At the November 17th meeting our BOD adopted a budget for next year.
My question is why wasn't the membership advised of this action in advance as per the Bylaws?
What is the requirement of the Bylaws regarding informing the membership of the proposed budget? According to Article VII, Section 1, the BOD is required to notify each member, in writing, at least 10 days before adoption of the annual budget.
I didn't get a written copy before the BOD voted on the budget at the November 17th meeting - did you?
I believe we are all entitled to review this important document. After all it is the approved budget for next year.
I believe is should be posted immediately on the association websites and mailed to the membership as soon as possible.
Tony Robinson
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
News? What News?
Have you been to the association’s Yahoo website lately. Don’t waste your time. Nothing has been posted or updated for a long time.
My question is: Why?
At a time that our association is hiring lawyers at $220.00+ per hour to investigate the legal status of the association itself shouldn’t we get regular updates even if it’s only to tell us no news is good news?
It appears we have regressed to a time when the BOD will tell us only what they believe we need to know and only when the release of information fits their agenda.
The last time we operated like this is cost us thousands of dollars. I can’t help but wonder what effect this will have on our dues this time around.
Welcome to the world of zero communications.
My question is: Why?
At a time that our association is hiring lawyers at $220.00+ per hour to investigate the legal status of the association itself shouldn’t we get regular updates even if it’s only to tell us no news is good news?
It appears we have regressed to a time when the BOD will tell us only what they believe we need to know and only when the release of information fits their agenda.
The last time we operated like this is cost us thousands of dollars. I can’t help but wonder what effect this will have on our dues this time around.
Welcome to the world of zero communications.
Timely Questions without Answers
Last month I wrote in this blog that I was going to ask the BOD for an update on the status of Units 3 & 4 and that I would pass along additional information as soon as it became available.
The following is the text of the email I sent to all active BOD members on November 18th:
Good Morning:
This will serve as a follow up to last nights BOD meeting.
While Mr. Knees had no answers for our questions he did state, when specifically asked by Mr Duffy, that there was probably something not done correctly.
At this point it is beyond obvious that there is a problem.
Furthermore, the reality of the situation is that the association DID NOT cause the problem. It was either the developer or his legal representative. In either case the association is not the responsible party.
In light of this reality, please give the membership a "point in time" update by answering the following questions to the best of your knowledge based on what you know as of today.
1. Why is the association spearheading this investigation?
2. Why are we paying the bills for this investigation?
3. Is the developer aware of the problem?
4. Has the developer expressed any willingness to get involved?
5. Has the BOD asked the developer accept responsibility and assume the financial burden of correcting the problem and the retaining legal counsel?
6. Will the BOD pursue compensation from the developer to offset our expenses?
Thank you,
Tony Robinson
As you can see it has been almost three weeks since I sent the request for a “point in time” update. I have received absolutely zero response – not even an acknowledgement that I submitted a request for information. (By the way, I did send a follow up email requesting acknowledgement of receipt of my email. No response to that either).
Are we to believe nothing is being done regarding this issue? Or should we just trust that all is well and we will be informed when the need arises?
Candidly, it’s not my nature to trust those who have abused my confidence on previous occasions. I’m definitely a “trust but verify” kind of guy.
This debacle can and will cost the association thousands of dollars unless the membership holds the BOD accountable by asking tough questions and demanding the developer get involved.
A potentially valid case could be made that since the CCR’s have not been filed against Units 3 & 4 that the association has no legal basis for claiming jurisdiction over Units 3 & 4 until the developer rectifies the situation. If that legal position is deemed accurate then the makeup, function and ability of the BOD to even hold a BOD meeting to conduct business is called into question.
Don’t think for a minute that everything will work out fine. Mistakes were made to get us into this situation and mistakes can be made in correcting the situation.
If the BOD is acting without legal authority due to unqualified BOD members holding office (not all sitting BOD members live in a Unit of the subdivision that is subjected to the CCR’s) then this could get become a catastrophe in which none of us want to be caught in the middle.
It’s time for the BOD to update is all –
Please join me in calling on the BOD to respond to these important questions.
Thank you,
Tony Robinson
The following is the text of the email I sent to all active BOD members on November 18th:
Good Morning:
This will serve as a follow up to last nights BOD meeting.
While Mr. Knees had no answers for our questions he did state, when specifically asked by Mr Duffy, that there was probably something not done correctly.
At this point it is beyond obvious that there is a problem.
Furthermore, the reality of the situation is that the association DID NOT cause the problem. It was either the developer or his legal representative. In either case the association is not the responsible party.
In light of this reality, please give the membership a "point in time" update by answering the following questions to the best of your knowledge based on what you know as of today.
1. Why is the association spearheading this investigation?
2. Why are we paying the bills for this investigation?
3. Is the developer aware of the problem?
4. Has the developer expressed any willingness to get involved?
5. Has the BOD asked the developer accept responsibility and assume the financial burden of correcting the problem and the retaining legal counsel?
6. Will the BOD pursue compensation from the developer to offset our expenses?
Thank you,
Tony Robinson
As you can see it has been almost three weeks since I sent the request for a “point in time” update. I have received absolutely zero response – not even an acknowledgement that I submitted a request for information. (By the way, I did send a follow up email requesting acknowledgement of receipt of my email. No response to that either).
Are we to believe nothing is being done regarding this issue? Or should we just trust that all is well and we will be informed when the need arises?
Candidly, it’s not my nature to trust those who have abused my confidence on previous occasions. I’m definitely a “trust but verify” kind of guy.
This debacle can and will cost the association thousands of dollars unless the membership holds the BOD accountable by asking tough questions and demanding the developer get involved.
A potentially valid case could be made that since the CCR’s have not been filed against Units 3 & 4 that the association has no legal basis for claiming jurisdiction over Units 3 & 4 until the developer rectifies the situation. If that legal position is deemed accurate then the makeup, function and ability of the BOD to even hold a BOD meeting to conduct business is called into question.
Don’t think for a minute that everything will work out fine. Mistakes were made to get us into this situation and mistakes can be made in correcting the situation.
If the BOD is acting without legal authority due to unqualified BOD members holding office (not all sitting BOD members live in a Unit of the subdivision that is subjected to the CCR’s) then this could get become a catastrophe in which none of us want to be caught in the middle.
It’s time for the BOD to update is all –
Please join me in calling on the BOD to respond to these important questions.
Thank you,
Tony Robinson
Just the Facts.
I have been asked by friends if I was going to respond to the outrageous misrepresentations posted by “Watchdogone” on November 30th or the comments by the owner of the weblog.
My thoughts are as follows: The facts are the facts. Facts are verifiable and they are reality…..and they speak for themselves.
These are the facts:
1. The path was being maintained according to the proposal negotiated by the BOD when Mrs. Mueller was president.
2. Mr. Mueller did not just “contact” the Illinois Dept of Agriculture, he filed a formal complaint. There is a major difference.
3. His complaint precipitated a formal investigation regarding the application of herbicides anywhere on common property within the subdivision and effectively stopped all use of herbicides anywhere on common property within the estates.
Those are the facts.
There is one other loathsome misrepresentation I hope all can see through – his creative use of email.
Will anyone notice that in the email referenced in his comments that Mr. Mueller was not on the recipient list? He obviously cannot have firsthand knowledge of any events or details related to the email and therefore anything he writes qualifies as hearsay and would rightfully be classified as speculation on his part. I will not identify every factual error or questionable statement but I do maintain the postings contain more opinion and fiction than truth and facts.
One other question becomes obvious to anyone reading the email with a discerning eye. Where did Mr. Mueller get this email? I don’t have the answer to this question but I do know that Mr. Duffy, Mr. Spang, and Mr. Featherston have all been targets of ridicule on the “Watchdog” website so I doubt the email came from them.
The only other person this email was sent to is our current President who publically prides herself on her objectivity. I would suggest to all that any clarification she wishes to offer should be posted on the association’s website, not the private website of the spouse of a current BOD member.
Tony Robinson
My thoughts are as follows: The facts are the facts. Facts are verifiable and they are reality…..and they speak for themselves.
These are the facts:
1. The path was being maintained according to the proposal negotiated by the BOD when Mrs. Mueller was president.
2. Mr. Mueller did not just “contact” the Illinois Dept of Agriculture, he filed a formal complaint. There is a major difference.
3. His complaint precipitated a formal investigation regarding the application of herbicides anywhere on common property within the subdivision and effectively stopped all use of herbicides anywhere on common property within the estates.
Those are the facts.
There is one other loathsome misrepresentation I hope all can see through – his creative use of email.
