Activists at Stillwater lakes Forum
December 18, 2018, 11:11:28 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: Video Recording Meetings  (Read 9583 times)
admin
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 101


« on: January 15, 2009, 11:57:25 PM »

Hi Everyone,
As all of you may know, the Association is suing the Stillwater Lakes Community Activists to shut down this unofficial website, but what you may not know is that they are also suing myself, and two other residents for video recording the Board meetings.  I was just served two days ago while walking my dogs, the sheriff was going to my house everyday for a couple of weeks, but I wanted to give my lawyer time to deal with the website lawsuit.  Anyway, he recognized my dog Max and stopped to serve me.  I apologized for avoiding him, and told him it was because I wanted to give my lawyer time to deal with the other lawsuit the Association is suing us for.  I told him about all the fraud and corruption that the residents of Stillwater Lakes Civic Association is dealing with and his response was, "That's why I will never buy into a Homeowners Association". 

So now you know how much the Board wants to stop us from informing you about what's happening in our community.

Please attend the January 17th meeting at 9AM to show your support for creating a open honest transparent community free of fraud and corruption.  We are all in this together.

Stillwaterlakes.com
« Last Edit: January 16, 2009, 12:00:49 AM by admin » Logged
David
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 339


Taking Back our Community!...


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2009, 11:32:35 AM »

Mike wrote, "the sheriff was going to my house everyday for a couple of weeks"

So Mike, how much did you cost us in just the sheriff's salary for those couple of weeks? LOL!

Actually, it all comes with the same mismanagement of OUR money by this board, though they may see it this time around as being totally worth it, because as part of damage control, they feel impelled to attempt these frivolous, baseless scare tactics.

Let's see how these "Smoke screens/ take the dogs off the scent/ prolonging the enevitable/ trying to keep a seat in office--and anything else that comes with it/ attorney firm stimulis package (I'm referring to the $300 plus an hour) pans out!
Logged

Concerned Citizens of a Pocono Community
"Raise your hands up!"
WWW.PAHRC.ORG
admin
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 101


« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2009, 08:13:35 PM »

Hi Everyone,
I just wanted to bring your attention to an Article on the Americas Homeowners Resource Center Website called:
” How to avoid being ripped off by your homeowners association"

The article is about how residents in California Homeowner Associations are being victimized by Enron-like fraudulent accounting practices as board members and managers conceal, hide and cover up stealing, gross negligence and failure to comply with State Laws. You could read the Article by going to http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/news/sub/article/action/ShowMedia/id/2284.

At the end of the article the Author points out 11 red flags that are signs that you may be getting ripped off by your Association, and sadly we show all 11 signs of being ripped off. 

Since the subject of this Board is Lawsuits I'm going to bring your attention to item number 7:

Quote
7. Monitor closely if your HOA is squandering money on legal or professional fees, including unnecessary "updating" of CC&R's and other governing documents - and or unlawfully spending money on litigation without providing written notice to the HOA members.

This Board of Directors is squandering our money on the following frivilous lawsuits:
  • SLCA VS. Stillwater Lakes Citizens to shut down this website to stop us from informing you of the truth about what's happening.
  • SLCA VS Residents to stop members from video recording all meetings when the Bylaws are clear that members have that right.
  • SLCA VS PUC They tried to turn us into a CO-OP (More Legal Fees) rather than have the PUC come in and regulate how they manage and treat the Sewer Users (Rumor has it that they were terrified that their whole scam would be revealed because the PUC would require them to show the books and do an in-depth audit.).

As far as unnecessarily "updating" of CC&R's, right now they are spending more legal fees to change the Bylaws and take away more of our rights, like the right to Video Tape meetings.  All this is being done without membership approval and everyone should be MAD. 

