain of command in solving their problems.

Lot 440 suggested all lots be numbered plus the indoor common ground facilities should be monitored for A/C temperature settings. An owner from the crowd responded to this comment by saying this week the arts and crafts room was freezing when she and others entered for their schedule activity.

Lot 249 said the board should read Jim Paul’s book about the history of our Village.

Lot 835 had a complaint. After following the building rules to the letter and being flat turned down when they asked for management’s permission to attach a stone like bottom trim to her unit, is now seeing numerous such trims being allowed and wants to know why. It is being addressed.


DIRECTOR’S WORKSHOP

There was a long discussion about set back rules for a south end sea cottage that wants to build a storage room on their lower deck. Director Mulch said this subject has been brought up four times previously and voted down each time. It was said to approve this would require a rule change instead of a variance.

There was a brief discussion on the managing of keys for the dock gate.

Director Dodson brought up the need to review our security situation. She mentioned many of the concerns which were covered in earlier articles dated 3/09/ 2008 and 4/09/2008 in this blog. Director Burke, whose instrumental insert in our LIV newsletter and helped solidify awarding Aramark our gatekeeper’s contract, repeatedly said our Village can’t break the security contract without a valid reason due to possible litigation. Director Burke and Director Dodson threw jabs back and forth on this issue. It woke everyone up.
Larry DeMalade jumped into this issue by saying the board came to him and asked him if he would manage security. As before he restated the only reason Aramark decline getting the security license was because the State of Texas was charging Aramark a $20,000 fee by being an out of State Corporation. He said Aramark was profiting only $6000 and it would not be practical for Aramark to pay an additional $20,000 and lose money. I raised my hand and asked Mr. DeMalade to clarify this $20,000 charge. Director Burke immediately spoke for him saying it was a franchise tax. I asked why this franchise tax, which past in 2006 and effective 2008, took Aramark over ten months later to realize its effect. I got no response. I then asked why this franchise tax that charges 1% on generated security revenues of $187,660 came up to be $20,000. I received no intelligible answer. I finally asked would not Aramark be charged this same franchise tax with or without a security license when receiving this $187,660 revenue for managing our gate keepers. I received still no lucid answer. Mr. DeMalade at last said in Aramark’s letter that he received there were actually two reasons for not obtaining this security license. One was this $20,000 charge. The second reason was the Aramark VIP in charge would not sign personally for the security license contract. Mr. DeMalade stated the liability risk to him for this $6000 profit was not worth it. Director Dodson said continued effort will be done towards this issue.

Discussion about the swing bridge fence was briefly discussed.

Mr. Pelletier talked about his drafting ideas for our three bathhouses that seem very practical on the surface. It seems to have put a lot of work into this. The board will review it further.

Director McBride discussed the servicing of our fire hydrants.

Director Peterson talked on the subject of modular homes that was tabled last month and received some intense opposition from a couple. It appears there is some fear of possible subsidized housing entering our park because these homes are wind rated by HUD. Director Dodson said she had research and found that if every owner is being charge a condominium fee that covers our amenities, such an owner would not qualify for that subsidy. He also brought up the need and cost of two used pieces of golf equipment for ground maintenance. Director Steffensen said these are not in the budget. Read more on this article...

BRIDGE BOARD MEETING 5/19/2008

After the pledge of allegiance, the minutes for last April’s meeting were approved. This was a little different board meeting in so far as having John R. Freeland and a quorum of board members in attendance.
Tom Cain who runs these meetings does a very job. He’s informative and to the point. The first item discussed was Essex insurance company dropping the bridge’s insurance coverage due to the two lawsuits initiated by two Village owners. One lawsuit had a jury ruled in our favor and the other is pending. It’s odd that the same attorney is representing both plaintiffs. This lawyer is currently appealing that jury verdict. It will be known soon if he’s successful.
Tom Cain said it was very difficult to find an insurance carrier that was willing to insure our bridge. Scottsdale Insurance Company has graced us with their acceptance, but it comes with a price. Before the lawsuits the bridge paid around $8000 a month. Now the new premium is a little over $12,000 a month. That figures about $40 a month out of each lot owner’s pocket. This seems not bad considering our bridge rating and two recent lawsuits by two Village owners.

Here’s a little background I found.
Scottsdale Insurance Company Description
Scottsdale Insurance Company insures the riskier parts of life, the universe, and everything. The property/casualty insurer specializes in excess and surplus insurance lines (E&S) -- insurance coverage for higher-risk individuals and businesses including alarm contractors, bars, exterminators, and tree trimmers. The company also offers such niche products as pet insurance, professional liability, and products for public entities (cities, towns, counties). E&S providers are not allowed to advertise directly to consumers, so Scottsdale Insurance relies upon wholesale general agents, brokers, and managers sell its products through local agents. The company is a subsidiary of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company.
nce company.

It was said if there comes a time insurance coverage is not obtainable, the bridge will be closed.
The board’s next topic was the perimeter fence on the south end of the bridge. Our new insurance carrier had recommended we do it. There was a small debate about upset Village owners not being able to fish near the bridge as they have in previous years. On the other hand it was said when South Point fenced their area for liability reasons, the people came here to fish.
It was also pointed out that in recent evenings this area seemed to take on an almost carnival like atmosphere due to the large number of non-village parents who fish while letting their children play. There were even at times tents put up to sleep overnight.
The cost of the fence is $7100. This fence would run to the end of our bridge’s property lines, which is approximately 200’ west and 300’ east. It will be 8’ tall. We will have one 20’ dock access gate on the west side along with a 5’east side gate. Those will cost $2100.
There were numerous items addressed that could save on expenditures. An example was lowering the commercial electric kilowatt per hour from 23 cents to 15 cents and changing peak hour costs with a new electricity provider. Another example was to attempt to become tax exempt.
Mr. Freeland’s appearance seemed to focus on the intercostals channel turn and the barges we let through our bridge. There was a recent photo taken of a three wide barge barely squeezing through our swing bridge. Apparently the rules state the barges must be single wide. The picture will be used as a means to hopefully make them obey the rules or the bridge board may ask the coast guard for their enforcement assistance. Interesting to note that in 2005, 48% of all barges that passed through our swing bridge were carrying a flammable liquid cargo. Since then there has been a pipeline built to ease that percentage somewhat.
The next bridge board meeting will be in September. The outcome of how the insurance increase will be budgeted and the results of the lawsuit appeal will be published as soon as I find out. Read more on this article...

Buried in the sand ( just my opinion)

If you and your friends wish to be rude, scream, and verbally attack certain directors at our board meetings, you may do so. Afterwards if you yearn to create your own petition containing eleven invalid reasons to impeach certain directors, feel free. If you desire to thrust this petition out and make it appear a legitimate Village emergency so an owner feels compelled to vote, have it your own way. If you hanker to sway an owner’s vote by only giving them your worthless reasons on such a petition, go for it. If you crave to have all your solicited votes from this petition be sent to no name addresses so you can pick and choose which ones suit you the best, no problem. If you even have a yen to get the Village’s Channel 2 telecast to gladly participate with your petition as to make it appear even more Village and management sponsored, please, be our guest.

