Highlights from the February 15, 2023 Board Meeting:
“And Yet Another Secret Board Meeting to Spend Your Money Without Your Knowledge,”
“Screwing with Your Vote,”
“Voting Threshold: Dangerous Dilutions of Your Voice and Your Money,” and
“Sneaky Mailbox Maneuver: Don’t Be Fooled”
Reminder: all seven directors are equal (Jeff, Harvey, Richard, Pat, Arthur, Bob, and Sue). Four are also officers: Jeff (president), Harvey (vice-president), Richard (treasurer), and Pat (secretary) with very limited administrative functions.
Despite the fact that the officers have those additional limited administrative titles, they’re still all equal directors in charge of managing the HOA.
Commentary is in bold blue. Quotes from speakers at the board meeting and quoted emails or motions are in unbolded black. Very few residents were in attendance as usual.
Part I: And Yet Another Secret Board Meeting to Spend Your Money Without Your Knowledge
Once again, most of the Board (minus Arthur) met illegally and in secret to raise the management company’s employees’ salaries (not the HOA’s employees; the HOA has none. This is an arm’s length vendor’s employees, to wit, the office staff and maintenance man).
This meeting took place on Friday, January 27, 2023 at 12:30pm and lasted a whopping 9 minutes according to that meeting’s Minutes (adjournment is noted as 12:39pm), so it appears to have been a fait accompli even before that illegal meeting.
This was done again behind your backs and they spent your money without your knowledge and without your legal right to speak and give your input/objection at an open Board meeting before this decision was made.
Also, upon information and belief, the paychecks cut for work from January 1, 2023, almost a month earlier, already have this increase built in them, so how is that? Richard, the treasurer, and Jeff, the president, did you fellows sign those back before this illegal meeting even took place?
This is on top of the bonuses the majority of the Board approved on November 16, 2022 (not Arthur because it was done behind closed doors in violation of the open meeting law and he refused to attend that meeting as well).
It is also on top of the salary raises they approved in July 2022 (again, Arthur refused to go for the same reason), and also on top of the recently negotiated contract renewal of a few months ago which just took effect on January 1, 2023.
So in the span of six months, this vendor’s employees received two raises outside the terms of the contract, a holiday bonus, and an increase when the contract was renewed in the fall (all of which was done in secret except for the last one).
And don’t forget the illegal private vendor party with the Board on November 18, 2022 presented in part by this vendor and the property manager, its employee, which occurred before the holiday bonuses were awarded.
That’s quite a gig if you can get it.
So to be clear: the new contract is effective January 1, 2023, and before the end of the first month the majority of the Board (minus Arthur) gave this vendor’s employees secret four to six percent raises that appear nowhere in the contract and which are retroactive to January 1, 2023.
And that’s the exact same date that the new contract takes effect and this raise is outside the terms of that new contract, which was supposedly already negotiated.
And it also appears that those increases were part of their paychecks starting back on January 1, 2023, which was almost a month before this secret illegal board meeting on January 27, 2023, and a month and a half before you all became aware of it by this board meeting (February 15, 2023).
So this whole time before any community knowledge or required resident input, these raises have been in effect for a month and a half already.
How is that fiscally responsible or transparent? It’s neither. This is your money, folks, and they’re giving away the farm behind your backs and clearly they don’t care what you think about it because if they did, they would permit resident input beforehand.
Arthur sent his colleagues on the Board the following email on Monday, January 23, 2023 when this meeting was scheduled by Treasurer Richard for four days later:
“All,
1. First of all, this would be another illegal close board meeting.
2. And second, didn’t you all just give them raises a few months ago at another illegal close board meeting?
3. And didn’t the contract just start on January 1, 2023 based on approval at a recent board meeting? The contract just went into effect and you’re already doing a raise outside the terms of the contract?
4. At the time this contract renewal was discussed, I told you all that any contemplated discretionary increases should be part of the contract so that you don’t go outside of the contract again, just like discretionary bonuses are included in the contract. You ignored me as usual.
5. And Richard, I don’t want to hear you backing into this by claiming that it’s already been budgeted for.
You all are taking fiscal and fiduciary irresponsibility to a new level.
