02-22-2017, 12:54 PM
I don't see how altering the BOD will change anything for the better either. It seems that every time we have a change of BOD, there are always remnants of the old BOD who poison the minds of the new members against the Membership.
Along w/the jockeying for power and agendas between reps. We've had 3 pres's in 6 mos. Deposing this rep, kicking off that rep. I heard this may be going on w/the addition of new reps. Let's see what happens in the upcoming wks. Historically it's not the members who chase reps away, it's their board peers.
The following is fact...and reason for my reluctance and low confidence in board atty consultations.
After learning the board was intending to CS all our dirt roads around Apr/May 2015, a few members asked for a membership voice considering the cost $300,000- $400,000 per year and it affecting the entire park and our monies for years to come. They thought this should be a membership decision (approx 8,8800 of us), not a 9 person decision. The board viewed this as member hostility, hence the name "group of 10" and incited members against them. Yes, this started way back then. They weren't hostile, but were obviously getting in their way. Had nothing to do w/their stance on CS but on the red flags going up on the business of it.
At a membership mtg in Oct 2015, the members voted for the following: That the board would give the members a CS presentation at a following membership mtg. To detail the process of laying chip seal, outsource or in house, the complete costs, the ups and downs of the product, the scheduling of which roads got done first etc. to follow w/a Q & A. During Q & A, questions on how the road crew would keep up w/their main duties would have come up, engineer involvement, permits required, have a test road first if the membership was leaning towards CS, and where the $ would come from. There was talk that the contractor they were going to use had no license and was involved in Orchidland's issue w/his CS work. There was only 1 bid, not 3 as required by our corporate policy. The board and GM weren't to take any action chip sealing until this presentation and vote occurred. Then after hearing the presentation, the members would vote yea or nay.
That was the whole motion that members voted for and passed. Any smart person would agree this would be a prudent decision before letting the board take on a project of this magnitude that would have a huge affect on our community and our pocket book.
The board pres (new Dist 5 rep's husband) asked why the board shouldn't move forward on CS when it's just a small % of members who voted for this presentation. We had the # required for a quorum and that pres obviously didn't know state law 414D. Any vote at a membership mtg (as long as a quorum is met) is "the acts of the membership." I emailed this state law 414D to the board, it was ignored.
I would've expected that if the board was going to do a presentation, they'd rally the members to attend and participate in this important decision. That would be a very diff board.
___________
The board pres's update msg in the Jan 2016 Annual Update that came w/our road fee bills stated this:
The board has chosen to use chip seal to mitigate the dust problems on our gravel roads. We are starting w/two test roads. Chip seal is approx 25-30% cheaper than the cost of asphalt (depending how it's applied).
The board sought a legal opinion on whether the membership may overturn a policy adopted by the Board concerning road maintenance matters. The attorney's response is, "Because of the specific delegation of authority to the Board concerning the maintenance, repair and improvement of the subdivisions roadways, and to adopt policies concerning same, it does not appear that the membership may override a Board policy concerning the roadway maintenance".
__________
1. More like dust problems on our powder roads, not gravel roads. That's the main source of our dust issues today.
2. The GM later called those 2 roads, "training roads". There were never ever any test roads.
3. Policy???
I don't know what any of you think about the atty "decision" but to me it's not definitive by any means and the membership didn't overturn any policy, it was the board overturning the acts of the membership. The board had never voted for CS at any board mtg. (Check the board minutes).
I've not seen any changes in them yet. Still breaking our bylaws.
Hope they pay attention to Larudnab's board letter which was very well written. Hit very important key points of good business decisions.
Edited for grammer purposes.
Along w/the jockeying for power and agendas between reps. We've had 3 pres's in 6 mos. Deposing this rep, kicking off that rep. I heard this may be going on w/the addition of new reps. Let's see what happens in the upcoming wks. Historically it's not the members who chase reps away, it's their board peers.
The following is fact...and reason for my reluctance and low confidence in board atty consultations.
After learning the board was intending to CS all our dirt roads around Apr/May 2015, a few members asked for a membership voice considering the cost $300,000- $400,000 per year and it affecting the entire park and our monies for years to come. They thought this should be a membership decision (approx 8,8800 of us), not a 9 person decision. The board viewed this as member hostility, hence the name "group of 10" and incited members against them. Yes, this started way back then. They weren't hostile, but were obviously getting in their way. Had nothing to do w/their stance on CS but on the red flags going up on the business of it.
At a membership mtg in Oct 2015, the members voted for the following: That the board would give the members a CS presentation at a following membership mtg. To detail the process of laying chip seal, outsource or in house, the complete costs, the ups and downs of the product, the scheduling of which roads got done first etc. to follow w/a Q & A. During Q & A, questions on how the road crew would keep up w/their main duties would have come up, engineer involvement, permits required, have a test road first if the membership was leaning towards CS, and where the $ would come from. There was talk that the contractor they were going to use had no license and was involved in Orchidland's issue w/his CS work. There was only 1 bid, not 3 as required by our corporate policy. The board and GM weren't to take any action chip sealing until this presentation and vote occurred. Then after hearing the presentation, the members would vote yea or nay.
That was the whole motion that members voted for and passed. Any smart person would agree this would be a prudent decision before letting the board take on a project of this magnitude that would have a huge affect on our community and our pocket book.
The board pres (new Dist 5 rep's husband) asked why the board shouldn't move forward on CS when it's just a small % of members who voted for this presentation. We had the # required for a quorum and that pres obviously didn't know state law 414D. Any vote at a membership mtg (as long as a quorum is met) is "the acts of the membership." I emailed this state law 414D to the board, it was ignored.
I would've expected that if the board was going to do a presentation, they'd rally the members to attend and participate in this important decision. That would be a very diff board.
___________
The board pres's update msg in the Jan 2016 Annual Update that came w/our road fee bills stated this:
The board has chosen to use chip seal to mitigate the dust problems on our gravel roads. We are starting w/two test roads. Chip seal is approx 25-30% cheaper than the cost of asphalt (depending how it's applied).
The board sought a legal opinion on whether the membership may overturn a policy adopted by the Board concerning road maintenance matters. The attorney's response is, "Because of the specific delegation of authority to the Board concerning the maintenance, repair and improvement of the subdivisions roadways, and to adopt policies concerning same, it does not appear that the membership may override a Board policy concerning the roadway maintenance".
__________
1. More like dust problems on our powder roads, not gravel roads. That's the main source of our dust issues today.
2. The GM later called those 2 roads, "training roads". There were never ever any test roads.
3. Policy???
I don't know what any of you think about the atty "decision" but to me it's not definitive by any means and the membership didn't overturn any policy, it was the board overturning the acts of the membership. The board had never voted for CS at any board mtg. (Check the board minutes).
I've not seen any changes in them yet. Still breaking our bylaws.
Hope they pay attention to Larudnab's board letter which was very well written. Hit very important key points of good business decisions.
Edited for grammer purposes.