Activists at Stillwater lakes Forum
December 14, 2017, 02:54:57 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]
  Print  
Author Topic: Taking back our community Part 2  (Read 5737 times)
Spitfire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« on: September 13, 2008, 10:34:42 PM »

Hello Everyone, I just wanted to share something I found a while ago. It's another community going through a similar situation that we are going through here at Still Water Lakes.

For those of you who may not be aware, on August 11, 2008 we sent an email to Ron Kluge (Current President of the board) that included the petition many of us signed at the PUC/CO-OP meeting to have the current board members removed.
About two weeks ago a few of us attended a closed board meeting. As usual they had us sit outside for about an hour and 15 minutes (executive session).
When we returned, the meeting lasted no more than about 4 minutes, but we did get a chance to ask Ron on video the status of the petition. His response was that the board is not bound by any specific time period and that they had to check if all those that signed were actually in good standing.

He also stated that they had questioned some of those that had signed the petition and that supposedly they were told the petition was not exactly about what was written on the top of it.

I know Ron tries really hard and basically he's under a whole lot of pressure, but he failed to realize that we have a video of yours truly annoucing to all that attended that meeting, that if we wanted change we would like for everyone to the front table by the gate at the club house to sign a petition to remove the board. It is obvious that they are ignoring our request and that they think we're going to back down.

We also acquired some additional signatures at the "Wilkins Shows up at the last minute with a large handful of Votes" annual meeting.

I'm not saying that the vote was fixed, but it surely was broken.
I personally stood in the office an witnessed a homeowner walk into the clubhouse with her nomination while the count was going on. She was told by Patricia Gleason that it was too late; yet Wilkins shows up mysteriously with a handful of vote in hand and it was okay? Hmmmm?

We ask that if you have not yet signed the petition to "HAVE THE CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS REMOVED", that you please make every effort to contact me via email to have your name added.

Please check out this site. They are kind of in the same boat as we are, but are far, far ahead of us in their fight.

We can all learn a lot from their site as it details their efforts. More importantly...we need to catch up!!!


http://concernedcitizensofsunriselake.org/Home_Page.php

P.S. It was illegal for the board/attorney Ralston to not allow us to motion at the anual meeting.

For all that attended and/or watched the video...did you all notice that when I, David Nieves stood up front and motioned to have all spending into the whole PUC/ CO-OP issue stopped immediately, that Attorney Ralston got up quickly and stated that that was an improper motion and that we could not motion at that meeting.

Now folks...come on. Doesn't the fact that I was only able to motion to stop funding the Co-op / PUC issue, to then get immediatly shot down kind of ring some really loud bells and whistles about the lies regarding us not going Co-op?Huh

One last thing...it has been confirmed that the FBI did in fact, visit NEPA management office on or about Thursday August 28, 2008. All of a sudden the clubhouse office is closed the next day Friday and until further notice because the staff was threatend. Even those honest "volunteers" on the board don't see this for what it is. I guess that says a lot about where and what side the "volunteers" stand on.

That's all for now...please stay tuned for future updates, as well as some changes that will be made to this site.

David
Logged
Mike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2008, 08:05:02 PM »

Hello Everyone, I just wanted to share a case about a community (Southchase Parcel 45 Home Owners Association) where the Home owners were having problems with their Board of Directors, similar to our situation here.

"The former board of directors of Southchase Parcel 45 Home Owners Association filed suit (on November 30, 2001) against the "new" board elected at the special meeting held on November 19, 2001 at the Southwood Elementary School cafeteria.  Attorney James Olson, (Law Firm Wean and Malchow) who was present at the November 19th meeting, represented the interests of the former board.  He alleged that he was representing the Southchase HOA.  Mr. Olson moved the court for a "status quo" temporary injunction enjoining the "defendants" (the newly elected board), from acting as and/or holding themselves out to be the board of directors of the Southchase Parcel 45 Community Association, Inc, from taking any actions allegedly on behalf of the Southchase Parcel 45 Community Association, and/or from otherwise interfering with the lawful business conducted by the current lawfully elected and/or appointed board of directors…"
The motion was heard by the Honorable George A Sprinkel, IV. on December 6, 2001, in the Orange County Courthouse, Room 18-B.