Will anyone notice that in the email referenced in his comments that Mr. Mueller was not on the recipient list? He obviously cannot have firsthand knowledge of any events or details related to the email and therefore anything he writes qualifies as hearsay and would rightfully be classified as speculation on his part. I will not identify every factual error or questionable statement but I do maintain the postings contain more opinion and fiction than truth and facts.
One other question becomes obvious to anyone reading the email with a discerning eye. Where did Mr. Mueller get this email? I don’t have the answer to this question but I do know that Mr. Duffy, Mr. Spang, and Mr. Featherston have all been targets of ridicule on the “Watchdog” website so I doubt the email came from them.
The only other person this email was sent to is our current President who publically prides herself on her objectivity. I would suggest to all that any clarification she wishes to offer should be posted on the association’s website, not the private website of the spouse of a current BOD member.
Tony Robinson
Monday, November 24, 2008
Unbelievable!
Nobody could make this stuff up - it's just too crazy!
In "Watchdogone's" last rant, posted on November 21st, the "Watchdog" goes to the extreme to make a case that the the BOD in general and the "ex-President" specifically, stopped all path maintenance to "attack" the county and the developer thereby forcing them to do the maintenance.
Does "Watchdogone" think we have all forgotten that it was THE OWNER of the WATCHDOG website that filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Department of Agriculture.
Doesn't "Watchdogone" understand that it was this filing that halted all attempts to control the weeds on the path while a full investigation was conducted and it was during this time that the weeds grew out of control.
Of course the truth of the matter makes for reduced ability to play the blame game and conduct personal attacks.
In "Watchdogone's" last rant, posted on November 21st, the "Watchdog" goes to the extreme to make a case that the the BOD in general and the "ex-President" specifically, stopped all path maintenance to "attack" the county and the developer thereby forcing them to do the maintenance.
Does "Watchdogone" think we have all forgotten that it was THE OWNER of the WATCHDOG website that filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Department of Agriculture.
Doesn't "Watchdogone" understand that it was this filing that halted all attempts to control the weeds on the path while a full investigation was conducted and it was during this time that the weeds grew out of control.
Of course the truth of the matter makes for reduced ability to play the blame game and conduct personal attacks.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Another Man of Integrity Steps Down. Can You Blame Him?
Mr. Kent Duffy has resigned, effectively immediately, in response to the insultingly contemptuous attack posted on the “Watchdog” website earlier today.
Thank goodness you won’t have to read this affront to the hard work and dedication of Kent because the posting was removed shortly after he submitted his resignation.
I can’t help but wonder why it was removed so quickly. Perhaps it was because of the outcry of the good and reasonable people in the subdivision or maybe the posting was no longer necessary since the new majority has finally run off every BOD member who didn’t agree with their agenda.
Let me state it another way, every BOD member elected last February, except the person who had their name “advertized” in last winter’s newsletter, has chosen to move on because of the baseless, abusive lies, misrepresentations, and innuendos that are posted on the “watchdog” website.
Thank goodness you won’t have to read this affront to the hard work and dedication of Kent because the posting was removed shortly after he submitted his resignation.
I can’t help but wonder why it was removed so quickly. Perhaps it was because of the outcry of the good and reasonable people in the subdivision or maybe the posting was no longer necessary since the new majority has finally run off every BOD member who didn’t agree with their agenda.
Let me state it another way, every BOD member elected last February, except the person who had their name “advertized” in last winter’s newsletter, has chosen to move on because of the baseless, abusive lies, misrepresentations, and innuendos that are posted on the “watchdog” website.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Budget Debate
At last night’s BOD meeting there was considerable debate about the 2009 budget, how the numbers were calculated, and what should be the 2009 assessment.
The treasurer stated he calculated the budget based on the guidelines given him at the October 21, 2008 BOD meeting which included adjustments for inflation. When determining the 2009 assessment Mr. Duffy stated we should use the formula dictated in the bylaws (if there is one). Our 1st VP was adamant that there is no requirement to calculate the assessments based on a formula in the bylaws. Both of our VP’s were unwavering on the position that the 2009 assessment should be $275.00.
Mr. Duffy is correct. Article VII, Section 1, of our bylaws specifically mandate that the budget be calculated based on the following – start with the estimated cost of taxes, wages, materials, insurance, services, and supplies which will be required in the ensuing year. To this amount the BOD has the authority to add a “reasonable amount” for “a reserve for contingencies and replacements”. The BOD is also required to take into account any estimated net cash income. That final figure becomes the “estimated cash requirement” which “shall be assessed equally to the lot owners of the Estate of Millbrook”.
Whereas Mr. Duffy calculated the budget based on the guidelines given him at the October 21 BOD meeting and calculated in accordance with the bylaws it seems only logical to adjust the assessments accordingly.
Unfortunately the VP’s motioned and passed a budget proposal which includes a $275.00 assessment. This assessment is based on previous years assessments without any consideration for projected expenses. This method of calculation is an absolute violation of our bylaws. The Treasurer voted against the motion.
I have no problem with a $275.00 assessment provided it is calculated according to our bylaws. Our BOD needs to adjust the budgeted expense numbers to justify the $275.00 assessment or they need to accept the lower assessments dictated by the budget developed in accordance with the guidelines they set up at the October 21 BOD meeting.
Or they could just ignore the bylaws.
The treasurer stated he calculated the budget based on the guidelines given him at the October 21, 2008 BOD meeting which included adjustments for inflation. When determining the 2009 assessment Mr. Duffy stated we should use the formula dictated in the bylaws (if there is one). Our 1st VP was adamant that there is no requirement to calculate the assessments based on a formula in the bylaws. Both of our VP’s were unwavering on the position that the 2009 assessment should be $275.00.
Mr. Duffy is correct. Article VII, Section 1, of our bylaws specifically mandate that the budget be calculated based on the following – start with the estimated cost of taxes, wages, materials, insurance, services, and supplies which will be required in the ensuing year. To this amount the BOD has the authority to add a “reasonable amount” for “a reserve for contingencies and replacements”. The BOD is also required to take into account any estimated net cash income. That final figure becomes the “estimated cash requirement” which “shall be assessed equally to the lot owners of the Estate of Millbrook”.
Whereas Mr. Duffy calculated the budget based on the guidelines given him at the October 21 BOD meeting and calculated in accordance with the bylaws it seems only logical to adjust the assessments accordingly.
Unfortunately the VP’s motioned and passed a budget proposal which includes a $275.00 assessment. This assessment is based on previous years assessments without any consideration for projected expenses. This method of calculation is an absolute violation of our bylaws. The Treasurer voted against the motion.
I have no problem with a $275.00 assessment provided it is calculated according to our bylaws. Our BOD needs to adjust the budgeted expense numbers to justify the $275.00 assessment or they need to accept the lower assessments dictated by the budget developed in accordance with the guidelines they set up at the October 21 BOD meeting.
Or they could just ignore the bylaws.
What’s the Cost?
Our association has retained the services of an attorney who specializes in HOA law to investigate and report back to the association on the Unit 3 & 4 situation. This will cost the association at least $220 per billable hour and will be paid out of the general funds of the association.
I believe we all have a vested interest in determining the status of our HOA but I do have some questions regarding the expense.
The truth is that the association DID NOT cause the problem. It was either the developer or his legal representative.
So, why are we paying the bills for this investigation? Is the developer even aware of the situation? Has our BOD asked the developer to get involved?
I have asked the BOD to address these questions in a timely manner. I’ll let you know their response as soon as I hear back.
I believe we all have a vested interest in determining the status of our HOA but I do have some questions regarding the expense.
The truth is that the association DID NOT cause the problem. It was either the developer or his legal representative.
So, why are we paying the bills for this investigation? Is the developer even aware of the situation? Has our BOD asked the developer to get involved?
I have asked the BOD to address these questions in a timely manner. I’ll let you know their response as soon as I hear back.
Lawyer at Meeting to Answer Questions
Last nights BOD meeting opened with a question and answer period. A special guest at the meeting was Mr. W. Knees who has been selected by the BOD to investigate the status of Units 3 & 4 as being subject to the CCR’s. He was there at the request of the BOD and when asked specifically why Mr. Knees was invited our 1st VP stated he was there to answer our questions.
There was only one problem – He didn’t have any answers.
Well, that’s not completely true. When asked directly, he did tell the membership that we are paying him $220 - $240/hour and that we are in fact paying his travel time.
That’s a pretty hefty price to pay only to be told what we already know.
There was only one problem – He didn’t have any answers.
Well, that’s not completely true. When asked directly, he did tell the membership that we are paying him $220 - $240/hour and that we are in fact paying his travel time.
That’s a pretty hefty price to pay only to be told what we already know.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
My Time is too Valuable
Good Evening-
Welcome back to the dark ages.
