Activists at Stillwater lakes Forum
August 06, 2020, 11:33:35 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Only registered members are allowed to access this forum. Please login below or click -here- to register an account with Stillwaterlakes.net.
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Important notice regarding June 21st Cooperative vote  (Read 15592 times)
Spitfire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« on: June 14, 2008, 10:22:08 PM »

Well folks...other than the raw sewage, the lies and deceit are beginning to surface.

In today's meeting/Informational workshop it was brought to the light by yours truly that every home owner whether in good standing or not, had the right to vote at the upcoming Cooperative meeting on Saturday, June 21st at the clubhouse.

At this point I would like to present the confirmed facts:

1-The board and attorney were fully aware of their option to convert to cooperative as of January 28th 2008.

2-They kept it all a big secret, though they were given 120 days to get it done, until the last minute.

3-They sent out notices to ONLY a select few "home owners in good standing" (I spoke with many home owners in good standing that never received the first notice).

4-They schedule the meeting for May 31st in which they would have ONLY needed 35 members to vote for cooperative.

5-State steps in and lets them know that all members have to be notified, so they get a 30 day extension so that they could notify all members.

6-They still ONLY send out notices to a select few, but within said notice they specifically state that only those members in good standing could vote. (Per Bi-law definition, a member in good standing is one who is paid up on all fees and/or dues on or before June 1st of each year.) (This year, June 1st fell on a Sunday, so June 2nd was the official day to be paid up)

7-Several members requested more information about the cooperative issue and attorney (Andrew Ralston) refuses to give any info until day of vote.

8-Board and/or Attorney comes to their senses and decide to arrange for informational workshops (June 14 and 18th). They send out a memorandum (written by attorney Andrew H. Ralston himself) in which subject read, "Upcoming PUC information meetings-Payments for upcoming meeting June 21)

9-Though Bi-laws specifically state that a member in good standing had to be paid on or before June 1st, they once again try to deceive us by stating in memo, "If you wish to pay your dues before the meeting in an effort to vote, we will be accepting only cash and money orders up until the day before the meeting". Hmmm? (Sounds more like a deceiving way at getting members to pay/give them more money to mismanage)

10-At today's meeting, I brought up the point regarding the current law that the attorney claims they must follow. I specifically read the part which clearly states that every home owner, regardless of bylaws (good standing or not) had the right to vote. The attorney then stated that he did not write anything stating that only members in good standing could vote and that in fact, he was recommending that the board allow all homeowners to vote, as it was the law.

It is clear that someone is surely trying to keep us in the dark of what going cooperative truly means. Just because the attorney and board are willing to put a few clauses in writing means nothing! Based on the 10 facts above alone, anyone would be out of their mind to trust this bunch.

My vote, regardless of the spectacular presentation, scare tacticts, lies, false promises or anything else up their sleeves, is "NO to cooperative".

I say bring on PUC and "OPEN THE BOOKS NEPA!!!!!"

Spitfire Angry



« Last Edit: June 23, 2008, 10:30:35 AM by Spitfire » Logged
Spitfire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2008, 07:18:49 AM »

I forgot to mention another very important fact.

Everyone that attended yesterday's meeting (June 14), should be wondering...the board and attorney had so much time (120 days + 30 day extension) to get all their ducks in a row about this great decision. Why is it that the attorney's answers to many of our questions were---"I'm not sure, I don't know, I'm not an expert in that, I'll have to get back to you..."?

Something really stinks, and it aint just the raw sewage spewing through the pipes they didn't get fixed right, or at all for that matter. (Where's the docket number for the SUPPOSED law suit against the contractor that did not properly fix the pipes for the $1.4 million they borrowed specifically for sewer?)

We've seen the wrong way, and here's...what should have been, the right way.

They find out on January 28th about the co-op option...by January 29th they should have begun notifying the homeowners of this by, at the very least, stating that they would be working out the details and keeping us informed as they went along (During the first 120 days).

All the details should have been made up into an informational booklet to be sent out to ALL home owners.

