Activists at Stillwater lakes Forum
October 20, 2017, 09:23:33 PM *
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 10707 times)
STONEHEAD2505
Guest
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2008, 04:47:07 AM »

Mike,you are correct!If the board is not,or has not done there fiduciary duty and
are questioned on it,I just assumed that once questioned and proven
that the board has failed the membership they woud be removed!!
  You have my full support and whatever way you state the petition is ok by me.You have done more for the community by stating facts and researching
information,helping all of us to do the right thing.   

Logged
Spitfire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2008, 07:56:16 AM »

Mike,

Please allow me to clarify what I was agreeing with. I was under the impression that we had to question them to actually have them step down; however, being that we have enough evidence to prove the lack of feduciary duties, I would prefer "Step Down!".

According to "the video tape", Ron stated that the board members could each be liable for not following the bi-laws. I don't think their legal insurance would cover for knowingly breaking them.

I'd like to say more...but it's time for our own "Executive sessions".  "No Board members allowed!" Grin
Logged
Inquizative
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91



« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2008, 07:11:29 AM »

"When the people fear the government you have tyranny. When the government
fears the people you have liberty."

- Thomas Jefferson
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).
NewYork
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #18 on: June 27, 2008, 08:39:03 AM »

I was at the meeting on 06/21, and again like every other meeting the board did not answer all our questions.

The time for talking is over.

I signed the petition to remove the board.  Hopefully once they are gone and replaced with members who want the best for “OUR” community we can then work on getting rid of NEPA.

Don’t waste this opportunity that we have, we have enough signatures.  Why call a special meeting to just question the board when we can vote to remove them?  Each meeting we question them and it gets us no where.  For heaven sakes when the questionings got too hot and heavy for them on 6/21 the police were called to shut us up.  Thankfully, the cops didn’t see anything wrong with a group of members trying to get information on what is going on with “OUR” community.

Enough questioning and talking.  Let’s vote to remove this board for a new one.
Logged
Dee Hannigan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #19 on: June 27, 2008, 11:58:46 AM »

I have been reading these posts all week, and I think I was at a different meeting on the 21st than you all were.  What I saw was an orderly meeting turn into a shout fest by some 'neighbors'.  These people disrupted the meeting to the point police was called in, and the board canceled the entire meeting.  The profanity was absolutely disgusting, and no matter how many times the board told us the co-op option was tabled, people kept talking them down.  This board is not a paid body, they are also SLCA residents who want the best for our community, this isn't the ENRON board.  I don't know a single one of these men and women, but would bet they love our community as much as we do.

The board told us all who were willing to listen, that yes, they had voted for the co-op thinking that was their only option, then after they looked further into the issue, they found there was a state-wide group trying to change the co-op rules.  They received an indefinite time frame from the PUC for tabling this vote until the changes are investigated state-wide.  A paper was passed around to that effect, and it was read by the board secretary.  Despite this, the body kept shouting 'no co-op', which was a moot point at this time.  Luckily, a community member spoke up and asked everybody to calm down, that she wanted to attend the meeting we were all there for, and to stop the profanity and shouting.  After this, we had some semblance of a meeting.  Yes, the police was called, and I believe it was proper at that time considering the demeanor of the 'crowd'.  It was only after they appeared that the shouting ended.

Also, I noticed a woman introduce herself as a representative of the 'hispanic' community.  Although I am also hispanic, I am first and foremost a member of the SLCA community and will not be a part of any other group, you don't represent nor speak for me. 

As a closing note, my husband and I were absolutely ready to vote 'no' to the co-op, so I agree with you all in that respect, I don't agree with the way you are depicting the day.