For the last week and a half I have been trying to get some verification that the research work done at the county recorder's office by our association VP is accurate. I suspected from the beginning that "incomplete" would be a kind way to describe her research but she has insisted from the start that 1) she was right, and 2) she didn't have to share her documentation with anyone.
Our President has gone so far as to publish the VP's findings stating “diligent research” has been accomplished and that the research has “revealed that there is no basis for the claims”. The President has also claimed that since the VP paid the county for cost of the documents that the BOD has no right to review the documents until the association reimburses the VP the costs charged by the county.
We all know for a fact the association has hired an attorney to do the job right but I haven't seen any updates on either website letting us know that maybe things aren't so cut and dried as we were led to believe.
For those on the BOD who questioned the accuracy of the research and insisted on reviewing the documentation the reward has been a freeze job.
Having fallen out of grace of the majority of the BOD, I have been shut out of all communication with the BOD. I am not included in any emails, not allowed any knowledge of association business, and not responded to in any manner. My phone calls and emails are ignored.
This is not my idea of how an association should be run. Just imagine the uproar if the roles were reversed; can you say lawsuit?
You might agree or disagree with me regarding how the association should be managed but the bottom line is my time is too valuable. There are too many wonderful people and interesting opportunities in my life to waste time dealing with the mindset of the new majority.
Therefore I have tendered my resignation effective today. My sincere thanks to all - every single member - for the opportunity to serve on the BOD. I know there have been many who disagreed but until the "October Surprise" came to light I always felt there was enough of a professional attitude amongst the BOD that we could overcome our differences. I was wrong.
Welcome back to the days when we will be told only what the powers in charge want us to know and not one minute before they want us to know it.
Below is the text of the letter I sent to the BOD earlier today.
Tony Robinson
November 8, 2008
Estates of Millbrook HOA
Attention: BOD
PO Box 101
Millbrook, IL 60536
Dear BOD Members,
Be advised that I am resigning my position as member of the BOD effective at the conclusion of the special called BOD meeting on November 8, 2008. In the event this meeting does not occur then my resignation will be effective at 8:40am on the same day.
Sincerely,
/s/ AD Robinson
Friday, November 7, 2008
Thoughts and Questions to Consider as you approach tomorrow's meeting
The Problem – There is a possibility that the developer did not include Units 3 & 4 in the HOA.
Investigation – This has been looked into by a number of different people.
1. VP Mueller was assigned to investigate this with the county on behalf of the association. Her findings are posted on the Yahoo website. Her report back to the President parallels the statement published in the October Newsletter.
2. BOD member Tony Robinson checked into this independently of Ms Mueller, his findings were different.
3. A member living in the community checked into this independently of both Ms Mueller and Mr. Robinson, his findings were different that Ms Mueller’s.
Questions for DePaulo
1. Is this true?
2. Was it intentional?
3. What, if anything, are you willing to do about helping us resolve the situation?
Questions for the BOD
1. What is the status of the investigation as of today?
2. Who is representing the BOD in this investigation?
3. Has the association retained the services of a lawyer in this matter?
4. Who is he/she?
5. Does this lawyer have any previous history in dealing with the developer? In this matter?
6. Has this ever happened before? If so was there a legal precedence established in that case?
7. What is the status of the BOD itself? Are BOD members living Units 3 & 4 legally BOD members?
8. Should those BOD members living in Units 3 & 4 recuse themselves from deciding any issues related to this matter due to a potential conflict of interest?
“IF” questions to consider if the claims are true
1. Who is responsible? Developer? Attorney working for the developer? HOA?
2. Exactly which lots are in and which are out of the HOA?
3. What is the status of the common property? In or out of the HOA?
4. Who owns the common property now? Has it been deeded to the HOA?
5. If Unit 3 & 4 are not in the association will they still have access to the common property?
6. What if we want to be in the HOA but live in Unit 3 or 4?
7. If we live in Unit 1 or 2, how does this affect us?
8. How will affect our dues?
There are many more questions that could be asked at this point but not all need to be asnwered until we get some more information. Please continue to press your elected BOD for complete disclosure of all facts and information.
Please come to tomorrow' s meeting with an open mind. There is no reason to assume any position is correct but we need to start getting input from the association membership.
An informed membership is key to an effective HOA
Tony Robinson
Investigation – This has been looked into by a number of different people.
1. VP Mueller was assigned to investigate this with the county on behalf of the association. Her findings are posted on the Yahoo website. Her report back to the President parallels the statement published in the October Newsletter.
2. BOD member Tony Robinson checked into this independently of Ms Mueller, his findings were different.
3. A member living in the community checked into this independently of both Ms Mueller and Mr. Robinson, his findings were different that Ms Mueller’s.
Questions for DePaulo
1. Is this true?
2. Was it intentional?
3. What, if anything, are you willing to do about helping us resolve the situation?
Questions for the BOD
1. What is the status of the investigation as of today?
2. Who is representing the BOD in this investigation?
3. Has the association retained the services of a lawyer in this matter?
4. Who is he/she?
5. Does this lawyer have any previous history in dealing with the developer? In this matter?
6. Has this ever happened before? If so was there a legal precedence established in that case?
7. What is the status of the BOD itself? Are BOD members living Units 3 & 4 legally BOD members?
8. Should those BOD members living in Units 3 & 4 recuse themselves from deciding any issues related to this matter due to a potential conflict of interest?
“IF” questions to consider if the claims are true
1. Who is responsible? Developer? Attorney working for the developer? HOA?
2. Exactly which lots are in and which are out of the HOA?
3. What is the status of the common property? In or out of the HOA?
4. Who owns the common property now? Has it been deeded to the HOA?
5. If Unit 3 & 4 are not in the association will they still have access to the common property?
6. What if we want to be in the HOA but live in Unit 3 or 4?
7. If we live in Unit 1 or 2, how does this affect us?
8. How will affect our dues?
There are many more questions that could be asked at this point but not all need to be asnwered until we get some more information. Please continue to press your elected BOD for complete disclosure of all facts and information.
Please come to tomorrow' s meeting with an open mind. There is no reason to assume any position is correct but we need to start getting input from the association membership.
An informed membership is key to an effective HOA
Tony Robinson
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Saturday’s BOD Meeting WILL NOT be a gripe session.
For your information: It is no secret (or surprise) that at least two of our BOD members will not attend this Saturdays BOD meeting. Kent and I were fully aware of this possibility when we called the meeting. It is also very true that should one more BOD member decide not to attend then there can be no BOD meeting. Having fully acknowledged this possibility, there is no restrictions on those members present sharing what documentation they have with one another. I will have as much documentation as I have access to available for review by anyone interested.
That being said, I have no interest in being involved in a giant gripe session attacking BOD members or other members present or not. It is my intent to share the documentation I have access to and to listen and discuss input and ideas from those present. Hopefully those in control of the BOD will respect the interest of the members and provide copies of the documentation they have even if they aren’t going to attend.
That being said, I have no interest in being involved in a giant gripe session attacking BOD members or other members present or not. It is my intent to share the documentation I have access to and to listen and discuss input and ideas from those present. Hopefully those in control of the BOD will respect the interest of the members and provide copies of the documentation they have even if they aren’t going to attend.
October Surprise Update
If you have read the October Newsletter you might be under the impression that the “October Surprise” situation has been resolved.
Unfortunately you would be mistaken.
Without commenting on the “diligent research” that “revealed that there is no basis for the claims” I will advise you that the association has retained an attorney to research and review what may be a legitimate problem. This is exactly why I asked to review the documentation used to reach the conclusion published in the October newsletter. I reported to the association’s President on October 29th (long before the newsletter was completed) that I had discovered information at the county recorder’s office that indicated there might be some validity to the claims in the letter received from Attorney Rhoads. It was at this time the shell game with the documentation began.
DO NOT MISINTERPRET MY POSITION ON THIS ISSUE. THESE CLAIMS MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE. I DO NOT KNOW. I MERELY WANT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTATION – NOT BRUSHED ASIDE AND LABELED A MALCONTENT.
I always liked the position taken by former President Ronald Regan: Trust but verify.
Unfortunately you would be mistaken.
Without commenting on the “diligent research” that “revealed that there is no basis for the claims” I will advise you that the association has retained an attorney to research and review what may be a legitimate problem. This is exactly why I asked to review the documentation used to reach the conclusion published in the October newsletter. I reported to the association’s President on October 29th (long before the newsletter was completed) that I had discovered information at the county recorder’s office that indicated there might be some validity to the claims in the letter received from Attorney Rhoads. It was at this time the shell game with the documentation began.