Arthur”
As usual, no one responded. Sue also sent an email to her colleagues on the Board with questions about this, and no one responded to her either.
Indeed, it does appear that the Gang of Five is taking fiscal and fiduciary irresponsibility to a new level. This is outside the terms of the newly renewed and negotiated contract and is done surreptitiously without your knowledge or input.
They should never be spending money without telling you and giving you an opportunity to weigh in on at; that’s the purpose behind the open meeting law they keep flagrantly violating (Florida statute 720.303).
Needless to say, this secret closed meeting went forward (without Arthur who refused to attend an illegal meeting that violated the open meeting law) and the rest of them spent more of your money outside the terms of the contract they just supposedly negotiated.
This will also bump up the “base rate” when it comes time to renew the contract again.
In my opinion, this is fiscal irresponsibility on steroids. It’s no wonder your maintenance fees keep going up, and don’t let them blame it all on inflation.
These are the same people who don’t negotiate contracts, who add on vendor monetary increases on the whim and outside already signed contracts (they did it with vendor PBB Landscaping, too), and who fail to seek out competitive bidding for large sums of money that you pay.
Expect more of the same with this group at the helm. Clearly none of them ever successfully ran an actual business.
And their smugness on top of it just shows you with whom you’re dealing. I suppose it’s easy to be smug and carefree with other people’s money. They’re giving away the farm -your collective farm.
What exactly did you get for it? What was the consideration you received for paying more money outside the terms of the already signed contract? Zippo.
And where on earth is the transparency? They’re secretly spending your money. That’s your piggybank that’s being secretly raided with no accountability to you whatsoever. Never mind accountability for a moment – they’re not even telling you they’re doing it before it’s already done and paid.
That’s chutzpah (extreme audacity, hubris, nerve, and gall) where they secretly use your money to pay a vendor’s employees outside the scope of that vendor’s contract and keep piling on increases on top of increases with zero transparency and zero accountability.
Then, to add insult to injury, when Sue put on the Agenda for this meeting a motion to vote on the issue of FSR raises, Pat, the secretary, removed it and instead left her own spiel about ratifying the illegal vote under her Minutes report. Ratification necessarily means that the vote/agreement already occurred. It relates to a former agreement by definition.
It doesn’t belong there, there is no such thing as ratification in this context, and controlling the agenda in that way disenfranchises you, the members, because it takes away the equal voice of an equal board member whom you elected. This is a shameful power grab that continues to enable corruption on the Board. It is an abuse of power, plain and simple.
Pat and the Gang of Five also deprived the entire membership of its statutory right to comment before they already agreed to and implemented their decision. Heck, you didn’t even know that they spent your money behind your backs. See my further comments under Minutes below where this agreement/vote was supposedly “ratified.”
And for the record, none of this would even be known if Arthur and I were not here to expose it. This has been going on for years without any performance reviews or benchmarks to strive for.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
As usual, there were a minimal number of people who went to the Board meeting.
Jeff’s Opening Remarks: he couldn’t resist; he had to remind you once again that the HOA’s website is the only official HOA website. “He must think we’re dumb as rocks” (in the words of one member who was at the meeting) and he also loathes your gravitation toward my website to learn the truth.
First Residents’ Input Session: (no one spoke)
Approval of Minutes: Motion to approve the January 18, 2023 Board meeting Minutes was made by Pat and seconded by Bob. It passed 7-0.
Pat then moved to “ratify” the FSR staff salary increases most of the Board voted on at a closed and yet another illegal board meeting.
However, Pat’s motion to ratify that “vote” was done after Pat removed Sue’s item on the agenda specifically for that purpose. Sue put it on the agenda so that the members would have input before the vote. Sue’s agenda item read: “Approval of Salary increases for FSR Staff.”
Removing another equal Board member’s agenda item is a big no-no for several reasons:
1. It doesn’t belong here in “approval of Minutes.”
2. There is no such thing as “ratification” and that means there was an illegal closed meeting vote because they are ratifying what they did in that meeting.
3. Spending your money, incurring HOA debt, outside the view of the members where the members have no ability to speak and give their input BEFORE the vote is a breach of fiduciary and fiscal duty to the members.