Mr. Alan Taylor (Law Firm Litchford and Christopher), recently appointed legal counsel for Southchase Parcel 45, represented the interests of the newly elected board and the entire association - the homeowners.

Judge Sprinkel found that there was clearly more than a majority of the votes required (of the quorum) to recall/elect the board.  He also stated that the former board exposed the HOA to unnecessary litigation.  He denied their motion for temporary injunction against the newly elected board and ordered that records be turned over immediately to the duly elected board of directors. 

The Honorable Sprinkel recognized that the expense generated by the former board represented an "unnecessary defiant expense."  The court made it clear that the former board had no "justiciable issue of law or fact", and that upon the motion of the HOA it would entertain the Association's request that the individuals of the former board be held financially responsible for the court expenses.

This court action makes clear that the official board of directors for Southchase Parcel 45 consists of those members duly elected on November 19, 2001.  The newly elected board intends to serve this association to the best of its ability in an open, honest, forthright manner, focusing on the best interest of the community.
By Stephen Cluney
"[/i]

This court case shows that dictatorial board members can be ousted and that they are not "untouchable", as some attorneys try to make them. Some of these board members should realize that it could be very costly for them to not abide by the wishes of the majority of the homeowners. This court definitely stated that majority decisions should be honored in our country, even in homeowners' associations.  If a court finds individual Board Members responsible for unnecessary expenses (PUC, Suing members for exercising their rights, etc... it could be very costly for them.

Please read the COURT DECISION: http://www.ccfj.net/HOAcourtdec.htm

PS: I just received a letter from the Board fining me in the amount of $250 for videotaping the Board Meetings.  A right I have per our Bylaws.  Lets see if we can get the legal fees pasted to the individual board members who are responsible for these unnecessary expenses and who voted for the Resolution that conflicts with our Bylaws. 
Logged
Spitfire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2008, 10:45:03 PM »

Hey Mike,

Don't feel so bad. I haven't checked my mail today, but am sure I have the same bogus, violation of our bylaws, fine in my box as well.

I've had the threats of having my personal information posted on the site, I've had lies spread around that I called one of the Vector security officers the "N" word, and now this; a fine for something that even a judge in a third world country would throw out of court.

Attention board members; Do you really think you can stop us now from fighting for the rights of this entire community? As long as TDK, Sony and Maxell continue to make blank tapes, I will continue to make sure everything you say is on video, as it is our "Legal" right.
You say you will take further action...BRING IT!!!

Mike's post above is quite an interesting "Case Law". How do you think the rest of this community is going to feel about you mis-spending more of our money on legal fees...or better yet (and I highly advise you all to re-read this case) how do you think a judge will rule if you even think of taking us to court for this "unnecessary defiant expense"?

Do you really think you are only up against one homeowner this time around? Sorry to disappoint you, but you have clearly failed this community and are only pissing more and more people off.



We implore for all to attend this Saturday's meeting. We will be there rain or shine, whether the board decides to have it or not.

It's time for a change, it's time for a new board.

Spitfire

By the way...thanks to Noreen and April for not voting to change the bylaw pertaining to video taping. I guess you guys are in the clear.

Logged
puchichis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96



« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2008, 01:08:28 PM »

I was very suprised with the limited number of people that attended todays meeting.
Logged
Mike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2008, 12:19:40 AM »

Hi RNACOR12,
I agree, the turn out was very disappointing. If you don't mind, can you please write down everything you recall about the meeting!  We normally video tape the meetings, but the individual who was suppose to do it caved and we have to rely on the statements of people who were their.  Please tell anyone you know who was their, that it is important that they write down every thing they remember.  This is in the best interest of the whole community. 