DO NOT MISINTERPRET MY POSITION ON THIS ISSUE. THESE CLAIMS MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE. I DO NOT KNOW. I MERELY WANT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTATION – NOT BRUSHED ASIDE AND LABELED A MALCONTENT.
I always liked the position taken by former President Ronald Regan: Trust but verify.
Skewerd Again!
Yes, I’ve been skewered again by the notoriously inaccurate “Watchdogone”.
While I refused to give credence to the numerous lies by disputing each lie individually, I do have one observation about this person of dubious integrity. This person obviously has great connections and influence with someone on the BOD because the “Watchdog” is publishing information on their blog long before it is revealed to some BOD members or any of the members at large (almost real time and certainly the same day).
Maybe we should consider placing “Watchdogone” on the BOD – I’ll be that person could get access to the documentation being withheld from the rest of us.
Kind of makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
While I refused to give credence to the numerous lies by disputing each lie individually, I do have one observation about this person of dubious integrity. This person obviously has great connections and influence with someone on the BOD because the “Watchdog” is publishing information on their blog long before it is revealed to some BOD members or any of the members at large (almost real time and certainly the same day).
Maybe we should consider placing “Watchdogone” on the BOD – I’ll be that person could get access to the documentation being withheld from the rest of us.
Kind of makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
More "Let's Keep a Secret"
Last night I contacted our President to volunteer with the normal sending out of postcards to announce this Saturday’s BOD meeting. Despite knowing that this Saturday's BOD meeting was called in accordance with our Bylaws, the association President advised me we would not send notification cards out for this meeting. Why? The President did not call the meeting, did not approve of the meeting, and did not think the meeting was necessary therefore the association would not send out notification.
So much for inclusion and openness.
Whether or not any BOD member agrees with the reason or necessity the fact is that this is a correctly called BOD meeting. It is a legal and official meeting and according to our bylaws, Article IV, Section 15, all BOD meetings are required to be open to the membership at large. It is only responsible on the part of our President to make a reasonable effort to insure the membership is notified of all BOD meetings. Without the mailing of notification postcards many of our members will never know there is a meeting.
Thanks to a member living in Unit 1 who realizes this issue is very important to all of us regardless of which Unit you live. They thought it important enough to finance the mailing of the notification postcards. You should receive yours tomorrow or Thursday.
So much for inclusion and openness.
Whether or not any BOD member agrees with the reason or necessity the fact is that this is a correctly called BOD meeting. It is a legal and official meeting and according to our bylaws, Article IV, Section 15, all BOD meetings are required to be open to the membership at large. It is only responsible on the part of our President to make a reasonable effort to insure the membership is notified of all BOD meetings. Without the mailing of notification postcards many of our members will never know there is a meeting.
Thanks to a member living in Unit 1 who realizes this issue is very important to all of us regardless of which Unit you live. They thought it important enough to finance the mailing of the notification postcards. You should receive yours tomorrow or Thursday.
Accountability - Not now, probably not ever
Absurd – This would be funny if it weren’t true.
Earlier today I made another attempt to gain access to the documentation used by Ms Mueller and our President in their decision about the status of Units 3 & 4. The following is the text of the message I sent to all BOD members.
To All BOD Members,
This is to formally request, for the fifth time, copies of all documentation discovered by Ms Mueller and used by Ms Mueller and Ms Koen to arrive at the decision emailed to Kent and I last week regarding the dispute over the status of Units 3 & 4 being in the HOA. As I noted in my last request, this documentation should have been provided upon receipt of my first request. It is important that these documents be made available for review by the membership at large at the called BOD meeting this Saturday, November 8th. Electronic copies will not be adequate due to their poor reproduction quality and because there is no internet access at the Fox Township Building.
Tony Robinson
The following is the response I received from Ms Koen.
Mr. Robinson,
I have uploaded the files onto the Yahoo Group. I asked Mrs. Mueller to research this information. Mrs. Mueller has done exactly what I asked her to do. She has been accountable to this BOD by researching this information and reporting back to me. I have reported to the BOD and all HOA members. As for the documents that Mrs. Mueller acquired at the county recorder's office, they are her property, as she paid for them with her own funds. Until the BOD pays Mrs. Mueller for these documents, they are her property. If at any time you feel you want to see the original copies, you can either go to Mrs. Mueller's house or purchase them from the County yourself.
Finally, this was my response to Ms Koen.
Ms Koen,
Your argument that the documentation used by Ms Mueller to reach her conclusions is hers until the association pays for it is absurd and nothing more than a ploy to avoid accountability on your part and on behalf of Ms Mueller. You, as President, have made a decision based on that documentation. Furthermore, you have disseminated that decision to the board with the implication that that would be the position of that BOD and the HOA. It is now time to share the documents supporting this decision with all BOD members and the association.
How can we move forward when the President is playing shell games with who "owns" documents and hiding information?
I believe your argument is insulting to any reasonable person.
Tony Robinson
Earlier today I made another attempt to gain access to the documentation used by Ms Mueller and our President in their decision about the status of Units 3 & 4. The following is the text of the message I sent to all BOD members.
To All BOD Members,
This is to formally request, for the fifth time, copies of all documentation discovered by Ms Mueller and used by Ms Mueller and Ms Koen to arrive at the decision emailed to Kent and I last week regarding the dispute over the status of Units 3 & 4 being in the HOA. As I noted in my last request, this documentation should have been provided upon receipt of my first request. It is important that these documents be made available for review by the membership at large at the called BOD meeting this Saturday, November 8th. Electronic copies will not be adequate due to their poor reproduction quality and because there is no internet access at the Fox Township Building.
Tony Robinson
The following is the response I received from Ms Koen.
Mr. Robinson,
I have uploaded the files onto the Yahoo Group. I asked Mrs. Mueller to research this information. Mrs. Mueller has done exactly what I asked her to do. She has been accountable to this BOD by researching this information and reporting back to me. I have reported to the BOD and all HOA members. As for the documents that Mrs. Mueller acquired at the county recorder's office, they are her property, as she paid for them with her own funds. Until the BOD pays Mrs. Mueller for these documents, they are her property. If at any time you feel you want to see the original copies, you can either go to Mrs. Mueller's house or purchase them from the County yourself.
Finally, this was my response to Ms Koen.
Ms Koen,
Your argument that the documentation used by Ms Mueller to reach her conclusions is hers until the association pays for it is absurd and nothing more than a ploy to avoid accountability on your part and on behalf of Ms Mueller. You, as President, have made a decision based on that documentation. Furthermore, you have disseminated that decision to the board with the implication that that would be the position of that BOD and the HOA. It is now time to share the documents supporting this decision with all BOD members and the association.
How can we move forward when the President is playing shell games with who "owns" documents and hiding information?
I believe your argument is insulting to any reasonable person.
Tony Robinson
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Reason for calling BOD Meeting - Short Version
Last week the BOD received a letter from a lawyer claiming that Units 3 & 4 of the subdivision were not part of the homeowners association. Needless to say a letter of this nature triggers a lot of questions followed by some research and discussion amongst BOD members. At least that would seem to be the normal and logical progression of events.
Not so on our BOD; nothing “normal” here.
Ms Mueller was asked to look into this by the association President. Her investigation is complete and her findings were emailed last Friday to all BOD members by Ms Koen without any supporting documentation.
Since that time I have made no less than four attempts to gain access to the documentation used by Ms Mueller to reach her conclusion. Ms Koen states she does not have the information and Ms Mueller won’t respond to phone calls or emails. It is noteworthy that both have responded to other emails on different subjects so I can only assume they have chosen to ignore my request.
Mr. Duffy shares my frustration with the lack of information. As BOD members we have every right to review these findings especially since my research revealed the possibility that there is some merit to the claims in Attorney Rhoads letter. I AM NOT STATING THAT ATTORNEY RHOADS CLAIMS ARE CORRECT; I JUST WANT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTATION.
Mr. Duffy and I have only one recourse; to call a special BOD meeting. In accordance with Article IV, Section 5, of our Bylaws, Mr. Duffy and I have called a special BOD meeting for next Saturday, November 8, 2008, at 8:30am. The location will be the Fox Township Building and all members are welcome.
Notification was sent to all BOD members in accordance with our Bylaws by certified mail.
As you can see this BOD has quickly moved to an era where information is not shared and those not in favor with the new majority are ignored. This method of operation is a throwback to the previous style of management and, in my opinion, crippling any possibility of becoming a productive BOD where the membership comes first.
Tony Robinson
Not so on our BOD; nothing “normal” here.
Ms Mueller was asked to look into this by the association President. Her investigation is complete and her findings were emailed last Friday to all BOD members by Ms Koen without any supporting documentation.