If you have the hunger to do any of these above, you’ll have competition. There’s a small group that has already put this charade to work. Since this group is well connected with a board member and the general manager, nobody is speaking out about it for fear of reprisals. Does everyone from this petition group think that every Village owner will keep their heads buried in the sand, swallow their gobble-lee-gook hook, line, and sinker, and say nothing? Once again it shows that a certain few in our Village feel they can do as they please with impunity.

Read more on this article...

THE EVALUATION CONTINUES

There seems to be a change in the Board’s 90 day evaluation of our general manager. The mindset now is to also fill out a 2007 evaluation that could have some old board members participate in the answers, plus include the general manager’s old evaluations which have been found for 2004, 2005, and 2006.

I erred in the previous article by saying that the evaluation form was from Aramark. The form being used was made up by a previous board of directors. I was told its original purpose was to support the board decisions for managerial pay raises.


This evaluation form (displayed in “news bulletin updates” at http://longislandvillage.com/) has 21 general manager’s functions or responsibilities for the committee to appraise via multiple choice.


One is for outstanding. Two is for satisfactory. Three is for satisfactory, but needs some improvement and four is for not satisfactory and needs improvement.


I looked at a Aramark’s foods and resort management services contract. In it they express three operational areas: Business Services, Hospitality Services, and Facility Services. In short and as accurate as possible, the general manager is in charge of the business and financial functions of the association, plus supervises the managers assigned to Hospitality and Facilities.



These assigned managers are responsible to meet Aramark requirements. They report to and are the full responsibility of the on site general manager. The general manager reports directly to the board president or to board of directors collectively. The general manager is responsible to the district manager of Aramark for ensuring that the Aramark corporate requirements are fulfilled. (The job descriptions below might have altered slightly, but changes in the responsibilities for the general manager would not have diminished. In fact, they should have increase.)


Aramark’s general manager’s job description and responsibilities are as follows.
In charge of Business Services personnel functions:
1. Accounts receivable clerk with 24 responsibilities.
2. Accounts payable clerk / acct. supervisor with 30 responsibilities.
3. Payroll clerk / administrative asst. with 25 responsibilities.


Supervision of Hospitality Services Manager on areas with specific functions and responsibilities:
1. Kitchen workers with 15 responsibilities.
2. Servers with 16 responsibilities.
3. F & B director with 16 responsibilities.
4. Office Centers-Front desk clerk with 51 responsibilities.
5. Front gate-Gate attendant with 8 responsibilities.
6. Pro Shop-Pro shop clerk with 12 responsibilities.


Supervision of Facility Services Manager on areas with specific functions and responsibilities:
1. House keeping with 32 responsibilities
2. General maintenance with 8 responsibilities.
3. Pool & spa cleaning/maintenance with 15 responsibilities.
4. Miniature golf with 2 responsibilities.
5. Tennis courts with 5 responsibilities.
6. Shuffleboard court / basketball court with 4 responsibilities.
7. Repair and renovation of common areas with 6 responsibilities.
8. Heat, A/C, and minor electrical have 2 responsibilities.
9. Water and sewer systems with 2 responsibilities.
10. Common grounds and areas with 14 responsibilities.
11. Golf course with 23 responsibilities.
12. Private yards with 3 responsibilities.
13. Roads with 3 responsibilities.


Our current general manager is responsible for over 300 of these specific functions that are spelled out contractually in running our Village.

A previous board felt these were important enough to individually be on the contract so as to be enforceable.

Should not these same numerous responsibilities be little more relevant to his performance than evaluation form #14 ( issuing rental damage refunds and commission checks in a timely manner) . It's interesting that both would seem to hold equal weight in an evaluation.

Can one accurately evaluate our general manager's performance with this scant evaluation form. We find a few questions containing responsibility for hundreds of functions on a daily basis, while the rest have minimal responsibilities and most of those report on a weekly, monthly, annual, or when needed basis?

It even appears debatable on which multiple choice answer is a passing grade.

Should our board rethink this evaluation?

After looking at the boards evaluation form, please comment with evaluation questions you feel should be graded. Read more on this article...

Kiss and make up

Friday’s special board meeting May 2nd , 2008

Ten days after the riot meeting, the supporters of our general manager got their wish. Our board of directors mandated a committee to evaluate our general manager for the following 90 days and will then decide if he stays or gets the boot. This four person committee will be directors Mulch, Steffensen, Young, and President Sullivan.

Forgive me for saying it, but this evaluation appears more like 90 days probation. Within this three month period the committee will be using an evaluation form presumably that Aramark has provided since their inception.

I have never seen this evaluation form that Aramark provides to know what questions are on it. I am sure the management is knowledgeable of its contents.

I hope this short 90 days evaluation is not being done just to satisfy everyone that an attempt was made. This quacks like that duck so far when you add to the mix not reviewing his full tenure and of appointing an even number person committee which sounds a bit odd not to insure a majority result on the evaluation.

It won’t ruin my day if our general manager stays or goes. The pity is in letting a handful of owners and one board member who acted at times like spoiled little children, inferring whatever sounded good in the attempt to get their own way, and then end up actually getting it. They appear to have seized control of the steering wheel and throttle of our Village.

.

We owners elected our directors and gave them the power to hire or replace any employee. We must now ask ourselves if that power still remains.

.

As Our Village evolves, are we getting the best people to manage our changing needs? Have we become so crystallized that our board of directors just can’t say we need a change because we can do better and the owners of Long Island Village deserve the best to manage our park? This is not to say our current general manager isn’t the best, but is he?

Should not that be the evaluation we seek?

Read more on this article...

Just a tidbit 4/30/08

On Monday our indoor pool was closed for several days again because somebody wasn’t paying attention to see if the pool’s filtration and heater system was working, making the water turn a cloudy white color.
Last Sunday we also had a pretty good rain storm. It flooded the activity center ping pong and TV area with water. It is your guess where the water leaked from.
Our putt putt course appears to be getting new green covering. Just in time for the renters. The outdoor pool water looks great but is still around70 degrees. Brrrr!
The palm trees shoots need to be cut around the pool area. They’re sprouting and dropping hundreds of thousands of palm flowers into the skimmers that clogs the filtration system, which in turn may burn up the pump motors. This occurs usually two times a year and is never addressed promptly. Read more on this article...

