10-29-2011, 03:20 PM
@afwjam, all things roads, water and parks are always under the auspices of the Board of Directors who are seated and tasked with management and maintenance. Whether they defer to the Members is dependent on them if it is not clearly spelled out in the BLs. That has been the issue for so very many years. The Members live and let live; some vote during the annual election - most don't; many have not read or do not fully understand the governing documents. The Members believe that because this is a Membership that everything needs to be put out there for the Members to approve or disapprove. While it would be nice for everything to happen that way it would be costly and time consuming and the documents from which the Association takes its authority did not require such from any Board. The facts, in my opinion, more members need to show up at the meetings; prepare for the meetings by reading the agenda and asking questions or follow the discussions and if something doesn't 'feel' or 'seem' right to ask the Board for clarification.
The discussion about the speed humps happened at Board level over several meetings and during the Infrastructure Committee meetings over several meetings. When they had gathered the bids; cleared it with the first responders and county roads director and everything was as done as it could be -- save the actual humps themselves -- the Board chose to permit the owners to pay for the 3 humps themselves. They had a couple of residents there who spoke in support of the humps on their street and understood they'd have to pitch in their fair share. It was at any one or all of these meetings that members could/should have spoken to the issue that concerned them.
The only issue I have with the whole ordeal is that yet another Board set yet another precedent in allowing owner residents to alter and/or build upon a community asset. As one of the Directors pointed out, during the discussion, before the vote was taken "The members will then be responsible for the maintenance of something they did not have a voice in approving." He argued his point vigorously but as 1 vote against a majority he stood no chance of winning. In the democracy of this community that director represented those in the community who would have an objection to putting in the humps and committing Membership treasures to the maintenance and management of something they did not have a voice in approving. The majority vote that prevailed represented those who find no issue with it or who applaud it. There is only one way to change that dynamic.
The traffic safety issues are important actually but that is a discussion for another time and place.
Using the logic that since it is on HSCA community property the association must now maintain and manage would necessarily require any and all things sitting on our collective community property to be maintained and managed by HSCA. I will sit on my hands now..
Question Authority!
The discussion about the speed humps happened at Board level over several meetings and during the Infrastructure Committee meetings over several meetings. When they had gathered the bids; cleared it with the first responders and county roads director and everything was as done as it could be -- save the actual humps themselves -- the Board chose to permit the owners to pay for the 3 humps themselves. They had a couple of residents there who spoke in support of the humps on their street and understood they'd have to pitch in their fair share. It was at any one or all of these meetings that members could/should have spoken to the issue that concerned them.
The only issue I have with the whole ordeal is that yet another Board set yet another precedent in allowing owner residents to alter and/or build upon a community asset. As one of the Directors pointed out, during the discussion, before the vote was taken "The members will then be responsible for the maintenance of something they did not have a voice in approving." He argued his point vigorously but as 1 vote against a majority he stood no chance of winning. In the democracy of this community that director represented those in the community who would have an objection to putting in the humps and committing Membership treasures to the maintenance and management of something they did not have a voice in approving. The majority vote that prevailed represented those who find no issue with it or who applaud it. There is only one way to change that dynamic.
The traffic safety issues are important actually but that is a discussion for another time and place.
Using the logic that since it is on HSCA community property the association must now maintain and manage would necessarily require any and all things sitting on our collective community property to be maintained and managed by HSCA. I will sit on my hands now..
Question Authority!
"Q might have done the right thing for the wrong reason, perhaps we need a good kick in our complacency to get us ready for what's ahead" -- Captain Picard, to Guinan (Q Who?)