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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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