4. Controlling the agenda by prior veto power over other equal board member’s agenda items disenfranchises you, the members, because it takes away the equal board member’s voice whom you elected.
That’s your money. What additional debt did these business bozos incur without telling you and what additional services does the HOA gain outside the terms of the contract that reflect or justify these raises?
Here are some highlights because for some interesting and odd reason, the video of this Board meeting is suddenly not available on the “only official HOA website,” unlike previous board meetings’ videos. Had we known, this official News Site could have brought its own camera crew. We’re allowed to do so per Florida statute 720.306 (10).
Harvey: “…retroactive to January 1st…”
Sue read from her prepared statement as follows:
Sue: “The Minutes are inaccurate for the following reasons:
1. As this was considered a personnel matter by our attorney, I did attend a closed board meeting on January 27th to discuss salary increases for FSR staff.
2. Although at the conclusion of the meeting there was a consensus as to the validity of the raises, I specifically stated that a formal vote needed to take place at an open meeting to approve these increases. I clearly recall that both the president and the vice president agreed with me.
3. Therefore, I put an agenda item under new business to approve the FSR salary increases. However, this agenda item was removed as five directors agreed to delete it.
4. You cannot vote at a closed meeting regarding financial decisions. Residents/owners have a right to know how their money is being spent as well as having opportunities to express their opinions on proposed board expenditures.
5. All directors were given specific references to support my viewpoint, including Florida state statute 720.303.
Therefore, I would like the Minutes to be corrected to reflect that consensus was reached regarding salary increases, but that the formal vote to approve them was to take place at the next open Board meeting. I am also requesting that the approval of FSR salary increases be placed back on the agenda under New Business.”
Pat: “Well, we just did approve them.” She completely missed the points or didn’t listen to what Sue said or didn’t care. Pick one or all three of those possibilities.
Arthur: “…It was an illegal closed board meeting and vote. The residents had the right to input before the vote. This is outside the contract and now you’re back-dating. Members have the right to know the salaries, not the payroll, that’s different. 720.303.”
Jeff countered by stating the attorneys said it was not illegal. Sue had an issue that it was a closed meeting and said it should be an open meeting so that residents can give their input.
Harvey: “We pay our attorney for his professional legal opinion. I want to call the question.”
Arthur: Calling the question? I thought that we weren’t doing Robert’s Rules. Calling the question cuts out discussion.” Apparently, Robert’s Rules are ok for the Gang of Five when they need to rely on it, just not for Sue and Arthur.
Jeff: “You chose not to come. You feel it is illegal.”
Arthur: “It is illegal.”
The motion to ratify the illegal vote, which was already implemented well before the Board meeting, passed 5-2 with Arthur and Sue opposing. There was clapping amongst the small group in the ballroom, and once again Jeff failed to control his dwindling minions.
Committee Reports: Landscaping is working on some Boulevard bushes which are over 20 years old; ARB reminded residents that its pre-approval is required before starting work; Entertainment reported that sound for the show was too loud but a new stage monitor and speakers have been purchased; Fitness touted the new aerobics room floor and activities.
Old Business:
Part II. Screwing with Your Vote
1. By Laws Amendments for Anonymous Voting – Pat Nast
The members overwhelmingly approved allowing anonymous voting for all future community votes to change the Declaration and Articles of Incorporation. The votes were: 378 approved, 26 disapproved, and 9 proxies were deemed invalid (by whom, we don’t know). This means that over 93.5% approved these amendments.
In my January 18, 2023 report I suggested that we could get over 90% approval on this, thus demonstrating that the community can come together and vote for something if it is presented and marketed properly and if it is something that is reasonable, compelling, and for the common good. I also wrote in that report the following:
“This will also dispel the inaccurate claim that if you don’t vote to reduce the community voting threshold from 75% to 66 2/3% to change an amenity, ‘nothing will ever get done.’”
You did it! This necessarily deflates and refutes that claim; it is now demonstrably untrue.
Pat moved to amend the By Laws to allow for anonymous voting. However, the community vote was to amend the Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation which always supersede the By Laws anyway, so this motion was absurd. More importantly, where is it being placed in the Covenants? We just don’t know, as that wasn’t discussed.