Please make sure your neighbors know what's going on in this community and tell them about this website.  And above all, attend every meeting to show your support for creating an open and honest community.  And let the board know you don't want them wasting money on frivilous lawsuits where the only winners are management (extra fees billed to us) and the lawyers (they get paid no matter who wins.  It's no wonder they are pushing these things!).  Sadly, we, the residents and the defendents, lose either way.  Tell the board to cut the crap and prioritize, as they have sat by and watched our amenities disintegrate while the dues keep going up.

Admin
Logged
Mick
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2009, 02:54:39 AM »

Hi Admin,
I was reading the Pocono SpeakEasy Forum, and Alan Price Young's firm, Young & Haros LLC, is representing Pocono Country Place, and the following post makes me believe that Young & Haros LLC, only represents Associations (deep pockets), and not home owners:

"I know the president of the board in Penn Estates... She speaks very highly of Young & Haros, and she was the one who gave me their name back when folks were looking for a lawyer. It turned out that they would not represent a homeowner or group of owners against an association, because they prefer to work for and with an association. "

This makes me think Alan Price Young et al is only in it for the money, and not what's right.  Win or lose, Alan Price Young et al gets paid - our board should be embarrassed.  Especially after Alan Price Young et al filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against stillwater lakes community activists and this website.  A case Alan Price Young et al must know his firm cannot win. 

If you read Alan Price Young's et al take on the Planned Communities Act, he clearly sides with the Association. Read his take here: http://forums.pmlfnews.com/tool/view/mb/file?username=pmlfnews&id=697791

Lets get new, competent legal advisors, and a new Board of Directors.
Logged
Bob Sciarrone
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


I've become Comfortably Numb


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2009, 11:50:33 PM »

If I may interject here please.

It is very apparent that your Board is wasting assets in your Community as they are in ours. One item to point out here is that this movement is more powerful then ours is. I don't know how to wake these people up. Maybe they are just afraid of retaliation.

Talk to Stew about, and it's proper name is, A wasteful assets lawsuit. If you have enough evidence, you can put your Association in receivership and have the board removed via the Court as per Removal of directors - 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5726(c)

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/corporations-and-unincorporated-associations/00.057.026.000.html

If I can be of service to you all, just let me know!

Thanks,
Bob Sciarrone
Logged
David
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 339


Taking Back our Community!...


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2009, 12:32:40 PM »

So they're attempting to shut the website down, basically to keep us from communicating amongst ourselves all the happenings of the community that affect us all.

Very interesting results for a Performance survey the board conducted on the “official site” that ran from 8-22-08 to 9-15-2008.

Out of the grand total of 8 people that took the survey, here were the results:


1 person voted “Given the amount of technology in the world today the SLCA board is doing an excellent job”

1 person voted “Some residents do not have up-to-date technology and the SLCA board is doing the best it can”

2 persons voted “So many forms of communication and the SLCA board does not take advantage of all of them”

2 persons voted “The SLCA board is providing only some info & should put more effort in informing all of the people”

Hmmmm?  SLCA board members, keep up the great work. At least one of you thinks you’re doing an excellent job.

Spitfire
Logged

Concerned Citizens of a Pocono Community
"Raise your hands up!"
WWW.PAHRC.ORG
THE EXPERT
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2009, 11:41:41 AM »

    PENNSYLVANIA
   PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
   Harrisburg, PA  17105-3265

   
Public Meeting held December 18, 2008

Commissioners Present:

   James H. Cawley, Chairman
   Tyrone J. Christy, Vice Chairman
   Robert F. Powelson
   Kim Pizzingrilli
   Wayne E. Gardner


Ruben Collazo                           C-20066892

   v.

Stillwater Sewer Corporation


   OPINION AND ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

      Before the Commission for disposition is a Petition to: (1) Reopen the Record; (2) Stay Final Order; and (3) Extend Time (Petition) filed by Stillwater Sewer Corporation (Stillwater) on June 18, 2008, relative to the above-captioned proceeding.  On June 26, 2008, Ruben Collazo (Complainant) filed a Response to the Petition.  On July 7, 2008, Stillwater filed a Reply to Complainant’s Response.