Since that time I have made no less than four attempts to gain access to the documentation used by Ms Mueller to reach her conclusion. Ms Koen states she does not have the information and Ms Mueller won’t respond to phone calls or emails. It is noteworthy that both have responded to other emails on different subjects so I can only assume they have chosen to ignore my request.
Mr. Duffy shares my frustration with the lack of information. As BOD members we have every right to review these findings especially since my research revealed the possibility that there is some merit to the claims in Attorney Rhoads letter. I AM NOT STATING THAT ATTORNEY RHOADS CLAIMS ARE CORRECT; I JUST WANT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTATION.
Mr. Duffy and I have only one recourse; to call a special BOD meeting. In accordance with Article IV, Section 5, of our Bylaws, Mr. Duffy and I have called a special BOD meeting for next Saturday, November 8, 2008, at 8:30am. The location will be the Fox Township Building and all members are welcome.
Notification was sent to all BOD members in accordance with our Bylaws by certified mail.
As you can see this BOD has quickly moved to an era where information is not shared and those not in favor with the new majority are ignored. This method of operation is a throwback to the previous style of management and, in my opinion, crippling any possibility of becoming a productive BOD where the membership comes first.
Tony Robinson
Reason for Calling a BOD meeting - Long version (includes timeline)
Last week the BOD received a letter from a lawyer claiming that Units 3 & 4 of the subdivision were not part of the homeowners association. Needless to say a letter of this nature triggers a lot of questions followed by some research and discussion amongst BOD members. At least that would seem to be the normal and logical progression of events.
Not so on our BOD; nothing “normal” here. Here is the timeline of events regarding this subject what happened over the last 7 days.
October 25th, Kent Duffy advised BOD members via email that each of us had received a letter from Attorney Staci Rhoads. He opened and scanned his letter so we all could read it asap.
October 29th, we received an email from Ms Koen stating Ms Mueller would investigate the info received at the county recorder’s office and stated an update would be given that evening.
October 29th, To satisify my own curiosity, I stopped by the county recorder’s office on my way to work to do a little research of my own. My presence there was reported to Ms Koen (probably by Ms Mueller who was there at the same time). Later that evening I received an email from Ms Koen requesting a report on my research. My reply to her was as follows:
Ms Koen -
My research at the county recorder's office was a "quick and dirty" search to satisfy my own curiosity. I was on my way to work and a little short on time so I do not consider my research to be a complete review of all documents. That being said, my findings reveal there is some validity to the claims in the letter. It would be best if I deferred to Ms Mueller's findings as I'm sure she had a greater opportunity for detailed research and follow up.
October 30th, Kent Duffy inquired about Ms Mueller’s findings?
October 30th, this is return message received from Ms Mueller:
Mr. Duffy,
I was requested by Board President Cara Koen to investigate the issues addressed in the letter from Staci Rhoads, and in doing so, contact the appropriate attorneys as deemed necessary. When all the appropriate information is acquired and a conclusion can be derived, I will then provide this to President Koen. As President Koen is the spokesperson for the BOD, it is her prerogative to decide when this information is given to the other Board members, not mine.
Concerning the aforementioned issues from Staci Rhoads, it is important that this BOD continue to take its direction from the Board President, and acknowledge the President to be its spokesperson. So, Mr. Duffy, in answer to your question, we all will share in this knowledge when President Koen determines that she has all the required information.
October 31st, All BOD members received the following message from Ms Koen:
Good Evening:
Contrary to what Mr. Robinson has indicated to the BOD there is no credence to the information presented to us by Attorney Rhoads.
In her investigation Paula found the following information:
Units 1 and 2 were initially recorded with the county on 4/03/00 as Marye's Heights and were later recorded as The Estates of Millbrook on 01/22/2002. Therefore, Marye's Heights no longer exists.
Unit 3 was recorded on 08/17/04 and Unit 4 was recorded on 08/09/04. They were both recorded as the Estates of Millbrook. There for all units have been legally recorded with the county and no further action is needed.
The aforementioned information is the reason why there is no basis to release all owners in Units 3 and 4 from the rules and codes of this Association, as well as futher payment of annual dues. This information will be explained to Attorney Rhoads when she returns my calls.
Cara Koen
October 31st, later that day I sent a message to Ms Koen stating “I would like to see the specific documentation Ms Mueller used to draw her conclusions.”
Since that time I have made no less than four attempts to gain access to the documentation used by Ms Mueller to reach her conclusion. Ms Koen states she does not have the information and Ms Mueller won’t respond to phone calls or emails. It is noteworthy that both have responded to other emails on different subjects so I can only assume they have chosen to ignore my request.
Mr. Duffy shares my frustration with the lack of information. As BOD members we have every right to review these findings especially since my research revealed the possibility that there is some merit to the claims in Attorney Rhoads letter. I AM NOT STATING THAT ATTORNEY RHOADS CLAIMS ARE CORRECT; I JUST WANT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTATION.
Mr. Duffy and I have only one recourse; to call a special BOD meeting. In accordance with Article IV, Section 5, of our Bylaws, Mr. Duffy and I have called a special BOD meeting for next Saturday, November 8, 2008, at 8:30am. The location will be the Fox Township Building and all members are welcome.
Notification was sent to all BOD members in accordance with our Bylaws by certified mail.
As you can see this BOD has quickly moved to an era where information is not shared and those not in favor with the new majority are ignored. This method of operation is a throwback to the previous style of management and, in my opinion, crippling any possibility of becoming a productive BOD where the membership comes first.
Tony Robinson
Not so on our BOD; nothing “normal” here. Here is the timeline of events regarding this subject what happened over the last 7 days.
October 25th, Kent Duffy advised BOD members via email that each of us had received a letter from Attorney Staci Rhoads. He opened and scanned his letter so we all could read it asap.
October 29th, we received an email from Ms Koen stating Ms Mueller would investigate the info received at the county recorder’s office and stated an update would be given that evening.
October 29th, To satisify my own curiosity, I stopped by the county recorder’s office on my way to work to do a little research of my own. My presence there was reported to Ms Koen (probably by Ms Mueller who was there at the same time). Later that evening I received an email from Ms Koen requesting a report on my research. My reply to her was as follows:
Ms Koen -
My research at the county recorder's office was a "quick and dirty" search to satisfy my own curiosity. I was on my way to work and a little short on time so I do not consider my research to be a complete review of all documents. That being said, my findings reveal there is some validity to the claims in the letter. It would be best if I deferred to Ms Mueller's findings as I'm sure she had a greater opportunity for detailed research and follow up.
October 30th, Kent Duffy inquired about Ms Mueller’s findings?
October 30th, this is return message received from Ms Mueller:
Mr. Duffy,
I was requested by Board President Cara Koen to investigate the issues addressed in the letter from Staci Rhoads, and in doing so, contact the appropriate attorneys as deemed necessary. When all the appropriate information is acquired and a conclusion can be derived, I will then provide this to President Koen. As President Koen is the spokesperson for the BOD, it is her prerogative to decide when this information is given to the other Board members, not mine.
Concerning the aforementioned issues from Staci Rhoads, it is important that this BOD continue to take its direction from the Board President, and acknowledge the President to be its spokesperson. So, Mr. Duffy, in answer to your question, we all will share in this knowledge when President Koen determines that she has all the required information.
October 31st, All BOD members received the following message from Ms Koen:
Good Evening:
Contrary to what Mr. Robinson has indicated to the BOD there is no credence to the information presented to us by Attorney Rhoads.
In her investigation Paula found the following information:
Units 1 and 2 were initially recorded with the county on 4/03/00 as Marye's Heights and were later recorded as The Estates of Millbrook on 01/22/2002. Therefore, Marye's Heights no longer exists.
Unit 3 was recorded on 08/17/04 and Unit 4 was recorded on 08/09/04. They were both recorded as the Estates of Millbrook. There for all units have been legally recorded with the county and no further action is needed.
The aforementioned information is the reason why there is no basis to release all owners in Units 3 and 4 from the rules and codes of this Association, as well as futher payment of annual dues. This information will be explained to Attorney Rhoads when she returns my calls.
Cara Koen
October 31st, later that day I sent a message to Ms Koen stating “I would like to see the specific documentation Ms Mueller used to draw her conclusions.”
Since that time I have made no less than four attempts to gain access to the documentation used by Ms Mueller to reach her conclusion. Ms Koen states she does not have the information and Ms Mueller won’t respond to phone calls or emails. It is noteworthy that both have responded to other emails on different subjects so I can only assume they have chosen to ignore my request.