Arthur: “These don’t have to be in the By Laws; they’re already in the Articles. There’s no need. The Articles control. There is no need for extra confusion if they don’t match.”
Jeff: “It’s already done. We can talk at a later time and delete it.”
Already done? Good to know you did it already before the vote. Talk later to delete it? Is this guy serious? They didn’t talk before with Arthur, so they surely won’t talk later.
Sue: “Regardless of what is in the By Laws, the Covenants [control] if there’s a discrepancy.”
Back on February 10, 2023 at 10:14am Arthur sent the following email to Pat, the secretary, with a cc to all Board members and the property manager:
“Pat and All:
Putting an amendment to the By Laws is absurd because those can be changed by any Board at any noticed meeting. This needs to go into the Declaration and Articles of Incorporation, and that has to be filed with the Florida Department of State because it’s an amendment to the governing documents.
Where is that process being reported to the members? It’s not even on the agenda. Where is the proposed filing with the Florida Department of State, which would be the supporting document, and where is the motion to amend the Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation?
Arthur”
Naturally, he was ignored. The motion to amend the By Laws nevertheless passed by the Gang of Five, with Arthur dissenting and Sue abstaining.
There was no motion regarding the amendments to the Declaration and Articles and who knows when or where those amendments will be placed officially in the Covenants. At press time, it’s not on the official HOA website under Documents, although Pat stated that they were “registered with the county and the state.”
Part III. Voting Threshold: Dangerous Dilutions of Your Voice and Your Money
2. Ballot & Amendment / Voting Percentages & Mailboxes – Pat Nast
This is another community vote and it is a bundled and bungled mess asking you to vote for multiple issues on one item and then for the HOA to illegally seize your mailboxes for the other item. It’s an abomination. It is misleading, throwing in a carrot to you that you already have, and is a despicable display of manipulation. NO and NO.
The “Ballot Explanation” that is included with the ballot is manipulative and political; the third sentence urges passage when it should be neutral. It states, “The goal of this vote is to give the community more power in approving spending for alterations/ modifications/ improvements to common areas.” That’s not true and I will prove it to you below.
It also states that it comes from “Cascade Lakes Board of Directors” when in fact at least two board members never saw it in advance or had any opportunity whatsoever to give their input about it, and Arthur certainly never agreed to any of it. (They just pretend he’s not on the board and in fact rarely even respond to his emails.)
Pat: “This is to give the community residents more control over how we spend money…”
That’s not true either. Arthur proved it in the Board meeting and none of them understood what he was talking about and didn’t care. Here is the explanation:
The ballot question is essentially being presented thusly: Should the community voting threshold to impose a potentially costly amenity (such as clubhouse refresh, mailboxes, pickleball hardcourts), be reduced from the current 75% of the majority voting interests to 66 2/3%?
But is that really what the text of it says? DANGER: the way they wrote this disaster of a ballot initiative, it actually takes away the members’ right to assemble a quorum and bring something to a community vote on the members’ own initiative.
It states that combined amenity changes “as determined by the Board shall be combined as a single alteration, improvement or modification for the purpose of determining whether a vote of the Members is necessary.” That’s a direct quote from the text of the proposed amendment. Note the phrase “as determined by the Board.” So they get to decide, not you.
This gives the Board even more power over you and prevents you from deciding on changes on your own via a quorum which is your current right under the statute. It gives the Board control over whether or not something will be put to a vote, a right you currently have but won’t if this passes.
This clearly appears to have been orchestrated by the Gang of Five to wrest even more control over you and the decisions that you otherwise would have the right to make. This is nasty.
The statute 720.306 (1)(a) gives you the right to assemble and decide on changes yourselves “unless otherwise provided…in the [HOA’s] articles of incorporation or bylaws,” and this ballot measure does just that, it says, “as determined by the Board…for purposes of determining whether a vote of the Members is necessary.”
This changes the HOA’s Declaration which always supersedes both the Articles and the Bylaws if there is a conflict. It takes away your rights and it literally gives your rights to the four members of the Board who compromise a majority. And that’s outrageous.
Arthur: “All the changes should each be a stand alone vote. By putting them all together to sweeten the deal [is manipulative]. Section E, Exhibit A talks about the discretion of the board. This takes away the members’ rights by leaving it up to the Board. The community has the right. Before, they had this [right], and you took it out. So you took away their rights.”
