|
|
covenant gives them permission
forget the code of regulations. just look at our recorded covenant. no amendment would be needed, it's already there! our covenant already gives the board the right to hire a managment company if necessary. what do you think Section VIII part F of our covenant means? now are YOU suggesting an admendment to our covenant to remove that section about a managing agent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE:Reality Check
I'm catching up on some of these posts and would like to clear up things I believe are misleading regarding the Board?’s actions:
1) Regarding our meeting with Case Bowen (management group), Kevin also attended this meeting along with all Board members, including Bob who came in on the tail end of the meeting with Case Bowen. The Board was only fact finding about management groups since managing 161 homes can be very time consuming. For example, the prior Board was late with both 2006 invoices and holding the annual meeting since they received no assistance from other Members. It is hard and honestly, thankless work. It is also voluntary; without pay. So, as per the covenant and the bylaws, the Board has the right to explore this question for the benefit of the HOA. Personally, I don't think we can afford one with our current dues being so low, but it didn't hurt to find out the facts from Case Bowen and listen to their pitch.
Speaking of facts, to date we've only paid Rienpenhoff $4817.16 in landscaping, not $8,000 as mentioned above. And last year we paid them $6253.76. I?’m not sure where $8000 came from.
2) We haven't had any ''secret meetings.'' Michelle attended both meetings, and Kevin came to the last meeting with Michelle. However, asking for an Executive Session to review documents and set up officers does not require input from Members since its only about setting up hierarchy and internal operations of the Board.
3) We haven't threatened anyone with a lawsuit? I have only suggested hiring an attorney to check the legality of our bylaws since they were being questioned and we're not attorneys ourselves. (BTW, the MI contact, Lora Howdyshell is not an attorney.) It only makes business sense to confirm legality with an attorney because of the questioning of our documents. No personal lawsuits were ever made or implied to anyone. I'm not sure where that got started. If someone has an attorney friend counseling them, have that attorney contact the Board. Otherwise they are only speculative. So anyone can question the Board, which is your right, but when it comes to questioning the legality our actions, our only recourse is to get legal representation to make sure we are not overstepping any boundaries, which is our responsibility to the Members of the HOA.
I hope this clears up the items posted here.
Phil
|
|
|
RE:Support
Again, the Board did not threaten anyone with legal action. I did suggest that the current line of questioning about our bylaws would only require the HOA to hire an attorney to review our documents, which would be our only recourse since we're not attorneys. And since an attorney is not a common expense listed in our Annual Budget it would require the HOA to tap into our Reserve Funds. How else would the HOA pay the attorney for their time? And I cannot find the reference to the quote ''with all of our reserves from the neighborhood to stop the line of questioning'' in any of my correspondences. This idea of a personal lawsuit is greatly misinterpreted over the purpose of getting legal advice regarding any documents in question.
Also, the Board did meet with Case Bowen, along with both Michelle and Bob (who came in later because of work) and Kevin Foos who accompanied Michelle. So, her spouse, Robert Ellis did attend this meeting and did meet Case Bowen as well.
And, I'm not sure where the quote came from about ''we NEED them,'' since minutes were not taken at this meeting (by accident, since bylaws were not available to the Board prior to this meeting). That was a technicality that will not be missed at future meetings of the Board.
Yes, an Executive Session will help us quickly meet to organize our procedures and operations within the Board. And minutes will be available upon request; nothing will be hid from Members. This meeting wouldn?’t require Member input since its purpose is internal operations of the Board.
Lastly, I greatly respect Members questioning the Board. For example, if someone has a question about our storm sewers, I'd suggest we contact the city sewer department for answers. If someone contacted us about the quarry noise and weekly blasts, I'd suggest we contact the quarry company for answers. If someone questions the legality of our documents I'd suggest we?’d contact an attorney to review them with the HOA. Who else, but an attorney, can answer those questions?
It seems the topic of our bylaws has died down lately, with my call for a truce, but I want to correct what I believe to be misleading statements posted on this website about the actions of the Board.
Phil
|