Board of Directors Meeting on 4/23/2008

The meeting started with our Pledge of Allegiance followed by a roll call. All the Board members were present. The Arts and Crafts room seemed to have more people attending this meeting than usual for this time of year.
The General Manager went through his manager’s report citing violations, late notices, building permits, the boat ramp gate finished, painting road stripes, replacing road signs, replacing palm trees, sprinkler checks, installed basketball backboards, repairing the hot water in the laundry, and having employees take classes on how to clean.
Director Hansen wondered if the basketball backboards were adjustable. The answer was yes.
Armando gave his report. He basically said all the work completed was done within two hours.
Director Hansen questioned this as he had done in a previous meeting. He said it was clear the work was not being done in two hours from the time of the request so this criterion is useless. Armando explained that the time starts when the work order was put in the computer and not when it was received. Director Henson asked for a motion to have work request start at the time the request was first received. Motion passed.
President Sullivan called for the approval of minutes.
Director Steffensen did the Treasury report. She said the improvement in income was due partly to the increase of condo fees, building permits, and the remaining special assessments. Cost of goods for our Village Grill has gone up like everything else and made us suffer a larger loss than usual. The golf course income was down due to less annual passes and water consumption. The laundry made a lot less but that was due to the changeover of laundry ownership last year.
Director Sullivan gave a golf report. He said a revision of the handicap flag will occur. We are to receive a bunch of railroad ties to be laid around the 6th green and pond areas.
Director Dodson mentioned that she is still working on the cable bids.
Director Peterson tabled the information on new equipment wanting to be purchased.
Director Hansen asked our G.M. if any written procedures were given to Security. The answer was yes.
Mary Steffensen said the request for a separate audit will be an internal one with asking qualified volunteers from our park. You may see this in our Newsletter.
Director McBride said our new five digit address number that was given to us last week was a wrong one. Director McBride is currently trying to acquire a five digit number for each lot to meet the reason the county is doing this in the first place, and that is so emergency vehicles know precisely where the address is.
Director Steffensen addressed lease bids for the scanner our Park needs to archive our old and new records. It was tabled until we find out what we can purchase one for outright.
Director McBride asked for a motion to record the owner concerns from our Coffee with the Directors and special meetings. It passed.
Director Steffensen explained how we can acquire the funds needed to refurbish of our bath houses from other Village projects. It was tabled.
Director Steffensen explained how the rental office that provides maid service was under charging and made a motion to increase the charge $10. It passed.
Director Peterson tabled the info on sand for the golf course and modular homes.
President Sullivan made a motion to book a Mariachi band and food for summer renters and owners. It was tabled.
President Sullivan made a motion to recess to an executive session with Mr. Polo from Aramark. I hope I spelled his last name correctly. This meeting was to last 45 minutes.
The number of people who stayed reduce to a couple of dozen.It was rumored that this executive session was about our G.M. being replaced.
While this executive meeting was being held, I saw our General Manager come into the Arts and crafts room and signaled to his wife to step outside with him. It was pretty obvious since everybodys head turned when he entered. She shortly returned and went around to a handful of people appearing to ask for their support.
After the Executive session ended and the regular meeting resumed, these half a dozen or so people who she had talked to immediately became very loud, with a few rude and unruly when President Sullivan made a motion to ask Aramark to replace our General Manager.
Director Burke requested for what was apparently called a discussion. The Board gave their approval. She brought up the devil and talked about not being informed about this issue. She said our G.M. has done what the Board has asked him to do. She said he has, at times, been stressed out, does not smile, and has been rude to people. She tried to poll the people in the crowd to raise their hands if they have ever been rude at one time or another?
Director Burke said that in the (executive) meeting, she told the other Board members we needed to have this discussion with the majority of the owners of this park and while the majority of people were here. She said while in this (executive) meeting, she told the Board they did not come up with this in the March meeting when the majority of the owners were here. She said that in this (executive) meeting she wanted to take it to the people, since we represent the people of this park but that was turned down by the Board.
Director Burke said she disagrees with the way we are doing it and the process in the way we are doing it. None of or most of the allegations she had received were ever discussed. She said there was no evaluation made by these new Board people and it was obvious to her that this process started before they were elected to the Board.
Director Burke said it was asked ( actually yelled by one of the unruly owners) how can you can get rid of a Board member. She said unfortunately it takes over 50% of the total votes in the park. She agreed with someone who also yelled that it should also take over 50% of the owners to get rid of our General Manager.
Director Burke said that this decision was made in secret at meetings and would be very bad for this park if this were to let happen.
Mary Steffensen said she wish to have a motion to a yea or nay table because this employee appears to have in front of her no priors, no paper trail, and without an evaluation ever made.
Director Mulch said that the items that our G.M. did wrong are just bull. He said that this was a witch hunt.
Director Burke said that in the contract with Aramark, the sewer problem that our G.M. was being blamed for was not Aramark’s problem but LIV’s. She said our G.M. worked 24 hours a day this summer on something he was not even being paid to do. Now we are going to treat him this rudely, this shabbily, by these people who are on a personal vendetta.
Director Burke made a motion to table it so there can be more input from the members of this board. Director Mulch seconded it.
The votes taken to table the dismissal of our G.M. for 60 days so the owners can be contacted for their feelings was tied at four each with the deciding vote to be made by the President of the Board, Mr. Sullivan. He voted aye.
Director Burke on other business made a motion to have the Board along with our attorney to find out our position to any legal ramifications we might have if we say no to this Cowen project of wanting an easement through our Village. She wanted this done before any futher discussions with the Cowen Group. It passed. Read more on this article...

Please place your comments above or below
Read more on this article...

*



Coffee with the Directors on 4/16/2008
*Our Village Patrol was mentioned as Security 8 times during this meeting

After the Pledge of Allegiance, Selma Campbell introduced three people, two running for the School Board and a person for the Laguna Madre Water District Board. After their short resumes the attention was focused on our box of suggestions and comments.

Out of the suggestion box
No hot water for laundry facility.
SC 106 wanted low areas filled and 3’ deep hole in front of cottage
Lot 815 asked to keep our current management.
Lot 339 requested buying different equipment to replace the skid steer and also mentioned employee’s low wages.
Lot 51 said the concrete golf paths are not tall enough and will eventually be covered over.
Lot 380 complained about a home construction next to them caused damage to their property.
Board received a complaint about the parking around the bridge.
There was a request by Lot 32 to refurbish our basketball court.
There was a request from lot 570 for a separate independent audit to be done.
Lot 830 complained that every year the common grounds around their home are not watered letting everything die.

People commenting from the crowd
A man of the name Frogy asked of the where a bouts of the skid loader that was missing for three weeks. The answer was it was being used to load dump trucks with sand used on the golf course. This work was being performed in San Benito. Director Peterson made the comment that the answer just stated was not the answer given to him.
Lot 42 stated that the repair to her drainage problem approved two years ago has never been done. Asked for a date when this is to be done.
Owner asked why undeliverable UPS and Fed Ex were not being left at the Welcome Center. Answer was from management that it was unlawful to do such.
There was a concern about the two foot easement not being large enough, newsletter reminders of being courteous to your neighbors, and instead of for sale signs have color reflectors.
An owner told the Board that owners are not disclosed the wages of salaried management and hourly workers. It is not disclosed of the “Perks” management receives. The Board’s answer was we give Aramark the money and have no control on how they disburse it. The same owner said Security was not patrolling his street properly.
An owner said that there has been more improvement in this park in the last five years then in the last fifteen.
An owner from lot 318 talked about considering prefab homes.
Lot 307 asked why people are allowed to leave their parked trucks sticking out in the streets. A director gave a ten minute speech about how they measured their vehicles before buying them but ultimately gave no recourse.
Director Dodson announced that on this coming Monday Time Warner, Arroyo, and possibly Direct TV will give us their sales pitch.
There was a question if the Board is having a closed to the owners meeting with Aramark. The answer was yes with no mention of what was to be discussed.
The meeting finished with the meeting our Directors had with John F. Cowen whose company wants to develop five hundred acres into 5000 sq.ft. lots for condominiums and wants to be a partner in our Association and use our park as access. More meetings are scheduled and this should require owner’s majority approval.
33480 S. Garcia What you’re reading is our new address that started April 14th, 2008. It had been changed to help guide 911 units. You will have six months to make arrangements. Our Board may request additional changes to occur that would make more sense for our community, so don’t do anything just yet.