Thanks for showing up...

Mike
Logged
Spitfire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2008, 10:32:32 AM »

I've got plenty to say about the meeting. Would have posted sooner, but my wife and I do have a life beyond this fight against the board and Management for what is right for the entire community.

There are some factual documents I'd like to post right now regarding an issue that came up at this past meeting on Saturday, but having trouble uploading them. I should have them up, on or before this evening.

During the board's session of the meeting they discussed several items. One being yet another suggested fine to be impossed on homeowners for garbage on their lots. It basically goes like this; if you own a lot and someone else dumps on it while you are away, you are responsible to clean it up or get fined.
Totally unfair in my opinion, but there may be some home owners who wouldn't mind paying a fine for someone else's garbage.

Another item was security. Noreen (new board member) asked if security would be up for vote next May, as many homeowners were under the impression, based on the past attorney, that the last security vote was to have Security here for one year.

That was immediatly shot down. Supposedly the vote was to have "Vector" here for one year, but that security was here for ever.

Noreen responded by saying that these folks may feel as if they were deceived because the attorney did say it was only for one year. Bonnie responded to that by saying, "Well that is why we don't have that attorney anymore." She also said, "If the people weren't sure of what they were voting on, then maybe they should not have voted, or asked more questions."

We didn't video tape, but there were many witnesses to the above. (Not as many as we should have had, but enough to prove it)


One homeowner brought up a few issues, including the $800 suggested assessment by Ron to fix the pool. Of course, he painted a different picture, and this he did forgetting  we have it on video from the last meeting.(Actually, he knew, as that is why Mike and I were both fined for)

This homeowner also questioned the PUC/ CO-Op issue, specifically asking if the members would have the opportunity to vote on it when it comes back around.

Ron danced around it a bit, but never gave us the answer we wanted, which should have been, "Yes, the members would have the opportunity to vote on the PUC/ Co-Op issue."

I was not allowed to speak during the open session---(violation of my rights once again) I asked why, Ron (President) didn't give me a specific reason, but then Bonnie (obviously not knowing she violated my right to privacy) blurted out that I was not in good standing. Someone should really tell her that this is not a common practice, as it is illegal.

I said that there would be a problem if they put me out of good standing for no reason, then Patti (Patricia) Gleason, shouted out to me, "Is that a threat?, because I have already been threatened by you before and have it in writing."

I asked, "when have I ever threatened you?"

Her response was, "Don't worry about it".

Mike then tried speaking, and was also told he would not have any of his questions answered. No reason given.

Well, as I don't have to be in good standing to excercise my freedom of speech on this site, here goes:

Of those of you that did attend the last security vote meeting, please correct me if my recollection is wrong.

I remember that there was a whole lot of shouting going back and forth. I remember that Curtis Moore told a homeowner to shut up and get out at least twice. I remember the pretty picture painted about crime statistics and the presentation which included a $10,000 grant we were supposed to get months ago.

I also remember that the vote would not have continued until a burning question of many was answered. The question posed to the board and attorney was, "How long are we voting security for?"

Attorney Andrew Ralston answered by saying, "A year!"

The admosphere calmed a bit, and then we voted. The vote favored Security by 13 votes.

Now it has come to the light that we were all deceived and that security is here for ever, and that the only thing that would be voted on is to use Vector or another security company.

As mentioned earlier, I will be posting several documents this evening that clearly show we are being deceived by the board regarding security.

Spitfire
« Last Edit: October 20, 2008, 10:39:31 AM by Spitfire » Logged
Spitfire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2008, 12:29:27 PM »

I know in my last post I said I would be posting this evening, but I did find one of the documents that clearly show we are being deceived by the board when it comes to security.

According to Maria, security is here for good and that the only thing we will be voting on is whether to use Vector again, or a different security company.

Below is a copy of an email I received a while ago from Curtis Moore (Security Committee Chairperson appointed by Maria herself)

Grammar is exactly as I received it---Only thing I did below was bold the important stuff.