Most importantly...they should have known from the very start that they had to follow Pennsylvania law. (What do we pay our attorney for?) Okay...so I'll give the benefit of the doubt---until the scheduling of the original meeting (May 31st) they didn't know; however, they were very well aware of it when they rescheduled for June 21st. That said, why did the very attorney himself lie to everyone in the memorandum he wrote, where he clearly showed that they were not going to let anyone vote unless they were paid up (in good standing)?

With all due respect...I truly pitty those that still believe our attorney (who happens to also be Management's attorney--conflict of interest) and the current board are truly looking out for the best interest of the entire community (Not just the select few that defend them to the very end).

I spit again...Vote "NO!!!" for cooperative on June 21st.

« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 07:22:49 AM by Spitfire » Logged
Inquizative
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91



« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2008, 08:00:38 AM »

I just wanted to say a few things.

      1.  The water company was sold here, has anyone complained?  NO, I have not heard anyone in any of the meetings complain.  HMMM!  Pocono Farms sold their water company and I know of many residents there that said it was the best thing.

      2. Has anyone contacted Mr McNulty to attend the meeting on the 21st? So we can get two versions of the story.

     3. Has anyone contacted a seperate lawyer to represent the community member's interest(someone who is proficient in Association Law)?

I am still worried about the fact that the community will be deemed a CO-OP(even if it states in bi-laws we can use any realtor, garbage company ect. ect...the lawyer said he would put in the Bi-Laws)!  I am affraid people will see the name and run because of the history in its name.  That will make house values drop.  The Pennsylvania Secretary of State website states that "Pennsylvania is trying to absolve CO-OP's"(www.pa.gov) due to the catasrophic failures in the past.  Maybe that is why the PUC is trying to lead us the otherway?

     4.  If the PUC regulates our sewer facillity and the industrial plant taps into it; companies would have to pay up for any improvements(much like Kohls did at the intersection in Bartonsville).  I don't see the harm in ME paying less because the industrial park makes upgrades.
Logged

•   People’s deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations and images influence how they see the world and what actions they take (McNurlin, B. & Sprague, R. 2006).
•   The only sustainable competitive advantage is the ability to organize effectively, respond to change, and manage well (Lawler, 2003).
Spitfire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2008, 10:34:10 AM »

Hello April,

The situation with the water was a bit different, but one and the same. Only a select few of the "Members in good standing" were notified. Either way, the change of water companies made no significant change.

The sewer issue is a lot bigger...well, it's not exactly just the sewer; it's this whole cooperative conversion that is causing such a stir.

As far as Mr. McNulty attending is concerned; a call was made to the office and the response was that PUC didn't exactly have jurisdiction of the meeting. (There WILL be follow up calls though)

Having our own attorney present at the meeting would be pointless as; in my own honest opinion, the huge majority will be voting "NO" to coop.

If you can recall, during the Security vote meeting we were clearly deceived. Three seperate board members had stated that the meeting was not to specifically vote for Vector, but to ONLY vote for security. They were supposed to get three seperate bids, which to date, that information has still not been presented. I do have to say that if my home alarm was provided by Vector; I would have probably supported a vote for them as well.
Why should anyone think that this coop vote is any different?

We need the PUC to "Regulate" the fees we pay for sewage, and I totally agree that we should look forward in paying less if industrial taps in.

Spitfire...



Logged
Mike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2008, 11:48:06 AM »

Hi everyone.

After this last informational meeting regarding the CO-OP, I ,more than ever, am supporting a vote for "No Co-op".

May 1st the board voted to recommend going co-op.  We were originally scheduled to vote on this May 31st.  TWO WEEKS later, the lawyer still has too many "I can't answer that"s, "I don't know"s, and "I don't have that information"s.  How can anyone recommend something that they themselves don't fully understand???

Asking us to make what he calls "no practical change in the Association" when the mere fact that the law itself requires a 2/3 vote and that every member in good standing or not is allowed to vote means this in not a small change.

The fact that they have been keeping this from members, up to the last minute and letting members think that only good standing members have a right to vote, shows me that they are hiding something or they don't know what they're doing.

They kept on saying that the 5-10 million dollars needed to repair our sewer pipes have nothing to do with the Co-op/PUC vote.  In fact it has everything to do with the vote. If PUC comes in they will make sure that money is managed properly and spent on the sewer system.  As a Co-op they can manage the money the same way they manage this community (look at the roads, sewer, common areas) and I think many would agree with me when I say "we don't want that".