Clearly none of them understood what he was saying and didn’t care. So for this reason alone, it’s a hard NO. Protect your rights; don’t give them away. Now on to the rest of it.
What about the items this ballot question is bundled with? Why are apples and oranges lumped together, forcing you to vote for an “all or none” plank of issues?
Let’s go over the first issue: reducing the threshold on community votes:
This was attempted back on March 14, 2019. The community voted on this exact issue and overwhelmingly defeated it. At that time, according to the official Minutes which I pulled off the HOA website, 420 households voted, 190 said yes, 230 said no.
It only garnered 45.2% of the total. The majority of the households rejected it then and should again reject it now. Nothing has changed. The arguments are the same. If most of you voted it down then, and for good reason, why should you change your vote now? I have not heard a compelling reason, and I have asked.
This part of the ballot, if you vote for, actually means more power consolidated in fewer hands, and that’s never a good thing. Do you want fewer people determining whether or not the HOA will be dipping into your bank account?
Most Board members are pushing the community to vote to reduce the threshold. They are using their bully pulpit to campaign for one side of this issue. That is highly inappropriate. It also suggests that their position cannot stand on its own, cannot withstand simple scrutiny, and needs help to resuscitate it.
In the Fall 2022 News & Views, the official HOA magazine, even the property manager weighs in and pushes for the lower threshold. Again, this is highly inappropriate. The property manager represents all members, not just the ones who want the lower threshold, and should remain neutral on all community matters.
This is a political issue which is dependent on the votes of the members only, and not the Board, and not the property manager. The Board and the property manager have no business campaigning for one side of this issue when they are obliged to represent all members equally. To campaign for one position on this hotly debated issue is unethical in my opinion and shows weakness of the position.
In any event, this vote should be rejected because it places more power in the hands of an even smaller number of people. I will now explain how dangerous this proposition is, just like it was a mere four years ago when most of you voted it down at that time.
Please note that to change the governing documents, only 66 2/3% is required right now. To change or add an amenity, 75% is required. There is a difference. So this vote, if it gets 66 2/3% approval, will effectively change the amenity requirement from 75% to 66 2/3% for a future vote to change or add an amenity.
For any community vote to be effective, a majority of the households need to vote; that minimum number is 301 because there are 600 houses. Let’s say 301 houses vote. Right now, at 75% to change or add an amenity, that would be 225.75 houses that would have to vote in favor of changing or adding the amenity. If the percentage were reduced to 66 2/3, then only 200.66 homes would be needed.
At the lower threshold, this means that of the 600 houses, only 200.66 would be able to make these huge decisions that 2/3 of the community would be bound by. Said differently, approximately 200 of 600 is one third of the homes and that is all that would be needed to incur significant assessments to you personally for their pet projects.
If the percentage stays at 75%, then 225.75 houses would control your pocketbooks, and that is 37.625% of the homes controlling your purse strings.
It’s never a good thing to have less people in control of what will be taken from your bank account as opposed to more. More people required to agree means it’s harder for them to impose special assessments, and that’s good thing.
Lowering the threshold also means that the people who use and abuse the common area to harass and intimidate others will have more amenities in which to do so and you’re footing the bill. How does that sound to you?
The argument in favor of reducing the percentage is that without it, no upgrades will ever happen here. That’s not a convincing argument because there already is a precedent of the vote having been around 90% for the last clubhouse refresh which was done less than 10 years ago from what I’ve been told.
If it was doable then, it’s doable again. If something is really desirable to have, it will get the votes it needs.
For example, while there is great divide as to whether or not the clubhouse needs a refresh or the fitness center needs upgrading, whatever that means, it’s hard to argue that pickleball hard courts would not be beneficial for the community.
Pickleball hard courts is an important investment in the future of this community and should receive overwhelming support, even from nonplayers.
That should be a stand-alone issue which I will happily market. When this issue becomes ripe, I will go into detail as to why it is important to have this amenity. But it doesn’t change the dynamics or the math on the issue of the voting threshold.