The Workshop
The workshop started with a thirty-five minute seminar on a scanner to possibly be purchased.
Our G.M. discussed how and where future effluent water will be piped in if this Cowen construction and LIV partnership becomes a reality. We would be the last to get water after it passes through the new project and Freeland’s. It would enter our park somewhere near hole #15 on the golf course, with the pond there to be converted to a fresh water holding basin. He commented that Freeland already had a permit.
The directors touched on the address change. The consensus was that if the new five digit number used by 911 emergency and police as a five to six feet address location, every lot should have a five digit number. They will continue on how to accomplish the best solution.
A discussion started about modular housing between an owner who seemed to have a vested interest and the board. The owners’ contention was that our current rules were in so many words, a farce.
The topic of having a different person doing a separate independent audit was basically argued about. Some seemed to think it was not necessary since we have an independent audit currently being done. Others thought the reason for this new audit request was to guide us on where and what areas we could improve on, which would be more of a company business profile analysis, which was argued why we have Aramark. It was also said if we did this it would imply that the Board and Aramark management were not doing their job. Interesting, I think there should be more on this.
Director Burke talked about easement policies with little to add except stories of her past.
President Sullivan went through a list of pros and few cons about this Cowen project. He said there was much to consider and was too early to make a true evaluation. Director Burke made an interesting intelligent comment on finding out LIV position on access rights.
Director Henson brought up buying water meters to survey water consumption a resident uses inside.
Director Steffensen said they are trying to get additional pool bids from Robertson pools and South Texas Pools. They would like to have more. Read more on this article...

Is it our Village Patrol or Village Security? 4/09/2008

I was surprised when told by employees of our in house non-security staff patrol that since its inception, our management has not provided any particular updated procedural guidelines or training. I've been told there has been no training in the use of our pricey defibrillator. Our Village spent $2500.00 to have a usable machine and lightly trained people on hand in order to help save your life or mine. Most of the eight staff members are gone that passed what is believed the first and only CPR and AED (defibrillator) training on April 7th, 2004. The few remaining employees may have forgotten most of what they had learned. After four years I know I have.

It appears that Management’s involvement in any consistent training of our Patrol Staff has virtually been non-existent. In fact the staff has said that they have to rely on using the same old handbook that was left from the previous licensed security company for procedural guidance.

Should we blame our management that appears to have had zero training, experience, or background in the area of security? Should we blame our management which had tried for months and failed to acquire a Texas Security License ?

I think not. Last year our Board made the decision to have them run it.

I feel no one is to blame for this but ourselves. We elect the people who serve for us on a Board. This Board oversees the running of all daily activities of our Village. They are in control of management policies and procedures.

Most on the Board work hard and all get paid nothing for their efforts. Their only reward may be the knowledge that they are making a difference to better our Village. Most have agendas, some do not. They all try to do their best, but when it’s all said and done, the outcome usually ends up as a non-pay what have you done for me lately thankless job.

I'm all for stopping the blame and focusing on correcting a problem to which I feel is an inevitable law suit waiting to happen. I understand we have several lawsuites currently pending, so why gamble for more. Even more important is improving an owner's or renter's chances of not having a harmful experience in our Village.

The problem;
Our Village is giving every indication that this gated community has a full time trained security staff. This Staff is constantly called Security in our Board meetings, newsletters, and is advertised as 24 hour security in rental ads. Visitors entering our Village can’t help but think they are Security. They see uniform employees screening people that enter, doing patrols, and inforcing Village rules. Thinking this makes anyone feel somewhat safer which promotes letting their guard down. Our Village is promoting this illusion which makes us responsible. The Village's liability should reduce drastically if our Board would put in motion some simple actions in protecting ourselves.
Such simple actions are:
Have an annual security audit. The local police or independent security agencies will often conduct a security audit of the premises, pointing out potential areas of weakness. Follow their recommendations. The audit demonstrates due diligence on the part of the association.
Continuous training that should include patrol techniques and procedures, visitor and vehicle access control, crime prevention, incident report preparation, physical security equipment and inspections, hazardous material response, company and property policies, fire prevention and suppression, use of force, basic emergency first aid procedures, reporting incidents to emergency services, and interpersonal relations specifically designed to meet the requirements of the property. Sounds a little complicated? It is and this training should be done regularly.
Have our board set the performance goals. Job performance should not be judged by management but by the Association. Keep accurate records of these job performances.
A proactive approach of this manner is the only way to drastically reduce our liability while making our Village a safer place.

Let's git er done!

Similar article was posted 3/09/08

Read more on this article...

OUR POOL FACILITY ISSUE

January of 2002 General Manager Dave Fletcher received four bids to reconstruct our Village’s outdoor pool.
February 27th, 2002 General Manager Fletcher states the bid of $107,850 was awarded to South Texas Pools and they will start within a week with a completion date scheduled May 1, 2002.
On October 7th 2002 management requested South Texas Pools to repair and “touch up” pieces of the bottom cracking and coming apart.

December 18th, 2002 in an attempt to rectify the numerous complaints about the pool being filthy and the chemicals causing problems, our Board passed a motion to acquire three bids to outsource the pool maintenance?
On January 22th, 2003 the management apologized for the many pool problems and that pool maintenance bids have been solicited
On April 23rd, 2003, management had A.N.A. Laboratories test our pool water. The results were never published. During this time management also started advertising for Certified Pool Operators and had no response.
May 23rd, 2003 management hired an employee to maintain the pools from 5am to 1:30pm and plans will be made for him to take and pass a pool certification course.
August 22nd, 2003 certification for this employee has been put on hold because management says the Department of Health has to get a minimum of twenty people to sign up in order to have a certification course.
On February 5th, 2004 the Board looked into the idea of spa covers and found them not feasible.