Mr. Duffy shares my frustration with the lack of information. As BOD members we have every right to review these findings especially since my research revealed the possibility that there is some merit to the claims in Attorney Rhoads letter. I AM NOT STATING THAT ATTORNEY RHOADS CLAIMS ARE CORRECT; I JUST WANT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTATION.
Mr. Duffy and I have only one recourse; to call a special BOD meeting. In accordance with Article IV, Section 5, of our Bylaws, Mr. Duffy and I have called a special BOD meeting for next Saturday, November 8, 2008, at 8:30am. The location will be the Fox Township Building and all members are welcome.
Notification was sent to all BOD members in accordance with our Bylaws by certified mail.
As you can see this BOD has quickly moved to an era where information is not shared and those not in favor with the new majority are ignored. This method of operation is a throwback to the previous style of management and, in my opinion, crippling any possibility of becoming a productive BOD where the membership comes first.
Tony Robinson
Special BOD Meeting Letter
November 1, 2008
TO: All Estates of Millbrook Homeowners Association Board of Directors
RE: Special BOD Meeting
This is to advise you that a special board of directors meeting is being called for next Saturday, November 8, 2008, at 8:30am. The location is the Fox Township Building in Millbrook, Illinois.
This meeting is called in accordance with Article IV, Section 5 of the association's bylaws by Mr. Kent Duffy and Mr. Tony Robinson.
The item of discussion for this meeting is the dispute over the status of Units 3 and 4 as part of the HOA. Please bring all supporting documentation related to this dispute.
Sincerely,
/s/ Kent Duffy /s/ Tony Robinson
TO: All Estates of Millbrook Homeowners Association Board of Directors
RE: Special BOD Meeting
This is to advise you that a special board of directors meeting is being called for next Saturday, November 8, 2008, at 8:30am. The location is the Fox Township Building in Millbrook, Illinois.
This meeting is called in accordance with Article IV, Section 5 of the association's bylaws by Mr. Kent Duffy and Mr. Tony Robinson.
The item of discussion for this meeting is the dispute over the status of Units 3 and 4 as part of the HOA. Please bring all supporting documentation related to this dispute.
Sincerely,
/s/ Kent Duffy /s/ Tony Robinson
Saturday, October 25, 2008
BOD Activity Update
BOD Status Update
Based on the actions of our current BOD majority I hold little hope for this BOD functioning normally: normal being defined as working in the best interest of the membership at large and not pursuing self interests.
I have been contacted by two different people advising me that some of the new majority on the BOD are canvassing the subdivision door to door in an attempt to have me removed from office for not accepting the assignment of Secretary. I can’t help but wonder why since I have already resigned my position effective with the election of a replacement. All that is necessary to get rid of me is to hold an association meeting and run an election. Maybe there is an ulterior motive – like trying to make me look bad.
Here’s what looks bad: The work of the association taking a back seat to the politics of name assassination.
Despite all the garbage being shoveled my way I will continue to focus on doing what I can to insure the BOD complies with our bylaws. In the spirit of working for the membership at large, today I forwarded to the President the documentation required by Article VIII, Section 1, as related informing the membership about the new policies passed at the last two BOD meetings. I also prepared and forwarded to her the required letters certifying the BOD is in compliance with the same Article and Section. These should be signed by the acting Secretary and returned to the BOD for inclusion in the minutes at the next BOD meeting.
Somebody's got to focus on doing the job right. It just happens to be what I enjoy.
Best Regards
Based on the actions of our current BOD majority I hold little hope for this BOD functioning normally: normal being defined as working in the best interest of the membership at large and not pursuing self interests.
I have been contacted by two different people advising me that some of the new majority on the BOD are canvassing the subdivision door to door in an attempt to have me removed from office for not accepting the assignment of Secretary. I can’t help but wonder why since I have already resigned my position effective with the election of a replacement. All that is necessary to get rid of me is to hold an association meeting and run an election. Maybe there is an ulterior motive – like trying to make me look bad.
Here’s what looks bad: The work of the association taking a back seat to the politics of name assassination.
Despite all the garbage being shoveled my way I will continue to focus on doing what I can to insure the BOD complies with our bylaws. In the spirit of working for the membership at large, today I forwarded to the President the documentation required by Article VIII, Section 1, as related informing the membership about the new policies passed at the last two BOD meetings. I also prepared and forwarded to her the required letters certifying the BOD is in compliance with the same Article and Section. These should be signed by the acting Secretary and returned to the BOD for inclusion in the minutes at the next BOD meeting.
Somebody's got to focus on doing the job right. It just happens to be what I enjoy.
Best Regards
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
What the CCR's and Bylaws say about Officers in the Association
Here are the facts about BOD members holding a position as an Officer in the association.
According to Article VII, Item 6, of the CCR’s there are only three required Officers: President, Vice President, and Secretary/Treasurer. Item (b) of this section allows for more than one Vice President but does not require more than one Vice President. The following paragraph, labeled item 10, states the Secretary and Treasurer may be two separate officers.
The associations Bylaws further define the number of Officers required by the association in Article 5, Section 1, wherein it states that “No individual may hold more than one office at any time.” In order to comply with both of these documents we need to have a minimum of four BOD members holding Officer positions. Those Officers are: President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer.
The truth of the matter is that we are only required to have four Officers in the association.
Furthermore, we have yet to reach a consensus on who will hold what offices. What is frustrating is the no compromise attitude of some of our BOD members. At last night’s meeting Kent Duffy and I were the only BOD members to offer any suggested resolutions to the problem. All our suggestions were met with stone cold silence or statements of “Absolutely not”.
To her credit, Ms Koen did try to structure a system of shared Secretary duties between BOD members but I don’t believe that arrangement would be in compliance with the CCR’s and Bylaws.
Today I was informed by a friend that I had been” torched” again on the “Watchdog” website for not being a team player– anonymously of course. I asked my friend “Whats new?”
I only ask that you consider the source.
According to Article VII, Item 6, of the CCR’s there are only three required Officers: President, Vice President, and Secretary/Treasurer. Item (b) of this section allows for more than one Vice President but does not require more than one Vice President. The following paragraph, labeled item 10, states the Secretary and Treasurer may be two separate officers.
The associations Bylaws further define the number of Officers required by the association in Article 5, Section 1, wherein it states that “No individual may hold more than one office at any time.” In order to comply with both of these documents we need to have a minimum of four BOD members holding Officer positions. Those Officers are: President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer.
The truth of the matter is that we are only required to have four Officers in the association.
Furthermore, we have yet to reach a consensus on who will hold what offices. What is frustrating is the no compromise attitude of some of our BOD members. At last night’s meeting Kent Duffy and I were the only BOD members to offer any suggested resolutions to the problem. All our suggestions were met with stone cold silence or statements of “Absolutely not”.
To her credit, Ms Koen did try to structure a system of shared Secretary duties between BOD members but I don’t believe that arrangement would be in compliance with the CCR’s and Bylaws.
Today I was informed by a friend that I had been” torched” again on the “Watchdog” website for not being a team player– anonymously of course. I asked my friend “Whats new?”
I only ask that you consider the source.
What should my role on the BOD be?
Some have called into question what role I should have on the BOD since I have declined to accept the assignment of Secretary. The following is my response to Ms Koen when she asked that same question.
In my opinion my responsibilities should parallel my interests, just as other BOD members are working in areas of their interest. It has always been my goal to streamline the operation of the association by developing an awareness of how the bylaws and CCR's work together in the operation of the association and to develop additional guidelines (only where necessary) to accomplish this goal.
We are bound by duty and by law to operate according to both of these documents and there are still areas where they are in conflict. These should be resolved. The second area of interest is in compliance. We need to improve the method and manner in which the BOD complies with both of our governing documents.
I chose not to accept a position as an officer for multiple reasons including, time, area of interest, family responsibilities, and potential conflict with other BOD members.
In my opinion my responsibilities should parallel my interests, just as other BOD members are working in areas of their interest. It has always been my goal to streamline the operation of the association by developing an awareness of how the bylaws and CCR's work together in the operation of the association and to develop additional guidelines (only where necessary) to accomplish this goal.
We are bound by duty and by law to operate according to both of these documents and there are still areas where they are in conflict. These should be resolved. The second area of interest is in compliance. We need to improve the method and manner in which the BOD complies with both of our governing documents.
I chose not to accept a position as an officer for multiple reasons including, time, area of interest, family responsibilities, and potential conflict with other BOD members.
Monday, October 20, 2008
October 21, 2008 BOD Meeting Agenda
Good Evening,
The following is the complete text of the message sent by President Koen to the BOD members announcing the agenda for Tuesday night's meeting.
"Attached is the agenda for the Oct. 21st BOD meeting. Please bring your policy manuals to the meeting with you."