From: Curtis Moore [mailto:clm4200@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 2:15 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Security Committee

I see that I am not the only person that you been writing. If you had been paying your dues on time you would have known the security is a one year contract. It will be voted on as it has been for the past two years. The time and date will be posted as it has been for the past two years. If you are member in good standing at the time of the vote, you vote just like all the other members. ( don't be late paying your dues with a new attorney your vote may not count we don't want what happen this year to happen again )
 
The only rumors about security if there is any are rumors were started my you or a members of your group. The reason I say that is all others who have been to meeting from start knew that security is a year to year contract. I just seems odd to me that you would use the word rumor When comes to security. I guess that you didn't know forever is a very long time.
 
You said that people ( I like to put a face with a person and not uses the word people) are upset with security have them come forward and we can talk about it with the head of the company. They can tell him what they upset about. We will call a meeting to hear your complaints. I guess that would be to much to ask.
 
Curtis Moore member of the security committee
Logged
THE EXPERT
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2008, 01:19:48 PM »

Spitfire:
It would appear that Curtis Moore understands the issue of Security better than any senior member of the board.

Perhaps Curtis could give us his opinion on the following; which was authored by the association's new council Allan Price Young:


§ 6     Persons bound: "unit owners" versus "members."
The UPCA states generally that it is the ownership of a unit in a planned community that subjects the owner of the unit to the power of the association. The definition of a planned community in UPCA § 5103 says "ownership" of an interest in real estate when paired with an obligation to pay shared expenses for other parts of the project means there is a planned community. There are many other examples in the UPCA where "owner" and "ownership" are key legal words. Although the UPCA does not contain a specific retroactive provision defining the parties bound by the actions of a community association, the drafters' intent is further evidenced by the language of (non-retroactive) UPCA § 5301, where membership in a unit owners' association is defined to consist exclusively of all unit owners. Section 550565 of the NCL, in contrast, provides that the bylaws of a nonprofit corporation shall operate only as regulations among the members of the corporation and shall not affect contracts or dealings with people who are not members of the corporation unless those people have actual knowledge of the bylaws. The key point here is that the broader notions found in the UPCA generalize the concept of who is bound by the action of the association, and who has a duty to obey the association, to unit ownership. With the passage of the UPCA, therefore, two relevant legal classifications have changed from more limited corporate notions under the NCL of "members" of "associations" to more expansive common interest notions under the UPCA of "unit owners" in "planned communities."

Curtis! Does this mean that according to your own lawyer, there is no longer any such thing as a "Member of the Association"?

§ 7     Corporate records.
Under the NCL, a nonprofit corporation is required to maintain certain records including an original or duplicate record of the proceedings of the members and the directors, an original or copy of its bylaws and an original or duplicate membership register.66 In addition, a nonprofit corporation is required to maintain appropriate, complete and accurate financial records.67 Similarly, Section 5316 of the UPCA provides that a community association shall keep financial records and that these financial records and other records of the community association shall be reasonably available for examination. Unfortunately, Section 5316 of the UPCA does not detail the specific nature of the records to be maintained; absent any further direction from the courts or the legislature, the author believes the reasonable view is that an association must continue to maintain the records as set forth in Section 5508(a) of the NCL, given that the UPCA is silent on this issue, legally promoting the more junior standard.

Curtis! Does this mean that according to your own lawyer, under Section 5508(a) of Non-profit Corporate Law, which requires that financial records and other records of the community association shall be available within five (5) working days of a "unit owners" request, is the current law!?


tanks for you anser!

Logged
Mike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2008, 04:06:46 PM »

I agree Spitfire and The Expert,
This Board is clearly doing what they want and making up their own rules as they go.  There have been many cases where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court set clear standards for the judicial review of board actions in common interest communities.  In these cases, the courts held that judicial relief from the actions of governing boards is available only where the action is unauthorized or has been taken fraudulently, in bad faith, or constitutes self dealing. 