Dee Hannigan
Logged
Inquizative
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91



« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2008, 01:12:24 PM »

Mrs/Ms. or Miss Hannigan:

     I do agree with your assesment of the situation on the 21st it is uncalled for the members of the community to become unrulely in such a fashion.  While we both agree that the way members acted could have been displayed with honey rather than vinegar the board could have handled the situation differently to avoid the anger that was so evidently displayed.
     1.  The board members knew this was an aggressive situation.  The opening of the meeding could have been started with guidelines(rules) first.  The President should have controlled the situation by (directing traffic of conversation)  This would have kept order.  A microphone should have been used and controled so shouting would have never been an issue.
     2.  The information leading up to this event was not backed up ($) wise by fact.  Which created animosity.
     3.   All sides of the story: The board: NEPA: PUC: The engineering firm: should have been presented to all of the members of the community, either in person or a statement signed by the heads of these areas.
    4. IF the board had solid facts and solid numbers and solid quotes from these sources:  THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO DISPUTE!
     5. This was the second meeting that the people (who were from out of state) came to and for no real solution to the problem.  Only a promise that this could happen again in the near future.(I do not know them and I am not one of them).
     The fact of the matter is that If it were not for this website (that only a handful of us have been frequenting) The whole situation would have come down as a suprise.  Imagine you attended that meeting with only the paper that the board signed stating we were considering becomeing a Co_op!  I would have been furious too.
    Two things need to be considered here:
     1. SLCA is a non-proffit corporation- which legally states they can handle monies collected in exchange for amenities and repairs.
     2. The SLCA is not a member of the "planned community act" as set fourth by Pa codes(www.pa.gov).

     #1 means a set of bi-laws must be established, in those the board is established; who make rules and regulations that must be followed in addition to twp.,state, and national laws.  These laws need to re-addressed and re-written to a clarify the Associations inttentions.
     #2 means this association only has to follow corporate rules and regualtions which returns you back to #1.

There is no public record stating that SLCA is a planned community.  If that were so it would by law(www.pa.gov) have to be stated on the sign,letterhead and bills sent to the members.  This is what Judge Caputo was stating we are "not a bona fide community".  In such we must legally become one to handle the sewer system or the PUC will take control of it, (PERIOD)

HAD ALL OF THESE ISSUES BEEN HANDLED IN A PROFESSIONAL MANOR. A DIFFERENT RESULT AT THE MEETING WOULD HAVE IN-SUED!
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 #21 on: June 28, 2008, 12:27:19 AM »

Mrs./Ms. or Miss Hannigan,

With all due respect, I have to agree to disagree. Within this site I go by "Spitfire", but my name is actually David Nieves. You may know me as the one with the video camera on Saturday.

I've viewed the video of the meeting a few times already, and can offer some factual insight. For starters; prior to the meeting on Saturday the board held two additional meetings. One was a regular board meeting and the other is what they refer to as an "Executive Meeting."

Regular board meetings; according to our bi-laws, are open for all members to attend. Participation is prohibited, but attendance is our right.

Executive meetings are for board members only.

I attended the first meeting on Saturday at 9:30am, but was not allowed to video tape it. One of the topics discussed was how the Co-Op voting meeting was to take place. One of the board members posed a question..."How are we going to handle this afternoon's meeting? Will there be Q and A sessions?" The answer(s) were something to the affect of..."No!"..."We'll just give them the notice and that's it." Then the same board member insisted that the home owners would surely have questions. The responses from other board members were that the notice was self explanitory and that there was no need for a discussion.

Now keep in mind...there were several folks that traveled well over 50 miles to get there to vote.

The only reason they even began entertaining some of the questions was based on the reactions from some of the home owners. Their original plan was to just hand out the notices and send everyone on their merry way home.

Again I must state..."With all due respect"...anyone that would believe that this board is on the up and up is in deep denial. I would hate to repeat myself, but again...they knew about it since January--did little to nothing but keep everyone in the dark until the very last minute, in which all they would have needed was a quaram of 35 members to convert this community into a coop, with or without anyone's "ready to vote no".

Two of the board members even stated that the attorney had advised them to allow all to vote. They made it sound as if they were doing us a favor and all according to the law.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE...Their original plan here was to only allow a select few of members in good standing to vote. (Their Memorandum dated June 10th clearly stated that.) It was not until a meeting on June 18th that I happened to open my BIG MOUTH and let the cat out of the bag by letting it be known that the PA Law regarding Coop conversion required all homeowners (NOT JUST THOSE IN GOOD STANDING) to vote yes or no to Coop.
(I have that meeting on video as well)

One could only imagine the legal ramifications if the board would have gone forward with their original plan to allow only those that paid their dues on or before June 20th (Contrary to the bi-laws as well as PA State Law.)