So while it is important to vote down the reduction for the reasons stated herein, it is important to remember that when it comes to pickleball hardcourts, the HOA members should support this upgrade with enthusiasm and vigor as it is an extremely important investment.
The key to getting this particular upgrade is to market it properly, not to compromise other issues for this one issue. Keep the threshold where it is, at 75%, and then properly market the benefits of hard courts and the community will respond favorably. But don’t compromise other issues by putting your wallet in the hands of even fewer people.
And as far as the other common areas are concerned, such as the area in and around the clubhouse, some loud and aggressive residents use the common area to bully, harass, and intimidate people who don’t agree with them.
These loud bullies then make demands upon residents as to with whom residents can and cannot socialize under threat of ex-communication and further harassment. I respectfully suggest that until this behavior ceases, you should not subsidize it with your money. This behavior should not be rewarded with upgraded amenities that they enjoy at your expense.
But the bottom line is that the people pushing for this lower threshold want to make changes that the majority of the people don’t want. That’s what this is about.
Do you want 1/3 of the community forcing a special assessment on you? Or would you prefer that a greater percentage of people decide whether or not an assessment is going to be imposed? Doesn’t that sound fairer?
If you vote to lower the percentage to 66 2/3%, you are inviting a small minority of people to decide to impose a special assessment on you for something you don’t want and may never use, or for whatever reason, you don’t believe it enhances the value of your home which you’re not selling any time soon anyway.
Therefore, in the strongest terms, I urge you to vote NO; do not reduce the threshold from 75% to 66 2/3% because it is diluting your voice and it is allowing a smaller percent of the community to decide how much you have to dig into your wallet and your savings to subsidize what they want. It consolidates power in few people.
The rest of this part of this ballot question should not be lumped together with this issue because they are separate and unrelated, but it is lumped together. Lumping issues together is another reason this is a hard NO on this question. It is also in my opinion an inappropriate attempt to manipulate the membership and I will briefly explain why.
This includes the question of reducing the board’s spending ability to a lower percentage of the budget but more importantly asks you to agree that there can be no elimination of amenities without your vote.
That sounds fair, right? Well, guess what: it’s already in the Covenants, Article VII, Section E. It says that the common areas may not be “altered, modified or improved…” without your vote except for those items under the Board’s spending threshold.
Some people are saying that it doesn’t say they can’t “eliminate” an amenity and that’s why they want you to vote for this and they’ve included it to sweeten the pot on what they really want. Nonsense. Eliminating an amenity would obviously alter it. It would alter it into nonexistence.
So to further fool, deceive, and manipulate you, they’re including something you like but already have. So adding it to “sweeten” the deal on the 75-66 2/3 issue is really dishonest in my opinion. Don’t be fooled by this blatant manipulation.
If they were really concerned about your opinion, they would have split up all these separate issues for separate determination and not included something you already have, to wit, the ability to decide as a community before any amenity is eliminated. Don’t be fooled.
However, the most ominous part of this ballot initiative, as I said in the beginning, and as Arthur stated in the board meeting, is that it takes away your right to lawfully assemble and vote on an amenity and gives that exclusive right to a majority on the Board. This is an egregious power grab and it’s despicable.
Part IV. Sneaky Mailbox Maneuver: Don’t Be Fooled
This is really sneaky. If the HOA takes ownership of the mailboxes, then the Board gets to decide on replacing them because then it’s considered “repair and maintenance.” They may then assess at least $330 per unit just for the mailboxes to pay for new mailboxes you don’t want. The $330 was quoted back in late 2019 when this issue was raised.
Any argument from certain Board members telling you that this will not result in a special assessment when they go to buy new mailboxes is, in my opinion, completely dishonest. Factor in the inflation and general rise in the cost of goods, and you better break into your piggybanks for this one.
This is why the Long-Range Planning Committee Chairperson specifically stated that the assessment he was referring to at the recent town halls did not include mailboxes.
They will claim that the mailboxes can’t be “repaired or replaced” and new ones have to be ordered and that is where the assessment comes in. They will claim it’s not an upgrade, but a replacement which is a Board decision, not a community vote, hence an assessment.
But that’s not all this dangerous ballot statement says. It says:
“The forgoing notwithstanding, each Owner shall be responsible for the daily routine cleaning and upkeep of the mailbox servicing their Lot.”