May 26th, 2004 the exhaust fan and a sliding door were not working and were asked to be fixed. Shower in the lady’s restroom was replaced for the indoor pool.
July 28th, 2004 the indoor pool replaced one set of belts for the retractable roof at a cost of over $1000.
July 28th, 2004 the outdoor pool bottom has had pieces again breaking up for over a year and will be repaired in the coming winter still under South Texas pools warranty.
August 28th, 2004 a new General Manager Larry DeMalade was introduced as the new G.M.
January 26th, 2005 the outdoor pool’s bottom is under warranty repair
June 22nd, 2005 maintenance replaced tile behind Library at the outdoor pool.
August 24th, 2005 pool furniture was agreed to budget for spring by the Board.
September 28, 2005 maintenance installed two new pumps and changed filter sand for the Indoor pool.
October 26th, 2005 an additional gate was installed at the northeast corner of the outdoor pool. New signs were put up. Outdoor pool bathrooms were remodeled.
November 16th, 2005 maintenance replaced the drain for outdoor pool shower and replaced “a filter" (probably the sand in the filter) to the outdoor pool.
April 26th, 2006, for the third time, the outdoor pool has had numerous pieces breaking off the bottom for the last year. It is scheduled for again a major patchwork of the bottom. This will be the third incident and the second time that approximately 100,000 gallons of water will have to be drained. A Director asked management why the pool needs to be resurfacing when it was put in new three or fours years ago. Management’s answer was the original pool contractor had too few workers and was working in sections letting the plaster dry out too long and become delaminated.
May 24th, 2006 maintenance brought in gravel and pipe to repair the outdoor pool shower for the second time.
June 28th, 2006 a gazebo was brought in. Gravel and new drain pipe to replace outdoor pool backwash drain that was broken by the truck that brought in gazebo. It was mentioned management is still working with the manufacturer who made the material we bought and management thinks our Village didn’t get what we paid for. Management said either it will be replaced or have patchwork done.
August 23rd, 2006 the construction for the middle area of the pool started. This included new concrete poured on common areas, addition of a fountain, new fence around pool perimeter, and refurbishing the gazebo. New showers were put in the indoor pool bathrooms, lights put on roof to light pool area, and cool deck applied. New thermostat for the indoor pool was installed and management said it was set at 88 degrees because higher will start building bacteria. Management addressed a drainage problem behind the gazebo.
December 20th, 2006 our General Manager was asked if there was a warranty for work on the bottom of the outdoor pool that still needs to be repaired. The General Manager said no, no longer in warranty. The G.M. said the patch work will be around $3500. Have proof that they used the proper material but procedure was wrong, but that was before I came here.
December 20th, 2006 it was asked if our Village could go after the contractor. This item was taken up with the Village’s attorney Ramona Kantack. Outcome is unknown by us.
January 24th, 2007 our Hospitality Manager Les Heier stated no more complaints have been received, so must be doing okay. He said he put an ad in the paper for more help.
February 28th, 2007 maintenance installed new outdoor hot tub heater and installed new indoor hot tub blower.
March 28th, 2007 the Board president questioned pool maintenance. Indoor pool and hot tubs under went an acid wash and new filters (probably meant replaced the sand in the filters) installed.
April 25th, 2007 our management is getting bids for solar heat for the outdoor pool.
May 23rd, 2007 a motion to accept the $2900 solar heat bid died due to a lack of a 2nd motion.
June 27th, 2007 the indoor pool restrooms were being remodeled. Money to replace the pool furniture was brought up again.
August 29th, 2007 our Hospitality Manager stated that we had some pool issues in the month of July. He has been training Maria Onofre on the chemicals and getting the problems under control. We are looking into installing an automated chemical feed system and just cleaning the pools with housekeeping.
August 29th, 2007 General Manager said to all present that Berry Pools gave their bid and presentation at the Workshop. It was said this would save our village 30% on chemical cost. Motion was passed to accept this bid.
February 2008 maintenance replaced indoor spa blowers and found water leaks for the pool and hot tubs.

I've found these to be most of the repairs that have happened to our pool facilities from 2002 until present. We are now currently being asked to pay over $30,000 to repair the outdoor pool bottom again along with some pumbing upgrades.

I question the cavalier manner to which Village management has approached this six year problem. This bottom application had problems since the beginning. Our Village paid a lot more to have this type of bottom coat added. It was installed because our Village was told it by South Texas Pools that it would last a lot longer than the normal plastered application. It didn't even last four months.

Dave Fletcher was our General Manager at the beginning of this project . Now I have to say that I would be the first not to want to inherit someone else’s mistakes or problems, but our current management was running this park for five months before they supervised the second large patchwork nearly four years ago. This patchwork was done while still under South Texas Pools warranty.

The problem with the pool bottom seemed very apparent and it was also no secret that South Texas Pools did the application to the bottom incorrectly.

Why in the world wasn't something done to correct this problem before the warranty ended? Why wasn't South Texas Pools asked to redo the whole bottom when it appeared unfixable. Should we owners just say “oh well” and “how much?”
Should we find out what our attorney said after being asked about going after the contractor on December 20th, 2006?
Should we ask how many bids did our management receive for their new $30,000 + project?
What other questions should we ask? Leave a comment.

Read more on this article...

This March 26th Board of Directors meeting was very interesting. It started with President Sullivan requesting to discuss some legal matter in an executive session after the meeting.
Our General Manager went through his manager’s report. Some items covered were fines, sand from the pool filter being the reason why the pool were always dirty, and spraying our common areas three times for what he called clover. Director Hansen questioned items in a management report.
The next thirty-five minutes was spent on beating a dead horse about a lock for our boat ramp.
Don Pelletier made a comment on the having of a contractor’s certificate of registration.
Armando gave the usual report of the gazillion thing done in two hours. Director Hansen pointed out that these every two hour job completions were “garbage”. Director Hansen questioned why the shower stall drains were not fixed. Armando said he would check into it.
Les Heier gave his report. Director Hansen asked questions pertaining to his management procedures of the Village Grill. He was also asked if he was obtaining a pool certification. The reply was no.
Director Dodson said she thought he had already been qualified with the course he took. She must have remembered our General Manager saying Les past a pool test last year along with several other employees during a Board meeting.
Our General Manager said you only need a certified pool operator (CPO) on site, and not involved with any duties. He said a certification course doesn’t teach how to test and balance the water or how to take care of the pools. He said it goes into how to calculate water volumes, size of pools, and so forth.
Director Dodson complimented the D&E Committee
President Sullivan said the Golf Committee fundraising and donations totaled a whopping $42729. They have about $16000 left for future cement.
Director Steffensen did a rather great job with the treasurer report. Besides doing the normal report, she addressed some questions mention in this blog and did it without showing any displeasure. She went on to answer thoroughly many pointed questions from Director Hansen and others. She put a tremendous amount of her free time to accomplish this and should be saluted for these efforts.
Director Peterson asked about the new copier and continued with asking questions on the scanning of our records. Subject was tabled.
Appointments were made for Asst. Secretary, Asst. Treasurer, and two positions on the Bridge Board.
Year end reports were accepted.
Motion made to increase permit fees and have the increase put into a road repaving fund. It passed.
Amendment to our building rules was tabled.
Information of contractor’s certificate of registration on permits was passed. It will start in Sept.
Fines for construction vehicles that are parking illegally were tabled.
The never ending pool issue surfaced with a motion to employ someone to train current pool employees. It passed.
Motion to have employee and manager sign off on cleaning the pool and bathrooms passed.
It was requested to advertise in our LIV newsletter for volunteers with them giving their background expertise.
Director McBride talked about Aramark’s contract with our Village and talked about management’s non performance of our common grounds upkeep. The managements excuse for non performance was not being able to hire help. The reply to that was do your job or you will be replaced.
The General Manager talked about an employee leaving us and going to the border patrol. He went on about how the border patrol had reduced their hiring criteria.
Other items touched on was effluent water running through the old sewage pipes on the swing bridge, the cable bids, and phase 3 at our pump station.
The meeting ended with an executive meeting request for a personnel issue and not the legal issue.
Please note, I basically gave the meat of the meeting and not the sizzle. From the beginning of this meeting our management seemed to be under fire from three or four of the Board members. Specific questions and comments were made on management’s performance and procedures. It appeared to me Director Burke became our General Manager’s defense attorney near the end of the meeting. She seemed to become very agitated. It was a very dicey meeting.
In this meeting our gate staff and Village patrol was again referred to as security 6 times by our Board and management.
I’ll save my comments about this meeting for a later article.