I have to agree that there were some homeowners that let their anger get the best of them; however, you must understand that they/we are truly fed up with the lack of communication, as well as the clear mismanagement of funds.

For the record...the board's meeting was adjourned shortly after they absorbed the fact that this community is not standing for their incompetance. The community member you refered to that spoke up, was the best thing that happened that day, as it allowed us all to get more insight on what the board is doing or not doing for this community. (It also gave us a chance to get it on video too)

On the June 18th meeting the lawyer left us with the impression that it would cost us 5 to 10 million dollars to repair the sewer if we allow PUC to regulate. On Saturday we were clearly told (remember...videos don't lie)"It would cost us about $10,000.00 dollars per home owner, actually, about $3 million dollars."

Now I'm no math wiz, but 10 thousand per home does not quite add up to 3 million dollars, which only tells me that there was a very poor, failed attempt at pacifying/scaring us into keeping the PUC out. Sounds like someone did not compare notes before stating numbers to us.

I leave you with this last question/ food for thought----The video clearly showed no deniying that the homeowners that attempted to look at the books were not allowed to look at them unless they agreed to sign a confidentiallity agreement. Doesn't this put you to wonder what they have to hide that they would require this type of agreement from homeowners just like you and me?

David Nieves / A.K.A Spitfire
 

Logged
THE EXPERT
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #22 on: July 26, 2008, 06:49:25 PM »

   Allow me to introduce a sense of reality into this debate.

   It is true that the community board meetings should be conducted along proper rules of behavior, as well as the proper decorum that is expected from members of this community.
         
   The chaos of  June 21, 2008, was due to the last minute cancellation of the vote. Period!

   So what is all the fuss about?

   LET THE EXPERT EDUCATE YOU ON THE FACTS:

   The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission overturned the ruling of an administrative judge in favor of Complainant Ruben Collazo. The Commission determined that the SLCA was not a “bonafide” cooperative association.  (apparently, only “cooperative” associations are exempt from PUC authority.)

   As in other cases, the PUC provided the SLCA with the opportunity to become a “cooperative association.”   The PUC provided this community with a generous period of four (4) months to acquire the necessary approval from its members, as well as to draft the necessary contract with the Stillwater Sewer Corp.

   This was a task which should not have taken more than a few weeks. This community however, was not informed of the PUC decision for over 3-1/2 months, (almost the entire 4 months) which then required an additional 60 days of extensions.  In fact, for almost two years, this community was left totally in the dark, and was never aware that a complaint has been filed against Stillwater Sewer. The entire matter was kept secret until the ruling of January 28, 2008, and then it took the board almost four months to notify the Stillwater Lakes residents.

   In addition, the Board of Directors did not present this community with the options which included becoming PUC certified.  Instead they held a secret meeting, and voted “unanimously” to become a “cooperative association,” without any input from this community as required by law.  It was presented to property owners as a done deal!

   Some well informed residents however, discovered that we were being compelled to become a cooperative community, because the PUC had ruled; quote:

    “Stillwater does not select its customers. Homeowners are free to buy and sell their homes without any involvement of Stillwater.”

   Apart from the Board of Directors, I have not met one person who wants to be a member in a community where they are not “free to buy and sell their homes without any involvement of Stillwater!”  Since our “Right of first refusal” was sold without this community’s legal approval, then don’t be surprised if the “involvement of Stillwater” really means, the involvement of Thomas Wilkins!

   I for one, remain thankful, that the Clubhouse was not burned down on June 21, 2008.

   Finally, there is a fantasy tale being peddled by members of the board.  The idea that Legislators, Lawyers and other Institutes are working to change the law so that this community will for ever be exempt from PUC authority, IS PURE FANTASY!

