Highlights from the September 21, 2022 Board Meeting:
“THE BAREFOOT CONTESSA,”
“INTERRUPTUS AND CHATTERUS,”
“ILLEGAL COMMITTEE SPENDING AND GAMING,” and
“MAILBOXES: PAYING FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR’S NEGLECT”
Remember: all cartoons and images are licensed. I have the license; you don’t. Copyright infringement is expensive.
A measly 15 people (other than the technical people, the Board, and the property manager) showed up in the ballroom when the meeting started, with four more who trickled in at different times during the meeting; only three were on Zoom per the president’s comment at the meeting.
Part I: THE BAREFOOT CONTESSA
|
The Barefoot Contessa was a very well-known 1954 film by Joseph Mankiewicz starring Humphrey Bogart, Ava Gardner, Edmond O’Brien, and Marius Goring.
My reported head count in the ballroom for this board meeting does not include the barefoot Zoom operator: violation, By-Laws, Page 4-9, section C, Facilities Rules and Regulations, subsection 1 (e). (Thou shalt not walk barefoot in the clubhouse.)
By the way, this is not the first time this has been noticed. One time he was the Barefoot Doorman holding the door for people entering the ballroom (which was very nice if you didn’t look down).
Another resident reports that he was seen in the ballroom operating the video for the CPR class with his bare feet up, resting them on the back of a chair. So this appears to be a repetitive pattern.
What’s next, speedos and thong bikinis while reclining on the ballroom floor whilst sipping on a coconut Daiquiri and scratching one’s itchy feet?
|
Now let’s get to the highlights.
Part II: “INTERRUPTUS AND CHATTERUS”
I’m going to start with what were two obvious observations in addition to The Barefoot Contessa:
1. Arthurus Interruptus: Let’s initially note that several people on the dais continued to interrupt Board member Arthur when he spoke (president Jeff, treasurer Richard, and property manager Deborah, I’m talking about you three); this is constant, and at one point Arthur once again had to say, “let me finish.”
They don’t do this with other Board members. This is rude and disrespectful and actually makes the interrupters look bad and it looks as if you’re trying to divert attention away from the truths he is speaking. If you keep doing it, I will keep calling it out.
2. Schmerus Chatterus: Also, during Sue Schmer’s comments, people in the audience were chattering. They don’t chatter when others on the dais speak.
The president failed to tell them“sileo, taceo!” which are two ways in Latin to say “be quiet!” He had a choice; he used neither. In fact, he was the one who remained silent, once again failing to control the di minimis crowd.
Part III: “ILLEGAL COMMITTEE SPENDING AND GAMING”
Treasurer’s Report: -Richard Greene
According to the written report emailed to all members, and without Board approval, without any community notice, and without a Board vote, the Entertainment Committee, presumably through its Chairperson, the same one who peddled the fraudulent and failed recall petition and falsely told members that a Board member committed two felonies, purchased a projector with HOA money resulting in a loss for the year to date.
And did the entire committee really vote to do that or was that a decision by this Chairperson along with Richard Greene, the committee’s board liaison?
The Entertainment Chairperson claimed at the last meeting that it was a “donation.” There is no such thing with regard to HOA money which is given to the committee to use for expenses, and this was tres improper.
There was no authority for this and in fact there isn’t. This is HOA money, and expenditures of this nature require notice to the community with an opportunity for resident input and a board vote at an open board meeting. There’s no wiggle room on this.
As you will see below, not only did Arthur raise this at the meeting, but another Committee Chairperson also objected to it at the meeting during the Second Residents’ Input Session, and after the meeting, a former Board member who is presently another Committee Chair, someone who knows a lot about budgets and who was the former treasurer, also objected to it.
Perhaps this will now set a precedent – any committee that wants to spend money, go right ahead and we’ll just give you more money to spend the next year because you’ll claim you need more for your budget based on your spending whims of the previous year, and to heck with the open meeting law, the members’ right to comment, and the requirement of a Board vote at an open meeting.
This is called a free-for-all and completely violates Florida statute 720.303. However, most of the people at the top of the food chain here appear to be fine with this, although clearly there are major cracks in that loose coalition.
