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