The following is the attached agenda-
ESTATES OF MILLBROOK
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
October 21, 2008
Regular BOD Meeting
Agenda
Call to Order
Public comments
Reading & Approval of Oct. 7th BOD Minutes
Reports
President’s Report
1st Vice President’s Report
2nd Vice President’s Report
Treasurer’s Report
Old Business
Capital Improvements Policy
Review of proposed policy regarding assessment and collection of fines
New Business
Discussion and review of Expense Reports and Bills paid
Liability insurance for BOD members and common
Review of Closing Documentation Policy
Review of Article IX, Section 1 – Lot Maintenance Standards
Review of Common Grounds Resolution
Review of Policy Statement on Use of Proxies by BOD
Management Firm
Discussion of BOD Realignment
Other
Adjournment
As you can see, there will be a repeat some of the October 7, 2008 agenda items with a purpose we will have to speculate at until the meeting itself.
In addition, it appears the policy manual will come under scrutiny with a purpose that is obvious to me but I will not speculate about at this time.
This association is falling apart at the seams - and there is nothing I, Mr Duffy, or anyone else can do about it.
The following is the complete text of the message sent by President Koen to the BOD members announcing the agenda for Tuesday night's meeting.
"Attached is the agenda for the Oct. 21st BOD meeting. Please bring your policy manuals to the meeting with you."
The following is the attached agenda-
ESTATES OF MILLBROOK
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
October 21, 2008
Regular BOD Meeting
Agenda
Call to Order
Public comments
Reading & Approval of Oct. 7th BOD Minutes
Reports
President’s Report
1st Vice President’s Report
2nd Vice President’s Report
Treasurer’s Report
Old Business
Capital Improvements Policy
Review of proposed policy regarding assessment and collection of fines
New Business
Discussion and review of Expense Reports and Bills paid
Liability insurance for BOD members and common
Review of Closing Documentation Policy
Review of Article IX, Section 1 – Lot Maintenance Standards
Review of Common Grounds Resolution
Review of Policy Statement on Use of Proxies by BOD
Management Firm
Discussion of BOD Realignment
Other
Adjournment
As you can see, there will be a repeat some of the October 7, 2008 agenda items with a purpose we will have to speculate at until the meeting itself.
In addition, it appears the policy manual will come under scrutiny with a purpose that is obvious to me but I will not speculate about at this time.
This association is falling apart at the seams - and there is nothing I, Mr Duffy, or anyone else can do about it.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Timeline of Election Events
The following is the timeline of events as related to the election of new board members at the August 2, 2008 elections.
August 2, 2008 the election was conducted. Within two days the BOD discovered two types of irregularities with the ballots. The first was the fact that there were 22 ballots with the same handwriting. It has been claimed that the BOD destroyed the ballots and that they no longer exist. This is not true. The association’s secretary is required by our bylaws (Article VI, D.) to keep those ballots on file for a period of not less than one year. They were not destroyed and are currently a part of the association’s records. The second was the fact one individual, holding five proxies, was not a member in good standing due to unpaid association dues yet voted at the meeting. Our major concern was the 22 ballots.
August 15, 2008 the entire BOD met with the association’s legal counsel. The BOD reviewed the suggested course of action over a two to three day period with the majority decision being to follow the attorney’s recommendations.
August 19, 2008. I submitted a letter of explanation to the BOD for their review and approval. This letter was approved by the majority within two days. Copies were provided to Mr. Aschauer and Mrs. Mueller via hand delivery on the 22nd or 23rd and mailed to the membership over the weekend. In that letter it was clearly communicated that the BOD hoped someone would step forward with an explanation to help shed some light on the ballot discrepancy.
On August 27, 2008 I received a phone call from a member stating he was aware of the situation and offering to mediate a meeting with the goal of resolving the dispute. I stated the BOD was in favor of such a meeting and told him if we could get an affidavit from the individuals involved explaining the ballot discrepancy I felt the BOD would be willing to accept the election results.
By August 29, 2008 it was fast becoming obvious that the possibility of a mediated meeting was fading fast. On that day, via email, I asked the BOD their opinion on establishing direct contact with one of the individuals reported to have knowledge of the situation. Contacting this individual was a bit risky because the BOD, as a group, and I, personally, had already received threats of legal action from this person.
On August 30, 2008 I sent a certified letter to Mrs. Mueller advising her BOD would welcome any input she might provide concerning the election ballot discrepancy.
On September 4, 2008 I received a letter from Mrs. Mueller with a parenthetical reference to the fact that there should have been 22 ballots in her handwriting. This was the first time Mrs. Mueller offered any information regarding her part in the election discrepancy. While far from the explanation the BOD had hoped for we decided to move forward and put the entire situation behind us.
On that same day, September 4, 2008, Mrs. Mueller was advised via email the BOD was accepting the results of the election as valid and would move forward.
Five days later, on September 9, 2008, both candidates were notified via US mail that they would be appointed at the next BOD meeting.
Two days later, September 11, 2008, the BOD received notification of the legal action.
This is the reality of the situation – The BOD had committed to appointing both candidiates to the BOD at the next meeting. That commitment would have resolved the tied election problem in the quickest manner possible AND fulfilled the commitment the BOD made to appoint the individual receiving the second most votes at the next BOD meeting.
It is also clear that both candidates had full knowledge the BOD had accepted the results of the election as valid and was discussing the different possibilities of getting both on the BOD in a timely manner four days before filing the lawsuits.
August 2, 2008 the election was conducted. Within two days the BOD discovered two types of irregularities with the ballots. The first was the fact that there were 22 ballots with the same handwriting. It has been claimed that the BOD destroyed the ballots and that they no longer exist. This is not true. The association’s secretary is required by our bylaws (Article VI, D.) to keep those ballots on file for a period of not less than one year. They were not destroyed and are currently a part of the association’s records. The second was the fact one individual, holding five proxies, was not a member in good standing due to unpaid association dues yet voted at the meeting. Our major concern was the 22 ballots.
August 15, 2008 the entire BOD met with the association’s legal counsel. The BOD reviewed the suggested course of action over a two to three day period with the majority decision being to follow the attorney’s recommendations.
August 19, 2008. I submitted a letter of explanation to the BOD for their review and approval. This letter was approved by the majority within two days. Copies were provided to Mr. Aschauer and Mrs. Mueller via hand delivery on the 22nd or 23rd and mailed to the membership over the weekend. In that letter it was clearly communicated that the BOD hoped someone would step forward with an explanation to help shed some light on the ballot discrepancy.
On August 27, 2008 I received a phone call from a member stating he was aware of the situation and offering to mediate a meeting with the goal of resolving the dispute. I stated the BOD was in favor of such a meeting and told him if we could get an affidavit from the individuals involved explaining the ballot discrepancy I felt the BOD would be willing to accept the election results.
By August 29, 2008 it was fast becoming obvious that the possibility of a mediated meeting was fading fast. On that day, via email, I asked the BOD their opinion on establishing direct contact with one of the individuals reported to have knowledge of the situation. Contacting this individual was a bit risky because the BOD, as a group, and I, personally, had already received threats of legal action from this person.
On August 30, 2008 I sent a certified letter to Mrs. Mueller advising her BOD would welcome any input she might provide concerning the election ballot discrepancy.
On September 4, 2008 I received a letter from Mrs. Mueller with a parenthetical reference to the fact that there should have been 22 ballots in her handwriting. This was the first time Mrs. Mueller offered any information regarding her part in the election discrepancy. While far from the explanation the BOD had hoped for we decided to move forward and put the entire situation behind us.
On that same day, September 4, 2008, Mrs. Mueller was advised via email the BOD was accepting the results of the election as valid and would move forward.
Five days later, on September 9, 2008, both candidates were notified via US mail that they would be appointed at the next BOD meeting.
Two days later, September 11, 2008, the BOD received notification of the legal action.
This is the reality of the situation – The BOD had committed to appointing both candidiates to the BOD at the next meeting. That commitment would have resolved the tied election problem in the quickest manner possible AND fulfilled the commitment the BOD made to appoint the individual receiving the second most votes at the next BOD meeting.
It is also clear that both candidates had full knowledge the BOD had accepted the results of the election as valid and was discussing the different possibilities of getting both on the BOD in a timely manner four days before filing the lawsuits.
President's October 7th Report
The following is the report I filed at the October 7, 2008 BOD meeting. I was asked to post it on the association's website and submitted it for posting but those in controll of the website have refused until the minutes are approved.