   History of Proceeding

The Complainant is a property owner within Stillwater Lake Estates, Inc. (Community) in Monroe County, Pennsylvania.  Stillwater currently furnishes wastewater service to 512 full-time and 268 standby customers.  All of these customers, with the exception of the Complainant, are members of the Stillwater Lakes Civic Association, Inc. (Association). 

As a result of the Parties’ November 4, 2002 settlement of a civil action that the Complainant brought in the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, at Civil Action Docket No. 3:CV 99 0931, the Complainant is no longer a member of the Association.  As part of the settlement, Stillwater agreed to reconnect its wastewater service to the Complainant’s property even though he is no longer a member of the Association.  The Complainant pays Stillwater its regular wastewater service charges.  As part of the civil action settlement, the Parties also agreed that the Complainant’s payment of these charges would not deem him to be a member of the Association. 

On September 22, 2006, the Complainant filed a Complaint with this Commission claiming that Stillwater is providing illegal public utility service, because it does not hold a Certificate of Public Convenience (Certificate).  On November 16, 2006, Stillwater filed an Answer and New Matter declaring that it is: (1) an exempt provider of non-regulated sewer service to residents of a defined parcel of property located in Coolbaugh Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania and (2) a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Association, a Pennsylvania planned community association consisting of residents of the Community parcel.

Stillwater further stated that the Community and the Association are congruent and that the Complainant’s solitary status is a result of litigation that the Parties settled in federal court.  The Complainant replied to the New Matter on December 5, 2006. 

A telephonic hearing was held on January 10, 2007.   The Complainant appeared pro se and offered two exhibits that were admitted into the record.  Stillwater appeared by counsel and submitted fourteen exhibits that were admitted into the record.  The hearing generated ninety-eight pages of testimony.  The record closed on February 10, 2007.  By Initial Decision issued on April 6, 2007, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John H. Corbett, Jr. denied the Complaint.  On April 24, 2007, the Complainant filed Exceptions to the Initial Decision.  Stillwater filed Reply Exceptions on May 3, 2007. 

By Tentative Opinion and Order issued on January 28, 2008, the Commission took the following actions: (1) granted, in part, and denied, in part, the Complainant’s Exceptions; (2) reversed the Initial Decision of ALJ Corbett; (3) afforded the Stillwater Lakes Civic Association, Inc. the opportunity to become a bona fide cooperative association and to inform the Commission’s Secretary in writing of its intentions within ten days of the date of entry of the Tentative Opinion and Order; (4) informed the Stillwater Lakes Civic Association that, if it chooses to become a bona fide cooperative association, it shall provide written notification of its amended structure and its contract with the Stillwater Sewer Corporation, or other entity, to provide wastewater service only to the Association’s members to the Commission’s Secretary and its Law Bureau; (5) informed the Stillwater Lakes Civic Association that, if it chooses not to become a bona fide cooperative association, the Tentative Opinion and Order shall become final on the thirtieth day after its entry and that Stillwater shall be required to apply for a Certificate of Authority/Convenience within thirty days thereafter; (6) directed the Commission’s Bureau of Fixed Utility Services to monitor the Stillwater Lakes Civic Association’s and the Stillwater Sewer Corporation’s response to the Tentative Opinion and Order and to determine whether any further action is necessary; and (7) directed that the proceeding be transferred by the Secretary to the Bureau of Fixed Utility Services upon entry of the Tentative Opinion and Order.  Tentative Opinion and Order at 9-10.       
      
      Stillwater’s Petition, and the Responses thereto, were filed as above noted.

Discussion

Petition to Reopen      

      In the initial part of its Petition, Stillwater requests that the Commission reopen this proceeding.  Stillwater references the Tentative Opinion and Order, as follows:

[Stillwater] made reference to a bona fide cooperative in its Answer and New Matter but did not demonstrate that it qualified as one, especially that control and ownership are substantially equal among members and that economic benefits are passed to each member substantially equally.