This new proposal, while it gives your mailbox to the community in terms of ownership, still specifically requires you to maintain your mailbox, so under this ballot measure, if you approve it, you are personally obliged to maintain community property, i.e., property that you no longer own! Now you’re an indentured servant to the HOA to clean their property.
And if you don’t maintain this common property (the HOA’s mailbox attached to your specific lot number) to the overlords’ satisfaction, they can issue a violation notice to you, fine you, and suspend you from common areas. That’s the insanity of this ballot measure.
Arthur tried to point this out. Harvey repeatedly interrupted Arthur. Jeff failed to control the meeting.
Arthur: “Don’t interrupt me. You cannot take personal property away and you cannot force a member to clean common area. It is misleading to say it will not increase the maintenance fees, because the community is taking on an obligation.”
Jeff: “You don’t have to clean your mailboxes. It’s not about taking over the mailboxes.”
That’s blatantly not true. The text of the proposal says you do have to clean them (see above for the actual text). And if you don’t clean it, that violation notice will find its way into the HOA’s mailbox located in front of your Lot with your house number on it. And it is directly about taking over the mailboxes.
This is an example of a Board member lying to you. And if he’s not lying to you, then he’s confused at best. And he’s the gang leader of the Gang of Five.
Arthur: “You don’t have to take over mailboxes. Just say it in the By Laws that the community will do it.”
There was some silly back and forth.
Richard: “I’d like to call the question.” Another member of the Gang of Five reverted to Robert’s Rules, which they specifically outlawed and replaced with Pat’s Rules of Order.
At that point, there was loud clapping.
Vicki: “Stop clapping. Jeff, control your crowd.” And believe me, it is his “crowd” of about a dozen people at best. At that point both Jeff and Harvey woke up and told them not to clap.
The motion was passed 6-1 (Arthur opposed). You will be getting this ballot in the mail shortly. For the rest of the argument against this (you’ll be paying for your neighbor’s failure to upkeep through your increased maintenance dues and it’s completely contrary to federal postal regulations, among the main reasons), see my dedicated Mailboxes page.
I strongly urge you to vote NO and NO and not let the Gang of Five and their minions exercise even more dominion and control over your assets while you clean them for the HOA.
3. Additional Palm Tree Removals / PBB / $1800 – Harvey Ginsberg
This was done under the claim that this Royal Palm tree could be a liability issue. Removing this magnificent and gorgeous tree in my opinion has diminished the look of the entrance to the community.
It was stated by the Co-Chair of the Landscaping Committee, Barry, that for over 20 years there has not been an issue. This tree doesn’t produce coconuts, and in fact the new Publix just installed Royal Palms along its sidewalk entrance.
What’s next? All the exquisite Royal Palms at the entrance of the community which took 20 years to grow into magnificence just to be felled in one fell swoop? Let’s just rename the place “Cascade Prairies” and we should be good to go.
This motion passed 6-1, with Arthur opposing because he didn’t feel it was a liability and noted that the HOA is covered by insurance. He did vote to remove the other three Royal Palm trees at the last board meeting because they were directly along the parking lot walkway where the handicap spaces were, but this one he felt was not an issue.
The landscaping co-chair, Barry, stated it’s a tremendous liability, and Harvey stated, “it’s the walkway.” It passed 6-1 with Arthur opposing. Reasonable minds may and do differ.
New Business:
1. Transfer of Funds from Operating Fund to General Reserve – Richard Greene
Richard made a motion to transfer $100,000 from the operating fund into the general reserve fund to increase the reserve fund from 70% to 73%. It passed unanimously.
2. Kitchen Door FOB / AT&I / $4,413.75 – Jeff Green
This was purchased for added security. It passed 7-0.
3. Clubhouse Awnings / Awning Contractors & Designers / $3,672 – Jeff Green
Apparently, they were worn and needed to be replaced. It passed 7-0. The color is jade.
4. Guardhouse Interior Painting / RCI / $2,525 – Sue Schmer
Sue said it hasn’t been done in about 10 years. It passed 7-0.