I think the board should be very careful about how they handle security, not getting three bids and lying about the intentions of the last vote not being for one year, looks like self dealing.  I was looking through my SLCA files and found the following Memorandum ( http://www.stillwaterlakes.net/pdf/SecurityMemo.pdf) regarding the security meeting on March 29, 2008. The Memorandum clearly states that the membership voted security in for another year, not permanently.   

As Spitfire and the expert pointed out,specific board members are supporting unauthorized, fraudulent, or in bad faith actions, and I though I will add a small list of my own:

  • Locking members out of meetings
  • Denying members their right to videotape
  • Denying members their right to vote
  • Denying members their right to speak at open meetings
  • Denying members their right to motion from the floor during open meetings
  • Denying members their right to community records
  • Spending community funds without membership approval ($100,000 Act 537)
  • Spending community funds on legal issues without membership approval (PUC)

You get the picture...  I hope all board members are aware that the community insurance will not cover them for these types of actions.   I guess denying residents of their rights is more important than having a roof over their head.


Logged
Spitfire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2008, 07:46:18 PM »

Mike, I just loved the memo. It clearly says, "...Security for one year".

I didn't catch it the first time I read it. It was my wife Lydia that brought it to my attention that this memo clearly confirms that the vote was indeed for security, and NOT just to vote in Vector as we were lied to about. In other words, this affirms that it is a reoccurring contract, requiring 3 bids as per by-laws.

Now that this has been brought to the light, it would be yet another feduciary duty the entire board should fix.

I honestly do not beleive that there are still any homeowners left that believe in this board.

Wake up people!! This board and Management has to go!!

I'd like a refund of my security.

Spitfire
« Last Edit: October 21, 2008, 03:02:11 PM by Spitfire » Logged
Mike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2008, 08:30:17 PM »

Hi Spirfire,
You mean the Memorandum (http://www.stillwaterlakes.net/pdf/SecurityMemo.pdf) and the email form the Chairperson of the Security Committee (http://www.stillwaterlakes.net/forum/index.php?topic=51.msg464#msg464) confirms that it's a non-annual contract because the membership is required to vote on it every year. 

Lets not forget all of the members who attended the Special meeting on March 29, 2008 to vote security in for another year.  I was one of them, and I specifically remember the crowd was getting loud because Know one wanted to answer the question of what the vote was for.  Finally Andy Ralston stood-up and said it's for one year only, not necessarily Vector, and to clarify he said we will be back here next year to vote again.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2008, 11:21:54 PM by Mike » Logged
puchichis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96



« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2008, 08:50:34 PM »

Spitfire. as i stated previously. I want my monies worth. As you stated, "i want a refund". I want one too. Oh yeah, i forgot, i still have my security payments in escrow. HaHa.

Angel


Logged
puchichis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96



« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2008, 07:12:00 PM »

Don't forget to vote on our security renewal poll !!!!!!!!
Logged
Spitfire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124



« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2008, 08:46:19 PM »

Calling all homeowners!!!!

Does anyone happen to have the original notice for the past security vote?

Ironically, I was behind on my Security at the time so they hadn't sent me the notice.

They called that, "Not being in good standing", though by-laws state we have until June 1st to be all paid up to be in good standing. That was just another part of the deception.

We'd like to add the original notice as evidence that the vote was for security for one year only.

By the way folks...I still have not heard any board member say,

"Oops...you got us (me), we (I) lied about the security being forever, I was really hoping we (I) could get over on all of you. and that you could all help us (me) pay for it". "They're just the bestest security company a single bid and $180 k could buy."

Ahhhh, wishful thinking. LOL!

Don't forget to take the security poll on the home page.

Spitfire
Logged
puchichis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96



« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2008, 11:20:34 AM »

Home owners with their own in home security system should not be obligated to pay for security. It should be optional. Otherwise it's just a case of milking the homeowners for more ca$h. Huh
Logged
Pages: [1]
  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!