In Adrian Water, the Commission held that the pivotal question, when analyzing the five factors above, is whether, in the absence of regulations or other protections of the Commission, the customers or members of the group can exercise a degree of control over the organization to protect themselves from arbitrary and unreasonable management decisions.  No such evidence exists on this record that would allow such a determination.

Tentative Opinion and Order at 8.

      Additionally, the Commission further stated as follows:

The record in the instant matter is devoid of evidence which would allow the Commission to conclude that the [Stillwater Lakes Civic] Association is a bona fide cooperative association and that its subsidiary, Stillwater [Sewer], is providing service under the second Adrian Water criterion.  Instead, Stillwater appears to be operating as a de facto public utility whose service must be certificated.

Tentative Opinion and Order at 9.

      Stillwater argues that, if the record were to be reopened, it would be able to establish on the record evidence to meet each of the perceived deficiencies as outlined in the Tentative Opinion and Order.  As a result, the Commission would then be able to determine that Stillwater Lakes Civic Association qualifies as an exempt bona fide cooperative association under Adrian Water.  Petition ¶ 10. 

      Section 5.571 of our Rules of Administrative Practice, 52 Pa. Code § 5.571, sets forth the criteria that must be met so as to warrant the reopening of the record.  Section 5.571 provides as follows: 

§ 5.571.  Reopening prior to a final decision

(a)   At any time after the record is closed but before a final decision is issued, a participant may file a petition to reopen the proceeding for the purpose of taking additional evidence.

(b)   A petition to reopen shall set forth clearly the facts claimed to constitute grounds requiring the reopening of the proceeding, including material changes of fact or of law alleged to have occurred since the conclusion of the hearing.

(c)   Within 10 days following the service of the petition, another participant may file an answer thereto.

 The record may be reopened upon notification to the parties in a proceeding for the reception of further evidence if there is reason to believe that conditions of fact or of law have so changed as to require, or that the public interest requires, the reopening of the proceeding.

(1)     The presiding officer may reopen the record if the presiding officer has not issued a decision or has not certified the record to the Commission.

(2)   The Commission may reopen the record after the presiding officer has issued a decision or certified the record to the Commission. 

52 Pa. Code § 5.571 (emphasis added).

      On review of Stillwater’s Petition, and the evidentiary record herein, we conclude that the Petition is meritorious and that the record herein should be reopened for the reception of further evidence, per Section 5.571(d), supra.  We reach this conclusion because we believe that the public interest requires that we afford Stillwater Sewer the opportunity to demonstrate that Stillwater Lakes Civic Association, the parent of Stillwater Sewer, as a Pennsylvania planned community association, qualifies as an exempt bona fide cooperative association under Adrian Water.  The grant of the instant Petition furthermore allows Stillwater more time to explore its options with regard to its future corporate structure. 

Petition to Stay Final Order

      Ordering Paragraph 5 of the Tentative Opinion and Order is as follows:

5.   That if the Stillwater Lakes Civic Association, Inc., chooses not to become a bona fide cooperative association, this Tentative Opinion and Order shall become final on the thirtieth (30th) day after its entry, and Stillwater shall be required to apply for a certificate of public convenience within thirty (30) days thereafter.

Tentative Opinion and Order at 10.

      Stillwater avers that the Board of Stillwater Civic Association (Board) informed the Commission of its intention to pursue the option of converting to a cooperative within ten days of entry of the Tentative Opinion and Order.  Petition at ¶ 19.  Stillwater Civic Association avers that it has not yet brought the question of conversion to it members for vote.  Petition ¶ 20.  As such, argues Stillwater, since it has not yet chosen “not to become a bona fide cooperative association yet,” the Commission’s Order is still Tentative in nature.  Petition ¶ 21.  Stillwater avers that, if the Commission grants its Petition to Reopen, then the Commission should also stay the finality of its Tentative Opinion and Order, pending further hearing on this matter. 