The March 19th Coffee with the Directors was a breath of fresh air. It started with the suggestions being read with who wrote them. Questions asked by owners were given an answer right away instead of being passed and lost to management or by expressing “we’ll look into it”. A special thanks to Vice President Young and the rest of the Board.
Most of the items brought up in our open session were the following:
The boat ramp gate was being left open for anyone to use it.
Have a separate room just for Villagers to use their computers.
The problem with the gate staff (they said security), opening both gates at the same time.
What is the progress on switching to another cable company? Answer was waiting for bids.
Vehicles are parked sticking out into the street.
Chicken night tickets that were being sold to a large group at the door.
Office employees mistreating our customers at the Welcome Center.
The board would like suggestions and your input for the LIV’s new web site.
Address the parking of construction vehicles.
It was asked starting an escrow account for road repair.
It was asked that management keep in compliance to the upkeep of our common grounds.
There was a question about our water meters.
It was asked if boats are charged for parking in our parking lot and if so, where is the money is going? There was a question about past improper dredging,
The subject of the need of effluent water was brought up.
An owner was upset by the way management treated him towards managing his rental property.
Quite a while was spent on condition of the pool and training for pool and housekeeping employees. Management said the new employee was on time the first day, but was late the following two.

Workshop
Mr. Perez, who sells for Time Warner, did a pitch for his cable company. Director Dodson said she wanted to get more bids.
Most of the Items discussed I the workshop were the pools, a lift to cut the palm trees, builder rules, pump station pumps, the suggestion box, a siren system, forming more committees, having activities for kids to play golf and tennis, having dances for renters, the watering of our grass, time change for Board meetings, and the mailer received of the homestead tax cap notice. Director Burke took the credit for getting the Laguna Madre Water District to except $5000 for hauling our sewage. Read more on this article...

Laguna Madre Water District Meeting
The meeting with the Laguna Madre Water District in March was a success! The meeting being held was to resolve a mistake made for negotiating a deal with an unauthorized employee of the Laguna Madre Water District to truck our sewage when our main pipe was reported broken. The Director and two Village managers involved with this mistake were in attendance. The unauthorized negotiated price thought to had been a firm deal was to Villagers to have been around $400 a day to last for two and a half days. Since no contract was signed with this unauthorized L.M.W.D. employee, the Laguna Madre Water District found fit to charge our park $23,000 at first and then reduced it to $18000.
Vice President Young was there representing our Village and renegotiated the transaction down to $5000. You did a great job Vice President YOUNG and I hope these three who made the mistake thanked you.

Read more on this article...

ACCIDENT Posted 3/11/08

It was reported a man had a seizure while driving this SUV and ended up landing on top of the concrete fence post. The good news luck was on the side of at least four people. The vehicle just missed running up the back of a little convertible driven by an owner, snapped a light pole that missed hitting pedestrians, then avoided plowing into a park model viewed in this picture that supposedly had two children sleeping in it. The driver seemed to receive only minor lacerations and seemed ok.

Read more on this article...

OUR VILLAGE "SECURITY " (3/09/08)

This is one of the many attorneys who are advertising for injuries due to security negligence. Plenty of Texas attorneys are advertising.
***********************************************************
Negligent Security
Lawrence M. Simon - New Jersey Negligent Security Attorney
If you or anyone in your family has suffered serious or fatal injuries in a violent crime that could have been prevented with proper security measures, contact a North Jersey premises security liability lawyer at the Law Offices of Lawrence M. Simon.
When a crime is committed in a place such as an apartment building, retail center parking lot, office building, hotel, or other facility that provides security services for its patrons or tenants, a breakdown in the property owner's security system not only can encourage criminal activity, it can also result in the property owner's liability to the crime victim for negligence.
Our New Jersey premises liability attorneys will analyze the circumstances of your injury to see what private patrols, surveillance cameras, and on site monitors did or didn't do to protect you from attack. We work with law enforcement and perform our own investigation to determine whether inadequate security played a role in the events leading up to the crime. We'll also see whether past incidents at this location, or in the surrounding area, should have put the property owner on notice that its building or parking facilities were potentially dangerous to customers or visitors.
Shoppers, apartment tenants, hotel guests, and other citizens should not pay the heavy price of victimization due to a false sense of security fostered by a property owner or private security service. Bergen County negligent security lawyer Lawrence M. Simon will examine the hiring and staffing practices, cameras and lighting, monitoring equipment, and security policies of the property owner in order to establish its liability. We will also make a thorough analysis and presentation of your damages so that every component of your loss is considered for proper compensation.

**********************************************************************************

Does our Village give the appearance of having licensed security?

1. We advertise on our web page our Village is a gated community.

2. Do the type of uniforms worn by our monitoring staff visually imply their authority as security?

3. Will this perception increase when this monitoring staff is seen screening people entering our gated facility?

4. Will this magnify when this uniformed staff are seen patrolling and enforcing the rules of our facility?

5. When Village management say they have installed security cameras, who is monitoring them? Security?

6. Adding fuel to the fire are the any times those in charge have addressed our monitoring staff as security. Just in our last LIV newsletter, the Security blotter mentioned twice that "Security was reported to".

Are these actions creating the illusion?

I believe most renters who pass through our "security base" would feel we have a real security staff operating. Have we gone in the wrong direction just to save a few bucks? How can we help our non-licensed management with no proven background in managing a security staff keep us out of harms way?

Have management taken the proper steps to insure our Village is as safe as possible? I think not.

It doesn't matter whether we contract with a new license security company or keeps it in house. The ultimate responsiblity of security falls on the owners of our Village.

The information below provides some good practical insight and gives proven procedural guidelines to follow. Being more proactive protecting our Village will payoff in the long run.

Texas Security

In order to work as a security officer for pay in the State of Texas you must be employed by a licensed security services contractor (security company) Your security company must license you as a non-commissioned or commissioned security officer. You are required to be registered with the state regulatory agency- The Texas Department of Public Safety-Private Security Bureau. Even if you are classified as in-house security and work for no one other than your employer, this regulation still applies to you. The private employer that you work for must have a “Letter of Authority” issued to a “Private Business” and they will still license you with the above listed regulatory agency. Same as if you were working for a Security Company.