Arthur: the Entertainment Committee purchased a projector using HOA funds… they are a board adjunct; they need board approval.
Richard: it’s being used for the community. [So what? Under that justification, any committee could buy anything for the community and who needs the Board?] They have their own bank account. It’s been the practice for a number of years.
And somehow that makes it right? No. They get their money from the HOA members. They don’t earn it on their own and they don’t pay into it separately. This is not the Entertainment Chair’s personal piggybank, although it appears to be operating that way.
|
Harvey: they’re spending their profits.
Jeff: there’s a separate financial statement for News & Views and Entertainment.
Arthur: any committee that spends money… [Jeff, Richard, and Deborah were constantly interrupting him] … it has to be on the agenda, it has to be open to the community, it can’t be closed, because now they’re making a financial decision.
Jeff: that’s the way it’s been going for twenty years.
Thanks for admitting that people have been violating the law for 20 years. So they’ve been breaking the law for twenty years, you’re perfectly fine with this, and therefore they should continue to do so? That’s a ridiculous rationale and it makes you look at best, foolish, for promoting and/or condoning it.
Deborah: the committee checks with its liaison.
That would conveniently be Richard, the board liaison for the Entertainment Committee and the non-CPA treasurer (not ever licensed in Florida, not active anywhere for over ten years). That’s cozy.
This HOA treasurer is putting his stamp of approval on this outrageously improper spending of your money by an unelected community member, the honesty-and-integrity-challenged Entertainment Chair.
It gets worse.
|
The Entertainment Chair’s husband, who is the Chair of the Recreation Committee, and who is also the aforementioned Barefoot Contessa, also apparently decided to purchase a screen for the projector with the proceeds of their joint Splish Splash bingo gaming enterprise, which is completely illegal under Florida statute §839.0931, subsections 4 and 3, as pointed out by Arthur at the board meeting.
Those proceeds were required by law to be donated to charity or returned to the members in the form of free future bingo games.
Arthur: at the last board meeting… they reported that they used bingo proceeds to buy a screen. Proceeds can’t be used for that: Florida statute 849.0931. It has to go back to reduce bingo cards or be donated…
And once again, cue Richard, who immediately jumped in to voice his objection to Arthur mentioning anything remotely related to a legal matter or a statute.
Richard: Once again, you’re quoting the law. We’ll have to check it with somebody with authority. [Said the guy with no official CPA credentials who parades around as if he’s the ultimate authority on all things money related.]
Sue: Questioning procedure and past practice, if we get clarification, we can discuss it as a separate agenda item.
The big problem here, which I, too, just found out about at the previous board meeting, is that moneys collected from this gaming enterprise under the liaisonship of Richard Greene and with his imprimatur as treasurer, have been illegally retained by these committees and used for other purposes, such as a purchase of a movie screen, which is in complete and flagrant violation of Florida statute §849.0931, subsection 4.
The statute is clear and unambiguous, specifically subsection (4) which then refers to subsection (3). For those of you who are interested, here it is, in plain English:
Florida statute §849.0931, subsection 4, states:
“(4) The right of a condominium association, a cooperative association, a homeowners’ association as defined in s. 720.301, a mobile home owners’ association, a group of residents of a mobile home park as defined in chapter 723, or a group of residents of a mobile home park or recreational vehicle park as defined in chapter 513 to conduct bingo is conditioned upon the return of the net proceeds from such games to players in the form of prizes after having deducted the actual business expenses for such games for articles designed for and essential to the operation, conduct, and playing of bingo. Any net proceeds remaining after paying prizes may be donated by the association to a charitable, nonprofit, or veterans’ organization which is exempt from federal income tax under the provisions of s. 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code to be used in such recipient organization’s charitable, civic, community, benevolent, religious, or scholastic works or similar activities or, in the alternative, such remaining proceeds shall be used as specified in subsection (3).”
Subsection (3) states:
“(3) If an organization is not engaged in efforts of the type set out above, its right to conduct bingo games hereunder is conditioned upon the return of all the proceeds from such games to the players in the form of prizes. If at the conclusion of play on any day during which a bingo game is allowed to be played under this section there remain proceeds which have not been paid out as prizes, the organization conducting the game shall at the next scheduled day of play conduct bingo games without any charge to the players and shall continue to do so until the proceeds carried over from the previous days played have been exhausted. This provision in no way extends the limitation on the number of prize or jackpot games allowed in one day as provided for in subsection (5).”