      We agree with Stillwater on this point and we will direct that the Tentative Opinion and Order be held in abeyance, pending further hearing on this matter.  We take that action to avoid confusion on the issue of the Commission’s continued jurisdiction over this matter and so that Stillwater need not file a protective appeal within thirty days of the expiration of the 120 day period contemplated by the Tentative Opinion and Order.  Tentative Opinion and Order, Ordering Paragraph 4, at 9‑10.

      At the same time, we note that Stillwater has not moved as expeditiously as possible toward the resolution of the pertinent issue.  According to Stillwater’s Petition, a vote on conversion was to be brought before the Board at a meeting scheduled for June 21, 2008.  Petition at ¶ 22.  On inquiry from Staff, it was ascertained that that meeting was cancelled.  No reason was given for the cancellation. 

      Accordingly, Stillwater’s Petition to Stay Final Order will be granted.  However, we will direct that the reopened matter be processed as expeditiously as possible in the Office of Administrative Law Judge (OALJ).  We take that action so that the issue of Stillwater’s future corporate structure can be soon settled.
 
Petition to Extend Time

      Finally, Stillwater requested that, if its Petition to Reopen were denied, it be afforded more time to complete its conversion to a cooperative association than the 120‑day period contemplated in the Tentative Opinion and Order.  Petition ¶ 27.  Since we have decided to reopen the instant record for the reasons outlined above, Stillwater’s Petition to Extend Time is moot.

      Accordingly, consistent with the above discussion, we will: (1) grant Stillwater’s Petition to Reopen Record; (2) grant Stillwater’s Petition to Stay Final Order; (3) deny Stillwater’s Petition to Extend Time as moot; (4) direct that the Tentative Opinion and Order herein be held in abeyance; and (5) remand this matter to the OALJ to conduct such further expedited proceedings as deemed appropriate; THEREFORE,

      IT IS ORDERED:

      1.   That the Petition to Reopen the Proceeding, which was filed by Stillwater Sewer Corporation, on June 18, 2008, is granted.

      2.   That the Petition to Stay Final Order, which was filed by Stillwater Sewer Corporation, is granted.
   
      3.   That the Petition to Extend Time, which was filed by Stillwater Sewer Corporation, is denied as moot.

      4.   That the Commission’s Tentative Opinion and Order entered January 28, 2008, herein is held in abeyance.
      
      5.   That this proceeding is assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judge to conduct such further expedited proceedings as deemed appropriate. 


                     BY THE COMMISSION,



                     James J. McNulty
                     Secretary

(SEAL)

ORDER ADOPTED:  December 18, 2008

ORDER ENTERED:  December 19, 2008
Logged
puchichis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96



« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2009, 10:10:08 PM »

So, i guess that the CO-OP issue has been exhumed from the grave again. Angry
 Let the games begin.
Logged
THE EXPERT
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2009, 02:24:49 PM »

This PUC issue, will ultimately be resolved by the Commonwealth Court.  There is nothing new that this Board of Directors, or their attorneys can introduce into evidence, that is going to convince the Commission that they are a “Coop-erative Association.”

It will however, mean that Young and Harros will not have to worry about going out of business, during this economic recession period.  They will accumulate a small fortune in legal fees, during the course of this prolonged and futile struggle (on the part of NEPA and a few board members) not to be scrutinized by an independent authority like the PUC.

This means that a huge amount of our maintenance fees, are going towards wasteful legal enterprises.  It is without doubt, the very reason why our roads are in disrepair, and our insurance rates are going through the roof.

Remember that Weinstein and Kluge’s deeds are just like yours. There are no provisions that anyone in this community may be forced to be members of an association. Therefore, we are all members of the general public, and we do not collectively own the sewer corporation.  If that were the case, it would have to include ownership by the lot owners with septic mounds.