5. Ballroom Shades / Shine A Blind / $1,187.70 – Jeff Green
These appear to be blackout shades for the ballroom for when movies are shown during the day and also in the evenings during summer hours. It passed 7-0.
6. Pool Pump / Cucinotta’s Pool Service / $2,905 – Jeff Green
This is for the clubhouse fountain. This was done by Richard, the treasurer, on his own or in consultation with one or more board members, but it came as a surprise to other board members. The invoice is signed by Richard on January 24, 2023, which was three weeks before this board meeting.
This was done without the knowledge of the entire board and in violation of the open meeting law requiring expenditures to be noticed and voted on before the members and so as to allow for meaningful resident input beforehand.
This is another example of spending your money behind your backs. There was no emergency here. It’s a fountain pump; it’s not for the pool. And if it were that urgent, which it wasn’t, a board meeting could have easily been scheduled. Once again, you are showed no respect.
For the foregoing reasons, Arthur voted no. During Arthur’s time to talk, the audience was being disruptive. Jeff again failed to control them.
Jeff: “We already installed it. It would have conked out on us and conked out the other motor.”
Arthur: “It was already done prior to giving notice. You could have turned off the pump not to burn in out. It should have been done in front of the community. There’s nothing to vote on; it’s already done.”
It passed 6-0-1 with Arthur abstaining.
7. Revision of procedures for sending community email blasts – Sue Schmer
Sue’s motion read as follows: “Except in emergency situations, all email blasts dealing with issues and items over which the Board has responsibility shall be shared with all directors prior to being sent to the community.”
That seems fair, right? So naturally the Gang of Five nixed it. Sue and Arthur voted for it, the rest of them opposed it, so it failed.
This was expected because the Gang of Five is loathe to even acknowledge that Arthur is on the Board and they often ignore Sue as well, so nothing new here. The two greatest assets on the Board are summarily dismissed virtually every time they open their mouths or send an email.
Sue: “Some emails go out from the Board of which I have no idea. I get it when residents get it…give notice to the directors – it shouldn’t be an exclusive club.”
Ah, but it is, and it’s called the Gang of Five. And Sue, you’re not in it. Neither is Arthur. You two are the “Troublesome Twosome,” remember? The motion failed 2-5.
8. Approve new Music Club and Mission Statement – Arthur Andelson
Arthur’s motion to form a Music Club with Jay Bleiman as the initial president was seconded by Sue. After some back and forth, and some comments from Jay, it passed 7-0 with the proviso that at least 50% of the members have to be residents.
Second Residents’ Input Session:
Highlights: There were legitimate complaints about the raised temperature in the fitness center (which apparently Jeff unilaterally decided to raise), and Marion Weil correctly pointed out that board emails are public and are to be produced upon demand by any member.
Marion Weil: “Board emails…sunshine laws, they are public and anyone who asks are entitled to them.”
A resident who has two phallus-shaped shrubs on each side of his garage on Landon Circle complained about some unfinished home landscaping projects of others. The tips of his shrubs look like mushroom caps on top of a shaft and the bottoms are shaped like scrotum. This is the guy complaining about other homeowners’ front yards. This is the same guy who at a prior board meeting referred to director Sue as “1/2 a director.”
Round Table Discussion and Adjournment:
Sue: “Come out for any town hall meetings; we will answer all your questions.”
Arthur: “I appreciate all the members’ feedback.”
Bob: “I agree with Sue…”
Jeff: “Same thing about the town hall meeting. There are lots of younger people. If we don’t do something…will stagnate.” Nonsense. Please stop with the doom and gloom. If focus is made on wise investments and it’s marketed properly, those amenities will pass. We’re not going to stagnate here. Speak for yourself.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00am. Next scheduled Board meeting is March 15, 2023 at 9:30am.
Conclusion:
Thanks for reading, and to all of our wonderful neighbors and readers, thank you again for your unwavering support!
Your faithful scribe, Vicki Roberts
Hyperlinks To Happiness:
1. Mailboxes
2. Sun-Sentinel October 11, 2022 article, “Boca condo board loses bid to withhold financial records from ‘troublemakers’”
3. “Explosive: Lies Exposed, A Smoking Gun, and Vindication:” June 15, 2022 Board meeting