Today, May 17, acting Treasurer, Kay Crook, emailed EPE Members with notice of a change in the HOA Bylaws. I reviewed the revised Bylaws, dated May 3, which were not posted for two full weeks, although they are effective for the elections on May 24.
The primary changes ELIMINATE VIRTIALLY ALL RIGHTS OF EPE OWNERS WHO HAVE NOT PAID DUES, which disenfranchises the vast majority of Owners. As of the April 19 Board meeting, approximately 45 of 305 Owners had paid Dues (15%). If you don?’t pay dues, you can?’t even view meeting minutes.
Other changes would have the effect of modifying the Covenants with respect to eligibility to be and to vote for Covenants Committee members, which is directed solely by the Covenant #1. The Bylaws cannot change the Covenants, but that is what has been attempted. In reality, the Covenants prevail, but the upcoming elections will be conducted under the revised Bylaws, valid or not.
Why did the Board change the Bylaws on May 3, the day before they announced the elections, and then not notify the Owners for two of the three weeks prior to the election? And why did they change primarily sections that affect eligibility to run for and hold office and vote, when a wide range of changes were proposed at the February General Meeting? Is it hard to see this covert action as anything but sinister. It simply is not in the best interests of the HOA, which is a prescribed duty of the Officers under Bylaws Section 2.08, to disenfranchise 85% of the Owners.
At the March 15 Board meeting, no quorum was present and the minutes indicate no discussion or action on Bylaws. At the April 19 meeting, again no quorum (Kay Crook is not elected and is not an Officer, per Section 1.18 of the Bylaws), so no official action could be taken. A review of those minutes gives no indication of the intent to change the Bylaws in the manner in which they were modified just two weeks later.
My point is not to question what they did or even if they have the authority to do it (except where Covenants are affected), but to question the timing and effect on the elections. If they had only kept the current Bylaws in place until after the elections, Covenants would be the only issue. But, on a related front, one Board candidate asked to review the HOA liability insurance policy and was denied. Is this any way to run a democratic organization?
Finally, the validity of VP, Jim Pennington, is in question as to whether he was elected or appointed. Johan Holmquist, who attended the 4/19 Board meeting, reported that Jim?’s term expires in March 2008, although the official minutes are silent on terms. And there was no General Meeting where an election could occur in March 2006 (2-year terms). There are no minutes available for the February 22, 2006 General Meeting, but my personal notes indicate that a request for VP nominations was made and none were offered. I was at the meeting and do not recall any Officer elections taking place. So, is Jim an elected Officer, or an acting VP?
So, you can dismiss the election or you can come to the meeting, pay your dues if you haven?’t already, and change the results. You could even announce your candidacy and make the changes directly, if elected. The next Board can address the improprieties, as appropriate. It?’s your choice.
The primary changes ELIMINATE VIRTIALLY ALL RIGHTS OF EPE OWNERS WHO HAVE NOT PAID DUES, which disenfranchises the vast majority of Owners. As of the April 19 Board meeting, approximately 45 of 305 Owners had paid Dues (15%). If you don?’t pay dues, you can?’t even view meeting minutes.
Other changes would have the effect of modifying the Covenants with respect to eligibility to be and to vote for Covenants Committee members, which is directed solely by the Covenant #1. The Bylaws cannot change the Covenants, but that is what has been attempted. In reality, the Covenants prevail, but the upcoming elections will be conducted under the revised Bylaws, valid or not.
Why did the Board change the Bylaws on May 3, the day before they announced the elections, and then not notify the Owners for two of the three weeks prior to the election? And why did they change primarily sections that affect eligibility to run for and hold office and vote, when a wide range of changes were proposed at the February General Meeting? Is it hard to see this covert action as anything but sinister. It simply is not in the best interests of the HOA, which is a prescribed duty of the Officers under Bylaws Section 2.08, to disenfranchise 85% of the Owners.
At the March 15 Board meeting, no quorum was present and the minutes indicate no discussion or action on Bylaws. At the April 19 meeting, again no quorum (Kay Crook is not elected and is not an Officer, per Section 1.18 of the Bylaws), so no official action could be taken. A review of those minutes gives no indication of the intent to change the Bylaws in the manner in which they were modified just two weeks later.
My point is not to question what they did or even if they have the authority to do it (except where Covenants are affected), but to question the timing and effect on the elections. If they had only kept the current Bylaws in place until after the elections, Covenants would be the only issue. But, on a related front, one Board candidate asked to review the HOA liability insurance policy and was denied. Is this any way to run a democratic organization?
Finally, the validity of VP, Jim Pennington, is in question as to whether he was elected or appointed. Johan Holmquist, who attended the 4/19 Board meeting, reported that Jim?’s term expires in March 2008, although the official minutes are silent on terms. And there was no General Meeting where an election could occur in March 2006 (2-year terms). There are no minutes available for the February 22, 2006 General Meeting, but my personal notes indicate that a request for VP nominations was made and none were offered. I was at the meeting and do not recall any Officer elections taking place. So, is Jim an elected Officer, or an acting VP?
So, you can dismiss the election or you can come to the meeting, pay your dues if you haven?’t already, and change the results. You could even announce your candidacy and make the changes directly, if elected. The next Board can address the improprieties, as appropriate. It?’s your choice.