By the way does anyone know, if the lots with septic mounds pay a “stanby-fee?
Logged
puchichis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96



« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2009, 09:54:51 AM »

That was my general question. Why are my dues so high? Am i paying into a sewer system that i can't use. As a matter of fact. I am paying dues for the benefit for the lawyers that represent the board members and not the rank & file home owners " Association". There is a grave injustice going on here. And as i mentioned previously to the property manager in several letters. I want my dues monies worth. Since the letters i had sent to SLCA & NEPA management dated back to 2005, all that me & my wife have to show for our dues is a severly sprianed ankle from my crumbling road on Hawthorne Terrace. 
Logged
THE EXPERT
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2009, 12:12:23 PM »

To those of you who really wish to do something positive for this community, I urge you to follow my lead. DO NOT PAY THIS YEAR'S ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP DUES. Instead I urge everyone to place their maintenance fees into a trust fund, to be managed by an attorney.  Those funds should also be available to pay for our legal fees, cut off their funding and their well will run dry.  When all is said, and done, the entire community will have to pay for both sides, until we arrive at an equitable resolution.

Below is the certified letter which I am sending to the association. I urge everyone who reads it to do the same.



Mr. RUBEN COLLAZO
Coalition of Independent Owners
1404 Hemlock Drive
Pocono Summit, PA 18346

January 28, 2009


Ron Kluge - President
Board of Directors
Stillwater Lakes Civic Association, Inc.
C/O NEPA Management Associates, Inc.
304 Park Ave. Stroudsburg, PA 18201

Re: Maintenance Fees/Membership Dues

Dear Mr. Kluge:
   This letter will serve to advice you that the billing for maintenance, as submitted by NEPA Management Associates, (NEPA)is unacceptable, as it is in violation of the settlement (agreement) entered into between the Plaintiff (Ruben Collazo) and the Defendant(s) Stillwater Lakes Civic Association, Inc., et.al., dated November 4, 2002.

   Over the last six (6) years, Defendants directly or by way of its agent NEPA, have denied Plaintiff access to the common areas under the pretext that those commonly owned facilities, or areas, are reserved for members of the association. Plaintiff pays a proportionate share of maintaining for those facilities, yet does not have the same privileges as so called “members.”

To wit: Paragraph 18:

   “The parties agree that upon the payment of the annual fee as set forth for the maintenance as set forth in this agreement the Plaintiff shall be entitled to use the common facilities of the community.”

   Plaintiff, has not only been denied the use of common facilities, but has been banned from attending meetings concerning the budgeting of his maintenance fees, participation in community meetings, access to community website, attending of annual parties, as well as the use of clubhouse.

   These are membership related costs, which are being borne by the Plaintiff as well.  It is further averred that by denying Plaintiff the right to speak on common property issues, the Defendants have not only violated the Agreement but are also in violation of Plaintiff’s right to free speech on “common property” issues . (See Agreement, page 14, li.19 through pg 16 li. 24.)

The only limitation upon the Plaintiff’s activities, appears on page 11, pa. 16:

   “The Plaintiff agrees that he shall not be permitted to vote in an election of the Stillwater Lakes Civic Association.”

The implication being, that the agreement fully acknowledges the right of the Plaintiff to attend meetings, without the right to vote.

   Accordingly, I am hereby demanding that the attached invoice reflect an amount which is consistent with the agreement, and which according to law, is a proportionate, pro rata, share of maintenance of the common areas.

   I am not required to pay for any cost related to membership expenditures. This would include meetings, any and all cost relating to the administration of the association and its membership affairs, any and all legal costs relating to disputes between the board and its members, and or contractors, as well as any and all expenses (other than maintenance) that is approved by the board or its members. These are expenses which have nothing to do with “maintenance,” and fall into the category of “membership dues!”  I have no obligation to pay “Membership Dues!”

   The S.L.C.A., annually projected budget reflects an amount for “maintenance” of roads and recreation (common areas).   It is this amount which may be proportionately divided among the 978 lot owners in the community, in order to establish the pro-rata share that may be legally accessed against a non-member.  That amount however, is only acceptable if Plaintiff has access to the clubhouse anytime that he wishes to visit or use same.

   Accordingly, I will provide a check to my attorney Stewart I. Rosenblum, in the amount of the projected maintenance for common areas, plus a 20% administrative fee which is more than reasonable for the administration of a not for profit corporation.

