12-24-2016, 08:38 AM
Kenny makes a comment about one of the many disturbing things that happened at Wed. evenings board meeting, “certain members of the BOD are intent on maintaining not the roads but their own power over us and our money.” He may have in mind, from what I have learned, 1 agenda item from the board meeting. That is where director Jo Maynard, District 5 (subject of a recall petition) succeeded in her second attempt at passing a board policy which in effect is an addition and a change to the bylaws and amounts to a “save Jo’s arse” policy but is in the real world an obvious conflict of interest. She wanted and got, thanks to her “Jedi” mind control trickery (you remember how that works, low intelligence people are easily manipulated) a policy described on the agenda as “”Unfinished Business: 4. Approve District recall policy – Jo”. As far as I am aware, no one outside of the tight little cabal of directors knows the contents of the language of the policy except for what could be over heard as discussed by the directors during the so called debate of the policy.
Apparently, 1 part of the new illegal (as in violation of bylaws, see Art. VIII Sec. 7. (a),(b) and ©) board policy puts a time limit on the gathering of recall signatures. The bylaws are silent on setting a time limit because first, the members of that district are required to gather a minimum of 200 signatures to start a recall ballot. Once the signatures are gathered the office then mails a ballot to every lot in that district. 200 signatures is a very high and difficult goal to reach. Second, it is none of the boards business how long the signature process takes.
Jo Maynard, District 5 (subject of a recall petition) was heard telling the other directors that “she’s out of here in 6 months any way”, meaning her term is up at the end of June. Really, that’s why she has been working so hard on this “policy” for at least 4 months because she is not running for reelection again? I think it is more probable that Jo Maynard, District 5 (subject of a recall petition) is desperate to be reelected to maintain the chaos she has created over the last 2 and half years. 3 years (the length of her term) just isn't enough time to inflict her carnage.
Here’s another tidbit I learned about this recall policy, the board thinks they can determine and control whether the lot owners in Jo Maynard’s , District 5 (subject of a recall petition) have a legitimate concern or problem with their director. The bylaw for the recall petition does not require a reason for removal, only that the petition MAY contain no more than 200 words in making their “case”. Apparently, only 1 on the board, the new Treasurer, argued that it is none of the boards business why owners in a district want to remove her. Good point.
Unfortunately, none of the other directors understood that since minds lacking any knowledge of the bylaws and possibly common sense, are easily manipulated.
1 director, Randi Larzalere, district 6, argued that the complaints on the petition against Jo Maynard, District 5 (subject of a recall petition) were lies, wrong and already resolved (I’m paraphrasing), and they could get the association into a lawsuit. Wait a minute, wasn’t that board discussion about Jo Maynard, District 5 (subject of a recall petition) and over a new board policy to “save Jo’s arse”? The same Jo Maynard, District 5 (subject of a recall petition) that has already gotten this Association in 1 ongoing lawsuit and a recently ended arbitration case (coincidentally 1 of the issues in that case was Jo’s conflict of interest which the last board in June by an illegal action, ratified)?
Here is the common sense argument that the new Treasurer tried, but failed, to make; neither the board nor the Association has any involvement in the making of any “case” against a director for a recall. They are not liable for the recall actions of members in a particular district. The only way a board could get involved in litigation over a recall is if the board itself, following it’s authority in Art. VIII, had made libelous allegations against a director in their recall effort. But again, the bylaw does not require that a “case” be made in the petition for recall.
Summing up what I know, this policy is nothing more than Jo Maynard and her devilish group of marionettes thwarting the bylaws to maintain control.
BTW, I’m gathering more information about the outrages actions this board just took.
Apparently, 1 part of the new illegal (as in violation of bylaws, see Art. VIII Sec. 7. (a),(b) and ©) board policy puts a time limit on the gathering of recall signatures. The bylaws are silent on setting a time limit because first, the members of that district are required to gather a minimum of 200 signatures to start a recall ballot. Once the signatures are gathered the office then mails a ballot to every lot in that district. 200 signatures is a very high and difficult goal to reach. Second, it is none of the boards business how long the signature process takes.
Jo Maynard, District 5 (subject of a recall petition) was heard telling the other directors that “she’s out of here in 6 months any way”, meaning her term is up at the end of June. Really, that’s why she has been working so hard on this “policy” for at least 4 months because she is not running for reelection again? I think it is more probable that Jo Maynard, District 5 (subject of a recall petition) is desperate to be reelected to maintain the chaos she has created over the last 2 and half years. 3 years (the length of her term) just isn't enough time to inflict her carnage.
Here’s another tidbit I learned about this recall policy, the board thinks they can determine and control whether the lot owners in Jo Maynard’s , District 5 (subject of a recall petition) have a legitimate concern or problem with their director. The bylaw for the recall petition does not require a reason for removal, only that the petition MAY contain no more than 200 words in making their “case”. Apparently, only 1 on the board, the new Treasurer, argued that it is none of the boards business why owners in a district want to remove her. Good point.
Unfortunately, none of the other directors understood that since minds lacking any knowledge of the bylaws and possibly common sense, are easily manipulated.
1 director, Randi Larzalere, district 6, argued that the complaints on the petition against Jo Maynard, District 5 (subject of a recall petition) were lies, wrong and already resolved (I’m paraphrasing), and they could get the association into a lawsuit. Wait a minute, wasn’t that board discussion about Jo Maynard, District 5 (subject of a recall petition) and over a new board policy to “save Jo’s arse”? The same Jo Maynard, District 5 (subject of a recall petition) that has already gotten this Association in 1 ongoing lawsuit and a recently ended arbitration case (coincidentally 1 of the issues in that case was Jo’s conflict of interest which the last board in June by an illegal action, ratified)?
Here is the common sense argument that the new Treasurer tried, but failed, to make; neither the board nor the Association has any involvement in the making of any “case” against a director for a recall. They are not liable for the recall actions of members in a particular district. The only way a board could get involved in litigation over a recall is if the board itself, following it’s authority in Art. VIII, had made libelous allegations against a director in their recall effort. But again, the bylaw does not require that a “case” be made in the petition for recall.
Summing up what I know, this policy is nothing more than Jo Maynard and her devilish group of marionettes thwarting the bylaws to maintain control.
BTW, I’m gathering more information about the outrages actions this board just took.