That’s very straightforward and I have significant confidence that most of you reading it can clearly understand it. You don’t need a law degree to read plain English.
They are admittedly not donating the excess proceeds to “a charitable, nonprofit, or veterans’ organization which is exempt from federal income tax under the provisions of s. 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code” and they are at all times charging the residents to play every single bingo game without exception.
This has been going on for many, many months and it is a regularly scheduled event under the tutelage of the Entertainment Chair and her husband, the Recreation Chair aka the Barefoot Contessa.
Under Richard’s stewardship, they are illegally and repeatedly keeping the monthly cash proceeds in excess of the cash payouts and expenses instead of donating them or using them to conduct future bingo games at no charge which the statute specifically requires.
I do not know, nor have I had the chance to research, the federal law and IRS regulations on this situation. But once again, there’s no wiggle room here.
Finally, don’t let Richard tell you that “it’s in the budget” because you don’t back into a budget like that and that doesn’t justify spending members’ money in secret, without notice to the community or other Board members, and without a duly noticed board vote at an open meeting where members are entitled by law to comment thereon before the vote.
And all of that’s the scary truth.
|
Minutes from August 17, 2022 Board Meeting: Arthur noted that the foreclosure entry doesn’t mention who or what was voted on. Harvey and Jeff seemed to not have remembered what the in camera vote was at this closed board meeting.
Arthur noted that the lawyer said to ratify it at the next Board meeting (which was the August 17, 2022 Board meeting after that closed board meeting) because it was tentative and was to be formalized at the open Board meeting and that didn’t happen either.
Harvey: it was in camera, therefore privileged.
Arthur: All votes are not privileged. The subject matter is privileged. The vote does not relinquish the attorney-client privilege; it only talks about moving forward, not privileged.
Jeff: can we add it to the Minutes? [This has nothing to do with the in camera meeting; this has to do with the failure to ratify the vote at the open board meeting.]
Harvey: there were no Minutes. [Again, you’re talking apples and oranges; this isn’t about the closed meeting or its Minutes; it’s about the failure to ratify at the open meeting with an open vote.]
Richard: [And cue Richard: once again, Richard is triggered by anything Arthur states that sounds legal; he is not so triggered when Harvey or any other Board member raises a legal point or cites a statute, and Harvey is known to do so with impunity from Richard.] This is a legal question again. We discussed it with the attorney; he told us not to take Minutes.
This has nothing to do with Minutes for that closed meeting.
And let’s not forget that this should be the last guy to target Arthur when Arthur raises a legal issue: this guy parades himself around as a CPA without telling people that he has never been so licensed in Florida and hasn’t had an active license anywhere for over a decade, all the while acting as if he is the ultimate expert and authority on all financial matters concerning the HOA.
What a hypocrite. People are actually disgusted with Richard’s targeted behavior toward Arthur. It’s old, it’s stale, and no one’s buying it, Richard. You just come across as an angry man lashing out at the one person who’s trying to educate you to do things right and to follow the rules; G-d forbid you learned something new.
Jeff: approve the Minutes, and we’ll call the attorney if we have to put down the vote.
Arthur: the attorney also mentioned ratification; ask him about that. Jeff: ok.
Do you all think they’re going to contact the lawyer about this? Maybe only because it’s now reported here, so let’s see what happens; I won’t hold my breath, though. The Minutes, with that proviso, passed 7-0-0.
Committee Reports:
1. Landscaping: Co-Chair Shelly Andreas graciously emailed me the report for inclusion herein which was read aloud at the meeting by Co-Chair, Barry Gordon:
The landscape committee met on Thursday 08/29/2022 in the conference room. The focus of the meeting was the selection of the fall annuals. The plants selected will consist of sunpatiens and begonias.
At the meeting certain issues were brought up and they include the following:
1. Residents are trimming the common hedges. This is common property and no resident has the right to cut or trim these areas. Common property belongs to the HOA not individual residents.