   Please address any future “maintenance” invoice, letters, or communications, to the above mentioned attorney.

You have his name, address and telephone #.

Sincerely,


Ruben Collazo
President-Coalition of Independent Owners
(570) 839-1781

Logged
BIG LOU
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2009, 09:46:00 AM »

To those of you who really wish to do something positive for this community, I urge you to follow my lead. DO NOT PAY THIS YEAR'S ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP DUES. Instead I urge everyone to place their maintenance fees into a trust fund, to be managed by an attorney.  Those funds should also be available to pay for our legal fees, cut off their funding and their well will run dry.  When all is said, and done, the entire community will have to pay for both sides, until we arrive at an equitable resolution.

Below is the certified letter which I am sending to the association. I urge everyone who reads it to do the same.



Mr. RUBEN COLLAZO
Coalition of Independent Owners
1404 Hemlock Drive
Pocono Summit, PA 18346

January 28, 2009


Ron Kluge - President
Board of Directors
Stillwater Lakes Civic Association, Inc.
C/O NEPA Management Associates, Inc.
304 Park Ave. Stroudsburg, PA 18201

Re: Maintenance Fees/Membership Dues

Dear Mr. Kluge:
   This letter will serve to advice you that the billing for maintenance, as submitted by NEPA Management Associates, (NEPA)is unacceptable, as it is in violation of the settlement (agreement) entered into between the Plaintiff (Ruben Collazo) and the Defendant(s) Stillwater Lakes Civic Association, Inc., et.al., dated November 4, 2002.

   Over the last six (6) years, Defendants directly or by way of its agent NEPA, have denied Plaintiff access to the common areas under the pretext that those commonly owned facilities, or areas, are reserved for members of the association. Plaintiff pays a proportionate share of maintaining for those facilities, yet does not have the same privileges as so called “members.”

To wit: Paragraph 18:

   “The parties agree that upon the payment of the annual fee as set forth for the maintenance as set forth in this agreement the Plaintiff shall be entitled to use the common facilities of the community.”

   Plaintiff, has not only been denied the use of common facilities, but has been banned from attending meetings concerning the budgeting of his maintenance fees, participation in community meetings, access to community website, attending of annual parties, as well as the use of clubhouse.

   These are membership related costs, which are being borne by the Plaintiff as well.  It is further averred that by denying Plaintiff the right to speak on common property issues, the Defendants have not only violated the Agreement but are also in violation of Plaintiff’s right to free speech on “common property” issues . (See Agreement, page 14, li.19 through pg 16 li. 24.)

The only limitation upon the Plaintiff’s activities, appears on page 11, pa. 16:

   “The Plaintiff agrees that he shall not be permitted to vote in an election of the Stillwater Lakes Civic Association.”

The implication being, that the agreement fully acknowledges the right of the Plaintiff to attend meetings, without the right to vote.

   Accordingly, I am hereby demanding that the attached invoice reflect an amount which is consistent with the agreement, and which according to law, is a proportionate, pro rata, share of maintenance of the common areas.

   I am not required to pay for any cost related to membership expenditures. This would include meetings, any and all cost relating to the administration of the association and its membership affairs, any and all legal costs relating to disputes between the board and its members, and or contractors, as well as any and all expenses (other than maintenance) that is approved by the board or its members. These are expenses which have nothing to do with “maintenance,” and fall into the category of “membership dues!”  I have no obligation to pay “Membership Dues!”

   The S.L.C.A., annually projected budget reflects an amount for “maintenance” of roads and recreation (common areas).   It is this amount which may be proportionately divided among the 978 lot owners in the community, in order to establish the pro-rata share that may be legally accessed against a non-member.  That amount however, is only acceptable if Plaintiff has access to the clubhouse anytime that he wishes to visit or use same.