And lastly, I agree with April, it's clear that NEPA's lawyer does not represent us.  I think it would be wise to have legal representation from a lawyer who knows Cooperative Law.
Logged
Inquizative
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91



« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2008, 07:00:31 AM »

Pertaining to the Lawyer:

     I have had professional council give me a legitimate Law contact.  I had called to make an appointment however, I do not have the $90.00 counsultation fee she requires.  Her experience is in PUC administraion and property associations.  Even if we vote no for the co-op she could give us a legal perpective of what to expect from the PUC and future endevors.  (This is just a recomendation) If a group of people get together and split the cost at least a counsultation could explain your rights before and after the vote. (I stress this is just a recomendation)           
       
  Mary Louise Parker
804 Sarah Steet Suite 303
Stroudsburg, Pa 18360
(570)424-9100
Logged

•   People’s deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations and images influence how they see the world and what actions they take (McNurlin, B. & Sprague, R. 2006).
•   The only sustainable competitive advantage is the ability to organize effectively, respond to change, and manage well (Lawler, 2003).
puchichis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96



« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2008, 08:24:41 PM »

Today, i had witnessed what our board was up to. We were all invited to vote on a referendum for SLCA to convert to co-op status. Guess what? The board voted yes for us without our permission. It seems that the dictatorship, that is the SLCA board. Want to represent us without our own say. Let me say, that i, as a property owner and resident of my beloved SLCA, will not take this lying down. We the property owners and residents of SLCA have started a petition to vote out the board members for not allowing us to vote in the June 21st meeting and withholding vital information with regards to the co-op conversion. I was going to vote no. And i had no voice. If i pay dues as well as many of my other SLCA members. We demand a right to vote and be heard in the affairs of this community. The board is not the sole governing entity in this development. We the due paying members and rank & file residents of this development are the sole authority that can vote and ratify any and all motions concerning our development. Not the board to vote for us as they see fit. Today's meeting and vote was nothing short of a waste of time. Why the board posts a meeting to vote on the community bulliten board, when in fact, we were not allowed to vote and the board voted for us anyway. Kind of communistic the boards actions were today. To make it short and simple i and many of my fellow homeowners are hopping MAD as hell. I implore all of you to assemble peacefully in unity and protest our conversion to co-op status at the NEPA offices, at board meetings and to march in our neighborhood in a show of strength and solidarity against the SLCA board members lack of respect they have for the dues paying members. There should be no duesation without representation. We need representation and we need a new board panel. I want every one of you to sign the petition handed out today at the end of the meeting in the club house and help us vote out the current board members. We must show strength in numbers and show that we care for this community and we can do better. There are many professionals that live among us willing to take a responsible position in our community board. We have Doctors, Engineers, lawyers and paralegals, law enforcement, active and retired Federal, state and city employees and a vast array of other professionals willing and competant enough to take the reigns of board members.
Today, i'm at my witts end. And, i had a bellyfull. The time for change is now. NEPA management needs to go also. As well as Wilkins. Together, we can do the impossible. If you pay dues, who protects your rights? Not the current regime! Let's show we are a community and we have the strength to combat the forces of dictatorship that occupy the board seats today.

Yours in community
Angel, Section  C   
Logged
angelbrats1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2008, 11:56:14 PM »

I was unable to attend the meeting for the Cooperative Vote... What was the outcome of the meeting?
Logged
puchichis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96



« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2008, 07:36:01 AM »

The board voted for us. They voted to go co-op.
Logged
GeorgiePorgie
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80


« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2008, 07:53:47 AM »

In reply to Angelbrats1

You and I, along with many others, were very lucky to miss it unless you like to watch a drama show Live !
It was a shame, police were even called in, if you or anyone would like to see what went on, we do a video of some of the events of one hour, it will be available in DVD format soon.
The Video is not a high quality one, ( we do not have light engineers, sound engineers and camera people )  but it shows plenty of the sad chaos that went on.

Voting did not take place, and the attorney was not present, the cancellation of the voting procedures was apparently decided as early as Thursday, but as usual, and I hate to believe it, it's becoming a pattern.
Notices were posted regarding the cancellation and the time extension, images of the notices will be posted soon.