2. Residents have been seen cutting through the common hedges causing plants to be trampled on and then having to be replaced. This causes money to be spent unnecessarily for replacement.
3. Residents have been seen allowing their pets to walk over the newly planted flowers and/or plants once again causing money to be spent unnecessarily.
If this practice continues the possibility of a violation may be imposed on the offending resident and then possibly fines may occur.
We are asking that resident’s treat the common area with respect and to remember that it is common area which only the HOA has control of.
If you see something on common areas that need attention, please put in a work order.
Thanking you in advance for your help and support.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelly Andreas and Barry Gordon for the Landscape Committee
People, please heed the report!
2. Budget: Chairperson Mark Goodman reported that the Budget Committee met, increases will be under 10%, and everybody did a great job.
3. Entertainment: [flyers and emails to follow for all planned events.]
Old Business:
1. Voting Rights / Bylaws Revision – Pat Nast
The By-Laws now appear to track the Covenants. Also, if you have a valid voting certificate on file, you cannot be disenfranchised if you didn’t return one of their new ones. Pat made the motion, Arthur seconded it, and it passed unanimously after a slight tweak requested by Sue.
Left open is the audit issue: where is the confirmation that everyone with a valid original one on file will be counted? How is that process going to work? You have a right to know.
2. Increasing Ballroom to full capacity- Harvey Ginsberg
There is disagreement about this, and perhaps reasonable minds can and do differ.
Some say that as adults, people should be able to make their own informed decisions and determine what risk level they are willing to take. Others don’t want to tempt fate and unknowingly be exposed to those who are a bit more carefree.
It is true that snowbirds are returning, families are visiting, and tourist season is coming, all of which brings in a flux of people who have spent hours in an incubated airplane with a bunch of strangers breathing their recirculated air.
Harvey moved to open up the ballroom to full capacity and noted that for those who are uncomfortable about it, they can stay home or wear a mask. Those in favor: 5; those opposed: Pat and Arthur. Motion passed 5-2-0.
Part IV: “MAILBOXES: PAYING FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR’S NEGLECT”
|
3. Mailbox Ad Hoc Committee/Project Update – Pat Nast
Pat reported that they’re working on it and that they believe the issue will be addressed in 2023. A community vote is required.
She said the attorney will be reviewing the documents to clarify ownership of the mailboxes. Actually, they’ve done so numerous times and billed the HOA multiple times and in my opinion their advice is questionable at best on a good day.
Sue, who was on the ad hoc committee with Pat and Richard, said, “we do have a commitment to get this done.”
Let’s leave the legalities out of it for a moment (seizing your mailbox contrary to law), as I have reported on it numerous times and there is a dedicated Mailboxes page on this website which thoroughly debunks arguments to the contrary (see link at the end of these Board highlights under the heading Hyperlinks to Happiness).
This time, I’m going to focus on your money and how, if the plan is for the HOA to take over ownership of the mailboxes or in any way force owners to buy a new mailbox at a price unacceptable to you individually, it is a pure money sucking enterprise which ultimately will cost you more in the long run.
When this was raised back in late 2019, the price of the mailbox per homeowner was about $330 and that was three years ago. Yes, that’s right, each home would have to pay that either by increased maintenance dues or a special assessment. And that was the price per home three years ago, long before the current inflation kicked in.
Here’s another reality: if the community votes to take over the repair and maintenance of all mailboxes, you are in effect paying for your neighbor’s neglect of his mailbox. You are actually encouraging the neglect because now your neighbor knows that you’re paying to keep his mailbox pretty and the cost to him is 1/600 of what it would have otherwise been.
So when it gets really ugly, moldy, dirty, and otherwise unpleasant to look at, the HOA will pay to clean it up and he saved the hassle and money of doing it, and you paid for it. So if your neighbor’s a slob, he benefits the most. This idea encourages lack of upkeep.
And that’s another reason, aside from the legal issue, why this community vote will likely go down in flames.
|
Yes, we all want pretty mailboxes, but not for a negligent neighbor at our expense.
4. Insurance Update – Richard Greene
Richard stated that the “appraisal” for the community structures went from seven million dollars to nine million dollars and the premium went up accordingly.