   Accordingly, I will provide a check to my attorney Stewart I. Rosenblum, in the amount of the projected maintenance for common areas, plus a 20% administrative fee which is more than reasonable for the administration of a not for profit corporation.

   Please address any future “maintenance” invoice, letters, or communications, to the above mentioned attorney.

You have his name, address and telephone #.

Sincerely,


Ruben Collazo
President-Coalition of Independent Owners
(570) 839-1781


Logged
puchichis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96



« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2009, 11:03:01 AM »

As of yesterday, i had spoken to the President of the Coalition of Independent Owners. After about an hour of conversation. I have made a choice to become an active member of the above mentioned Coalition. I urge all of my fellow brother and sisters of this wonderful community to  do the same. In unity we can achieve our goals of a better community for all to enjoyand not the current tyrannical regime that holds down the progress that we as SLCA members rightfully deserve.The squandering of our monies will no longer be tolerated. We as a community must unite for a common cause. We are homeowners that have been deprived of service, repair and upgrades to our community. Not for a chosen few.

 Wastful spending by this board and management has left us with the weight to foot the bill for their incompetance. Today, as a collective group we should stand united for a common cause and fight against the wasteful spending that this board and management company has "milked" us as homeowners for years. In my case since 2005. I personally had requested by letter and fax to SLCA/NEPA management thru our property manager to please pave my street ( Hawthorne Terrace ). Unfortunatly, my spouse had a slip and fall and a second twist to her already injured ankle in september of 2008. This my brothers and sisters is unacceptable. and, it can happen to you! How many of you walk at night wondering if you are going to fall because of a severly neglected road. I'd bet not the board members streets.

In closing, in my years as a Union Delegate for the National Association of Letter carriers - Branch 36 - AFL/CIO. Never, have i come to a conclusion that any grevience or discplinary action can't be worked out to be an equitable resolution or compromise. With this board and management we have, it is a far gone conclusion that nothing can be worked out or compromised. It is the my way or the highway as far as the board and management are concerned. I mention this because the " Board " wants to be our boss and we are the union members. We pay dues and we should get representation for the betterment of our community. However, in this case, our representatives, "the board". Does not work for us as a collective barganing unit. We are at their mercy with every meeting that is not taped or recorded, every cancelled meeting because of no quorum, the frivolous lawsuit against this website, the squandering of our money on legal & professional and legal fees, the unnecessary changing or updating of our CC&R's and other legal documents and unlawfully spending our money on litigation without providing written notice to the HOA members. Take note, the changing of the bylaws are for the benefit of the board and not the HOA. Example, video & tape recording preserves the checks and balances of the members of this HOA. Revising the CC&R's to eliminate the recording of these meetings limits the information available to homeowners that would be unable to attend these meetings. After all we all have a life . Don't we? What we have here is a fourth layer of government that does not work in our democratic principles. The board works on a communistic " Fidel Castro" principle. Well my fellow brother & sisters. It is time to unite and fight back. Join the Coalition of Independent Owners and make your voice heard. Do not pay your dues directly to SLCA/NEPA. Use our attorney to delegate your funds in escrow as a formal protest against this current regime and fight for what should be an open and transparent community board and management company.

Yours in solidarity,
Angel L. Corujo jr
Coalition of Independent Owners
« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 11:23:21 AM by RNACOR12 » Logged
THE EXPERT
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2009, 12:01:05 PM »

HOME OWNERS FACING FORECLOSURE, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER HOME OWNERS, MAY WANT TO CHECK OUT THIS SITE!

https://www.naca.com/index_main.jsp
Logged
admin
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 101


« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2009, 04:59:22 PM »


Hi Everyone,
As you may know, the Association is suing several property owners for video recording the Board meetings, a right we all have as per our Bylaws.  If you would like to support our cause for creating an open honest transparent community free of fraud and corruption, please be present during the oral arguments for this case.

Oral Arguments for March are scheduled for
Monday, March 2, 2009
9:30 a.m.
Courtroom #4
Monroe County Courthouse
Stroudsburg, PA

Thank You

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!