President’s Report
October 7, 2008 BOD Meeting
The last two months have been interesting to say the least. Never have I encountered a situation with such conflicted circumstances. We are experiencing a trial of wills with respect to the method and manner in which this association operates. I fully realize that I am at polar opposites with some board members regarding how the association operates. There has been and probably will continue to be a tendency to carry on in this conflict with both sides claiming victory in the name of what they perceive is best for the association. When counting the cost of this battle of wills I want to encourage all parties to focus, not on the winner, but on the perspective of the real loser in this conflict – the people who live here, the membership at large.
First I want to review the agreed to court order. (this was read into the minutes at this time and is availble for viewing on the association's website).
We, the defendants in this litigation, as individuals and as a BOD, have complied with every decree in the agreed to court order.
Next we all need to remember that this BOD, any BOD for that matter, is accountable to the entire association – not just any minority group regardless of how vocal they may be. The BOD has walked a fine line between keeping the membership fully informed and maintaining a level of discretion that would resolve the matter as quickly as possible and keep it out of the legal arena. It has been the goal of the BOD to ensure the interest of all members is equally represented. Just as there are those who were incensed that it took five weeks to determine the validity of the election there are just as many in the association who were very upset that we allowed the election to stand.
I believe a timeline review of the events will promote an understanding of why the BOD took that action we did. I will not continue to fan the flames of controversy by reviewing it here and now but I will be glad to share a factual, verifiable timeline with anyone interested. Just give me your email address.
So why did the BOD agree to a court order which in effect gives Mr. Aschauer and Ms Mueller everything they asked for? In a word – expediency. Those of you who know me know I loath the thought of making decisions on the basis of expediency over principle. Most of my fellow BOD members share this perspective but in this case once the BOD had cleared up the ballot controversy and announced we were accepting the election results there was no reason not to put Mr. Aschauer and Ms Mueller on the board. In fact we had already informed Mr. Aschauer and Ms Mueller we were recognizing the election results before the legal action was filed against the BOD. By entering an agreed to settlement we were also able to eliminate any future threat of legal action related to this matter and to save the association a lot of heartache and a lot of money.
Now is the time to move forward.
Some of the unfinished business we need to focus on is as follows-
1. We need to take appropriate steps to insure this type of event does not occur again. One of the biggest problems areas our legal counsel suggested we address is the manner in which we deal with proxies. I plan to ask the BOD to present to the membership a logical plan aimed at providing for better use of proxies.
2. The association’s legal counsel also recommends conducting future elections by mail. This would promote better participation and provide for a more balance BOD. I will ask the BOD to investigate the feasibility of election by mail.
3. We need to address the south entrance issue. Now that Hines is out of business we need to start again. I have written Mr. Hines, who has agreed to document his cost for the work accomplished to date and to refund the balance. I have yet to receive a reply. It’s time to get out a clean sheet of paper and develop new plan for the south entrance. One that is in line with new capital expenditures policy overwhelming approved by the membership at the August membership meeting.
4. We need to get the common property up to standards. No one is happy with the current state of the path. I spoke with the county again today. Mr. Depaulo has until tomorrow, October 8th, to respond to the counties demands to repair the path. Today their preferred contractor to do the work, Yingling Landscaping, informed the county they are not interested in working with the association on this matter. On October 14th, the Kendall County Planning, Building, and Zoning Department meets to discuss open issues in the county and will address the path at that meeting. The association is welcome to send a spokesperson to that meeting to express out preferences. The county engineer has reviewed the work to be done and believes the amount of money held by the county will be sufficient to complete the necessary repairs. Regarding the common property, a majority of the members have expressed an interest developing a master plan which promotes the natural beauty of our subdivision. We need to have consistency in our approach to maintaining common property and we need to reestablish access to the common property north of the creek.
There are many more worthy projects we could pursue but I believe we need to get this era of dispute behind us first.
In closing I want to address an issue that I believe is causing more problems in this association that anything else. That is the operation of the anonymous website dedicated to a constant barrage of lies, misrepresentations, innuendos, harassment and intimidation. I place those individuals operating the “watchdog” website among our citizens least deserving of any respect. When I am asked why I don’t dispute their postings or start my own anonymous website to attack them my thoughts turn to some sound advice my father gave me years ago when he said “ Tony, arguing with people like that is like wrestling with a pig. The pig loves it and all you’re going to get is dirty.” We all would enjoy a cleaner community if we would take a stand by quit reading that garbage then collectively and publically demand that whoever is behind it to stop.
President’s Report
October 7, 2008 BOD Meeting
The last two months have been interesting to say the least. Never have I encountered a situation with such conflicted circumstances. We are experiencing a trial of wills with respect to the method and manner in which this association operates. I fully realize that I am at polar opposites with some board members regarding how the association operates. There has been and probably will continue to be a tendency to carry on in this conflict with both sides claiming victory in the name of what they perceive is best for the association. When counting the cost of this battle of wills I want to encourage all parties to focus, not on the winner, but on the perspective of the real loser in this conflict – the people who live here, the membership at large.
First I want to review the agreed to court order. (this was read into the minutes at this time and is availble for viewing on the association's website).
We, the defendants in this litigation, as individuals and as a BOD, have complied with every decree in the agreed to court order.
Next we all need to remember that this BOD, any BOD for that matter, is accountable to the entire association – not just any minority group regardless of how vocal they may be. The BOD has walked a fine line between keeping the membership fully informed and maintaining a level of discretion that would resolve the matter as quickly as possible and keep it out of the legal arena. It has been the goal of the BOD to ensure the interest of all members is equally represented. Just as there are those who were incensed that it took five weeks to determine the validity of the election there are just as many in the association who were very upset that we allowed the election to stand.
I believe a timeline review of the events will promote an understanding of why the BOD took that action we did. I will not continue to fan the flames of controversy by reviewing it here and now but I will be glad to share a factual, verifiable timeline with anyone interested. Just give me your email address.
So why did the BOD agree to a court order which in effect gives Mr. Aschauer and Ms Mueller everything they asked for? In a word – expediency. Those of you who know me know I loath the thought of making decisions on the basis of expediency over principle. Most of my fellow BOD members share this perspective but in this case once the BOD had cleared up the ballot controversy and announced we were accepting the election results there was no reason not to put Mr. Aschauer and Ms Mueller on the board. In fact we had already informed Mr. Aschauer and Ms Mueller we were recognizing the election results before the legal action was filed against the BOD. By entering an agreed to settlement we were also able to eliminate any future threat of legal action related to this matter and to save the association a lot of heartache and a lot of money.
Now is the time to move forward.
Some of the unfinished business we need to focus on is as follows-
1. We need to take appropriate steps to insure this type of event does not occur again. One of the biggest problems areas our legal counsel suggested we address is the manner in which we deal with proxies. I plan to ask the BOD to present to the membership a logical plan aimed at providing for better use of proxies.
2. The association’s legal counsel also recommends conducting future elections by mail. This would promote better participation and provide for a more balance BOD. I will ask the BOD to investigate the feasibility of election by mail.
3. We need to address the south entrance issue. Now that Hines is out of business we need to start again. I have written Mr. Hines, who has agreed to document his cost for the work accomplished to date and to refund the balance. I have yet to receive a reply. It’s time to get out a clean sheet of paper and develop new plan for the south entrance. One that is in line with new capital expenditures policy overwhelming approved by the membership at the August membership meeting.
4. We need to get the common property up to standards. No one is happy with the current state of the path. I spoke with the county again today. Mr. Depaulo has until tomorrow, October 8th, to respond to the counties demands to repair the path. Today their preferred contractor to do the work, Yingling Landscaping, informed the county they are not interested in working with the association on this matter. On October 14th, the Kendall County Planning, Building, and Zoning Department meets to discuss open issues in the county and will address the path at that meeting. The association is welcome to send a spokesperson to that meeting to express out preferences. The county engineer has reviewed the work to be done and believes the amount of money held by the county will be sufficient to complete the necessary repairs. Regarding the common property, a majority of the members have expressed an interest developing a master plan which promotes the natural beauty of our subdivision. We need to have consistency in our approach to maintaining common property and we need to reestablish access to the common property north of the creek.
There are many more worthy projects we could pursue but I believe we need to get this era of dispute behind us first.
In closing I want to address an issue that I believe is causing more problems in this association that anything else. That is the operation of the anonymous website dedicated to a constant barrage of lies, misrepresentations, innuendos, harassment and intimidation. I place those individuals operating the “watchdog” website among our citizens least deserving of any respect. When I am asked why I don’t dispute their postings or start my own anonymous website to attack them my thoughts turn to some sound advice my father gave me years ago when he said “ Tony, arguing with people like that is like wrestling with a pig. The pig loves it and all you’re going to get is dirty.” We all would enjoy a cleaner community if we would take a stand by quit reading that garbage then collectively and publically demand that whoever is behind it to stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
