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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