The most critical errors made when managing a security program?
A major error is the failure of owners and managers to effectively and consistently supervise the security program. This results in gradual deterioration of the program and creates additional and significant liability issues, frequently exceeding the original liability risk.
A second crucial error is providing the illusion of security that does not in fact exist. One illusion is accomplished by overstating verbally or visually the security measures in effect and the use of dummy or non-operable equipment such as CCTV cameras.
What is our liability if we have a management company who is responsible for association matters?
While a management company may be responsible for managing your facility, the ultimate responsibility for premises liability issues cannot be transferred to the management company. The decision in Rockwell vs. Sun Harbor Budget Suites, 925 P.2d 1175 (Nevada 1996) held that the property owner could outsource the performance of security related tasks but not the ultimate responsibility for providing a reasonably safe and security housing environment.
Whose Job Is It ?
Unfortunately, managers believe that by contracting with a security service provider, they are reducing or even eliminating their liability for providing adequate security. In Dupree v. Piggly Wiggly Shop Rite Food, Inc., (Texas, 1952), the court found that the usual independent contractor relationship would not relieve property owners and managers from liability because they had a nontransferable duty to provide a safe facility environment.
No matter what training our Management has done with our staff, the following should be followed.
1. Additional training should include patrol techniques and procedures, visitor and vehicle access control, crime prevention, incident report preparation, physical security equipment and inspections, hazardous material response, company and property policies, fire prevention and suppression, use of force, basic emergency first aid procedures, reporting incidents to emergency services, and interpersonal relations specifically designed to meet the requirements of the property. Sounds a little complicated? It is and training should be done regularly.
2. Have A Security Audit. The local police or independent security agencies will often conduct a security audit of the premises, pointing out potential areas of weakness. The association facility that has such an audit performed and then complies with the recommendations made is in a good position, from a liability standpoint; if anyone later claims that an injury or theft resulted from a lack of security precautions. The audit demonstrates due diligence on the part of the association. These audits are often conducted free of charge, but are well worth any fee that may be required.
3. Do not allow management to decide what adequate performance is. It is similar to allowing employees to set their own performance standards and evaluations. It should be our Board’s responsibility to identify minimum performance standards and continually evaluate and demand compliance with these identified standards.

What are the actions necessary to develop a comprehensive security protection program for the housing association?
The security protection program is developed in the following manner:
A risk assessment is conducted to identify the potential crime factors affecting the property and the neighborhood.
Based on the collection of this information, appropriate countermeasures are recommended to the governing body of the association.
A business decision is made on the countermeasures to be adopted and the priority of their implementation.
Strategies are developed for the implementation and enforcement of association security policies and procedures.

The Benefits of Quality
The cost of providing adequate security services can be recovered in often overlooked ways. Obviously, the most significant, but unquantifiable, offset is a reduction in the costs of defending civil actions by proving the level of security was adequate for the circumstances. The cost of lawsuit prevention is extremely difficult to identify on a profit and loss statement. However, over time, it can be measured in some degree by the reduction of legal expenses.
If the Association has instituted reasonable and appropriate security measures, what are the chances for success when defending a negligent security claim?
In their study, Bates and Groussman reported that the defendant was successful in over 52 percent of the cases where reasonable and appropriate security measures were in effect.

The intent for this article is to merely address the possible liabilities being created and give the information found to put our Village in a better position. If anyone wishes to add to this concern please leave a comment.

The majority of the information above was obtained from Blake & Associates, Inc.
A full service firm specializing in security consulting and investigative support to business management and the legal profession.

Statewide Patrol, Inc. also was used.

Read more on this article...

ORIENTATION Posted Friday 3/07/08

There was a Director’s Orientation meeting at 2pm today. It was held to openly show owners the different powers we have relinquished to our elected Board of Directors. It was chaired by Martha Nell and was a positive success. The attendance could have been a little larger but I believe that was caused by the time of day. I think most of the veteran directors attended. I believe this meeting was good for all and am happy to see a positive proactive event happen. Thank you Board of Directors. Read more on this article...

Inspiring Post 3/05/08

Wednesday morning I did my usual routine of doing my laundry at the Activity Center. I was burning time walking through our Recreation Hall and noticed a bunch of workers shoveling and racking dirt at hole #10 on the golf course. This was before 8 am! I came home after doing my laundry, shopping at Walmart, and getting gas. To my surprise they were behind my house at hole #15 shoveling and racking dirt. These hard workers were owners who had volunteered their time and physical muscle to improve our golf course, which in turn improves our Village, which in turn improves our pride to live here.
These golf course improvements have not happened by chance or by mere after thought. They occurred because the people concerned with improving the beauty and quality of the amenities here find they need to sometimes do things themselves if the job is to get done. These are special people who demonstrate just how great our Village is. Words just can’t describe it. I’m inspired.
To note: these improvements have not cost the owners. Fund raisers paid for the materials used. To my knowledge a generous contribution by Ione Holeman paid for hole #15.
This should be applauded at our next Coffee W/Directors.

Read more on this article...

NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T Posted 3/4/08

For 2007 LIV posted a $410,513 income increase over 2006. . That normally would seem great except if you subtract the $332,800 sewer assessment and $123,000 condo fee increase for final six months this year, our Aramark management team seemed to actually lose our Village $45,287 in income for 2007. This is after a $29,000 increase for the Centers (Village Grill, Golf Course, Rental Office, Laundry, and Newsletter). It just appears that Aramark management generated quite a bit less income
for 2007. If the Centers are not the cause for this decrease, what is?
NOTE: In response to the first comment on this article, if I'm incorrect, I will post the corrections with an apology. By no means am I ridiculing Mary Steffensen our treasurer, to whom I also think is doing a fantastic job. I just feel we pay a lot to Aramark to generate income for our Village along with reducing our expenses and think owners should be aware of these figures and their performance. Read more on this article...

A TIDBIT Posted 3/4/08

During our annual board meeting the general manager made a 30 minute show about himself and three others as being "the Village's 7 dollar management team." He said this is what you pay each month out of your condo fees for their services. I am still mystified. One must ask how can these four whom earn a minimum of $ 175,000 a year ( about one third the total of employees salaries we pay for) cost only $7 a month out of our condo fees? New kind of math?

Read more on this article...

The winners

Well, the election is over and the winners are Ed McBride, Rick Hansen, Jim Peterson, and Martha Nell Dotson. Congratulations to the winners and special thanks to the others. It is not easy to explain ones self to a large group. There’s a lot of important things to talk about but it will have to wait until later.
Congratulations to Dennis Sullivan our new President and Dick Young the new Vice President. Mary Steffensen and Leroy Mulch have retained their positions. Read more on this article...