High Quality video DVD's of the Wednesday meeting are availabe now ! they are unedited, 2 hours long, we are working on an index to include with the DVD for easier searches or forward to a special part in the video.

Check your email for YouTube announcements soon, many past events and planned future events will be explained soon.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2008, 11:38:33 PM by GeorgiePorgie » Logged
STONEHEAD2505
Guest
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2008, 10:31:12 AM »

Sat. meeting and vote cancellation,me personally, for the first time i enjoyed
an asso. meeting.There were enough member to have a quorum!! All members
were certainly on the same page and there point was well made and I am
certain the BOARD got the message!As for the four squad cars from Regional
Police,the officers kept asking management who do they want removed,all they
saw was a group of people questioning issues!! Some a little louder than others.
The officers left after 15 min. or so. The day let me talk to many members who
care and want change for the better.Reminded me of the 60s,I felt invigorated
by the event!!!
           POWER TO THE PEOPLE
               RIGHT ON !!!
         
Logged
Mike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2008, 05:07:13 PM »

Hi Everyone,
This is an update on where this issue stands.

The PUC has granted SLCA another extension.

Just to clarify, the Board did not vote to go co-op, the four signatures that were discussed at Saturday's meeting was a vote to go forward with a special meeting for the members to decide if we should convert to a co-op.  This decision was based on the advice and recommendation of Wilkins/NEPA's attorney Andy Ralston.  I believe much of the information the board is getting from Ralston is highly exaggerated or just wrong.  For example, at the last informational meeting Ralston told the members that being certificated by the PUC will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.  I was told by the legal council for the PUC that, that number is "Highly inflated" and the actual cost would be "Nowhere near that".  Ralston told many members that this is a change in name only, which is not true.  The change to Cooperative means we will be regulated by Cooperative Law and no longer regulated by the Planned Communities Act.  Big difference.

The notice SLCA posted at Saturday's meeting stated that the CAI is beginning to work with the legislature to modify the PUC statute so community associations like ours are PUC Exempt.  I talked with the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania & Delaware Valley Chapter for the CAI, and he told me "that is not true".  He said they are not working on any PUC statutes that deal with making community associations like ours PUC Exempt.

Hopefully, I will have more information when I talk to the PUC.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2008, 05:09:01 PM by Mike » Logged
STONEHEAD2505
Guest
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2008, 10:09:08 PM »

Mike, I must admit I am more interested in submitting the petition,to hold a special meeting to remove the board members for there lack of fiduciary duty!! I think most members sat. felt the same way, thats why they all signed
the petition. We have had four meeting on the sewer resolution,5/31 6/14
6/18 & 6/21 and accomplished nothing,except anger and frustration.
We need to move forward and fix things!


« Last Edit: June 24, 2008, 05:02:07 AM by STONEHEAD2505 » Logged
Spitfire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2008, 11:19:02 PM »

I totally agree with StoneHead.

The way I see it, if the board is solely operating on the current legal advice...unknowingly, then they should act quick to make a change of that situation.

However; if they are fully aware that something is surely wrong here, but still move forward keeping us in the dark, then without a doubt, they all have to go.
Logged
Mike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2008, 01:20:39 AM »

Most of the members I talked to Saturday wanted to remove the current board not just question them, but if you feel that everyone just wanted to question the board then I can change the petition.  It does not make sense, because we can question them at the annual meeting scheduled for Saturday July 12th.

Everyone has there opinion, but I think it would be crazy to call a special meeting to question the board about there "lack of fiduciary duty!!" when you could call a special meeting to remove directors for not exercising there fiduciary duty.  At a special meeting you can only act on the business that is stated in the notice.  If we say the purpose of the special meeting is to question the board members that is all we can do.  If we state it as a special meeting to remove board members for not exercising their fiduciary duty, we can question them and remove them.  But I will state the special meetings purpose the way the members want me to, because that is what a civic community should do.

If you were present on Saturday, and signed the petition please let me know if you wanted to question board members or remove board members for not exercising there fiduciary duty?

Thank You
« Last Edit: June 24, 2008, 01:31:51 AM by Mike » Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!