   The nature of the complaint filed with the PUC was based on the assumption that the Stillwater Sewer Corp., was exempt from PUC authority!   The arguments presented were, among others, that once the Stillwater Sewer Corporation was compelled to provide sewer services to a non-member based on his deed covenants, as well as his HUD Property Report, then that sewer system must immediately come under PUC authority, which is the law!

         The only legislation that can save this community from being PUC certified is a law, which would permit an exempt entity to provide utility services to not more than ten (10) customers who are not members of the association.

   The association’s own attorney has admitted before cameras, that the person who filed the complaint can not be cut-off from sewer service.  Therefore, no matter what changes are made by Legislators and or Institutes, it will have no effect whatsoever, on the fact that Stillwater Sewer Corp., will have to continue to provide utility services to the Complainant, a non-member of the association!

   Unless this community is willing to get rid of those board members that have repeatedly brought this community to the edge of bankruptcy, ( After all, they have been on the board since the beginning of time) bankruptcy is exactly what we are going to get!
   
   It is only a handful of entrenched, intransigent, board members who are using maintenance fees to fight a battle that they cannot win!  In the end; the only winner will be Ralston and his law firm!  The losers will be the roads and community amenities which will have to be sacrificed in favor of immense legal fees, in order to feed the ego of a few old iguanas.

   Remember that these are individuals, who themselves have deeds dating back to Sundance.  Yet they introduced and continue to support a corruption filled, scandal riddled, and dubious sham known as the Stillwater Lakes Civic Association, Inc.

   An organization which only survives on the principle, that uninformed residents can always be converted into a mandatory, unquestioning, silent and obedient herd of lemmings.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2008, 09:09:37 AM by THE EXPERT » Logged
GeorgiePorgie
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80


« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2008, 07:57:11 AM »

Very well written article, unfortunately, it's opposite to the thinking of the ill informed majority who make the " General consensus ". The fear of change among the many is always present, regardless what the outcome of the change may be.

As far as NEPA is concerned, I am still standing with I have posted earlier, NEPA is here to stay as long as the board of directors like to sit back and delegate the work to NEPA, with the excuse of being "VOLUNTEERS ". Many of the fees NEPA charges us, are outrageaus but for sure are legal, many procedures can be improved ( Voting neutrality/billing/accounting ) but why should NEPA makes it easy, or make anything available and accessible to SLCA residents, it's not in the best interest of Mr. Wilkins to do so, he may be working for SLCA but his main business is NEPA and not SLCA. The more division we have among the residents of SLCA, the more prosperous NEPA will become, people are chosing out of their own free will to remain ignorant to many topics in favor of their convenience.
Logged
SODOM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2008, 11:27:34 AM »

   As I have stated in the past George!

   Ignorance, indifference, and convenience, are just as much a part of the democratic process as volunteers, voting, and self-sacrifice.  That is how the will of our nation and our community is expressed!

   Again, we come to the "silent majority" who frankly don't give a xxxx!  I won't say the word because in reality, there is so much money to be made in treating it!  What our silent members contribute to this community is a lot less than that!

   It is, an unfortunate part of the Democratic process, that we as concerned citizens can not force our fellow citizens to participate.  So we are forced to deal with the toxic effects of indifference.  Levels of indifference which inevitably produces results like Bush, Chaney, Weinstein, Kluge, Schmerber.  In other words, a headlong rush towards bankruptcy!

   Unfortunately, that's what our Democracy has become!
« Last Edit: July 28, 2008, 11:31:55 AM by SODOM » Logged
THE EXPERT
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2008, 07:41:42 PM »

IMPORTANT MEETINGS?

SOON YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE, AND MANY, MANY, MORE WITH THE ENTIRE WORLD!

JUST LOG ON @:

(http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=LIVING)

A BIG HELLO, AND A HUGE WELCOME TO:

RON, DAVE, NANCY, BONNIE, MARIA, ERNIE, TOMMY, PATTY, AND LET'S NOT FORGET ANDREW!


« Last Edit: August 10, 2008, 11:37:12 AM by THE EXPERT » 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!