IT IS ELECTION TIME

02/27/07 Directors Meeting

The meeting started out this time with everyone pledging allegiance to a real flag. Richard Hansen began with questioning the wording of a sidewalk repair-replacement issue. Pat Burke answered with what the board was aware of. Larry D. made a comment. I believe Mr. Hansen argued one thing was said and another thing was done.

Larry D. went through the manager’s report. He said there was $45, 000 left to collect in outstanding fees. He described a new program for the safety meetings that he said are done once a week. They were using a slip and trip training program that's taking up about one hour of the employees work time three times a week so they can learn the best ways not to trip or slip. In closing Larry D. wanted to thank the members of the Board who were leaving.

Armando gave his as usual every job is completed in two hours report

Les Heier apologized about the Grill running out of chicken by six o’clock last Wednesday at Chicken Night. He implied theft as being the cause. Pat Burke came up with “there were reports” of people filling bags and plates in their pocket books. One director said people just ate a whole lot. It was noted our management ordered the right amount of chicken for the number of tickets sold. I guess nobody check the cooler to see if the chicken to be cooked was there.

Leroy Mulch got the Board's approval of the minutes.

Mary Steffensen corrected Larry D. that there was $73,000 in outstanding monies left to be collected. She went into the figures for the park and finalized with the Villages profit and loss report. . Pat Burke got the Board to approve the report

Dennis S. said the Golf Committee made over $20,000 in a fundraiser. This committee and the people associated have done a great job this year and should be applauded. Great Job!!!!

Mary S. said the pool committee is getting several lounges repaired. She also talked about the use of wrist bans from May-Sept. and possible procedural changes. She said there were 3,300 renters that used our pool last year. We're looking at an average of about 165 non-owners using our pools per day if their stayed here was a week. Any way you look at it, the owners will be again hard pressed to use their own pool area this May-Sept.

Pat Burke brought up the issue of Laguna Madre Water District's $23,000 charge for transporting our sewage 2.5 days (Friday July 13th- Sun July 15th) when our sewer line broke. She freely admitted they made just a verbal hauling agreement with an employee of the Laguna Madre Water District who had no authority. She once again made the comment that this mess was possibly caused by someone else. To clarify, that someone else is an owner who went to the LMWD office, presented herself as an LIV resident, and asked for permission to inquire on the particulars towards the transporting of the Villages sewage. That's all this person did and it happened on Tuesday July 17th, two days after this so called agreement had ended. This owner had absolutely nothing to do with the mess created by those in charge and had every right to make inquiries. One should question why didn't the people in charge asked this LMWD employee if he had authority to make any agreement or follow up a verbal with a written agreement during the time area of the agreement. Was some simple business common sense forgotten with Village owners money involved. If anyone knows about mistakes, I do. We all can make mistakes. Just admit them and move on and not play the a “may have” game. It ended with Pat B. will try to get them to settle for what LIV paid to have the Big Red Truck do for over 50 days. That was to truck our sewage for $2000 a day.

Larry D. and Pat B. brought up the issue of buying a new copier. After forty minutes it was left tabled for further debate.

Larry D. proposed to put all records on CD’s. The Board liked that idea but tabled it for review.

Mary S. proposed her final procedures for an asset relocation list. The Board approved it.

Variances came up and boy was that a ring around the rosy. Point of fact the board worked hard to get it right and came up with what I believe was the correct solution. Good job Board members. I believe it ended with omitting the word "rear" in describing deck area for a building code.

New business started out with wanting to sign up a new attorney Aaron Garcia to be our new repo man for foreclosures. Have you paid your dues?

A request was asked and approved to have the Port Isabel junior/senior Prom here in our lovely Village. Estimates are over 350 people will attend. This will be on May 10th from 7pm till 11pm. Expect to stay at home this night owners.

Finally Larry D. inquired if it was legal for management to purchase foreclosure property before it’s foreclosed on. What would your answer be?

I do wish to compliment Pat Burke for the change which occurred in asking the attending owners for questions and comments during the meeting for most of the subjects that were brought up. It was enlightening.

Meet the Candidates

We had more people than chairs at the “Meet the Candidates Forum” Monday night. The candidates at the podium were Martha Nell Dodson, Richard Hansen, myself, Virginia Martin, Ed McBride, James Peterson, Rita Priest, and Bud Sherry. There is one candidate giving out his flyer's named Ronnie Gonzalez who will be nominated from the floor on Saturday. When was the last time there was more than twice as many candidates running than positions needed? I believe this large turnout of both concerned owners running and concerned owners’ listening is the start of a beautiful thing. CHANGE!!!
Since I am running I will hold my opinions on the candidates except for one Ed McBride, who seemed to have done the best job of expressing himself. That said, I do wish to give special thanks to Mary Steffensen for the great job she did as curator of the meeting. Good luck to all and we’ll see what happens this Saturday.

02/20/08 Coffee with the Directors

Our Coffee with the Directors meeting started with Pledging Allegiance without a flag to pledge to. Give this one to management. You should have seen the look our G.M. Larry D. gave Les and Armando. The suggestion box had a thank you to The Church of Christ. The second was a comment about anger control and arrest histories of Candidates. Again pool cleanliness and mold was brought up, not once but twice. Someone wanted us to change the parking signs which few people obey located in front of the activity center from 5pm to 7pm. The reason was so they won’t have to walk so far to get their mail. That was it for what was in the suggestion box. I witnessed an interesting thing before the meeting. One of our Directors asked what is that box, referring to the suggestion box. This Director had no clue we even had a box for our suggestions. Oh well.

Larry D. said we had someone vandalizing the fountain in our pool area.

Selba Campbell had asked Peter Zavaletta, a person running for District Attorney in Cameron county to join our meeting and was told he could not talk to people during the meeting. Selba brought up that Port Isabel’s Joe Vega told her he was going to annex Long Island Village as his first newly elected action.

Martha Nell gave thanks to everyone for their support at the health fair.

Rick Henson asked the board to disclose the names of who writes their suggestions since the Directors have access to the knowledge.

Vivian, who heads the 7am pool exercise group, made a strong statement on her displeasure about the continuing inconsistency of the pools and spas water.

Mr. Price from lot 744 asked why not give a check list to the employee doing the pools.

Larry D. said that they are starting a new person at 3:30 am to do the pools this week.

The next person asked why we don’t heat the outdoor pool.

Jim Peterson said there was mold in the pool and bath showers.

A Mr. Hansen asked about getting the year end financials.

Pat Burke closed the meeting by laying the ground work for the “meet the candidates” meeting.

The Workshop

The workshop was a little interesting. It started with Mary S. wanted an asset removal list from management. She basically wanted the Board to review what is to be removed or moved. Interesting to note that our Board does not have an asset list of items $700 and under. These are kept in Aramark's inventory system. This should amount to a tidy sum.

Dennis Sullivan commented on the tremendous progress happening on the golf course.

Then there came the issue on variances. It seemed Pat Burke was upset that they were even discussing a variance since they just finalized the changes in the building codes. She wanted say no to the variance or change the code. Dennis S. and Dick Y. disagreed and it ended there. Larry D. who enforces the codes made some comments.

Read more on this article...