Actually, per Arthur, a formerly licensed property and casualty agent in three states – Nebraska, Illinois, and California – and most of these policies are very similar, it’s not the appraisal but rather the replacement value that determines the premium. That amount is what likely increased, which then resulted in the increased premium amounts.
New Business:
1. Audit Engagement / 2022-23 / $6,000 – Richard Greene
This is an audit by the HOA’s CPA firm. The $6,000 is the per year price, not the price for the two years this contract covers (2022 and 2023). It was approved 7-0-0.
2. Common Area Landon Ficus Removal / PBB $3,000 – Harvey Ginsberg
This includes the delivery and installation of sod as well. It was approved 7-0-0.
Harvey erroneously stated it was behind Arthur’s house. No it wasn’t. It was on the other side of Landon Circle that buts up against Cascade Lakes Blvd. We live on the canal, literally the opposite side of Landon Circle.
And in fact we removed the ficus on both sides of the property entirely on our dime and replaced them all with a total of 50 individual seven-gallon Clusia plants which we installed to cover over 110 feet of property, each individually planted. One side was 37 feet long, the other side was 61 feet in length, and then an additional 12 feet of Clusia was installed around our neighbor’s air conditioning unit.
So, no, Harvey, this agenda item was nowhere near our property and the HOA didn’t pay for our ficus removal and replacement with Clusia. This agenda item was for ficus removal on HOA property near someone else’s house, almost the furthest away from our house on Landon Circle as you can get.
3. Common Area Bristolwood Ficus Removal / PBB / $5,750 – Harvey Ginsberg
This includes delivery and installation of 3-gallon green Arboricola. It was approved 7-0-0.
4. Landscaping Contract Addendum 2023 Rate Increase – Harvey Ginsberg
The current contract runs through December 31, 2023, and has a built-in 2% increase in it specifically for fiscal year 2023. This was already negotiated and agreed to back in 2019 when the contract was first signed. So why is this on the agenda with an additional increase for the benefit of PBB?
Here’s why: because most of the Board decided that they would once again go outside the contract and what was already negotiated and add another 3% increase on top of that for a new total of 5% increase with the excuse that the cost of labor and materials is up and PBB therefore requested it.
But that was already negotiated in the original contract which gives them a 2% increase presumably specifically for that purpose.
Why have a contract if you’re going to ignore the terms? Since when do these folks represent the landscaping company, PBB? And yet here we are again going outside a contract (just like with the FSR management contract) and actually breaking the contract terms for the benefit of the vendor to the detriment of the HOA members. Why?
If you are wondering why your HOA dues go up yearly, this is a great example.
Sue said they deserved it but was concerned about whether there was any attempt to negotiate it down by one percent because that will be the new base price which will then begin at an increased cost when the contract comes up for renewal. She opined that it may compound exponentially.
Richard said that each year should stand by itself. He said, “if we reduce, our services will go down.” Say what? So what you’re saying is that PBB is holding the HOA hostage by threatening to reduce the services contracted for and that they will then breach the contract if you don’t acquiesce to this extra-contractual increase. Really, Richard?
Richard is stating affirmatively that PBB will essentially breach its contract if this increase is not passed. Not only is that a potential trade disparagement against PBB, but what is the factual basis for this claim? Did the owners of PBB tell you that? I find that very hard to believe.
Richard said it was on the low end [of similar contracts] and he was concerned that PBB might walk away from the contract if they didn’t get the increase mid-contract. He said it’s hard to get landscapers because “they’re not looking for business.”
Richard: they can cancel on us. It’s a very difficult time to bring in another company… they’re not looking for business.
Sue: this is a large expense.
Richard: we don’t want them to walk out on us.
Jeff: there are not that many qualified people.
Sue: three percent increase, not five; two percent is already built into the contract. [great catch, Sue!]
Jeff: we’ll add the word “total.”
This passed 6-1-0 with Arthur opposing because it was outside of the already negotiated contract currently in effect, among other reasons discussed below. I can’t wait to see what the new quarterly maintenance fees are going to be.
As to Richard’s fear that PBB would “walk:” this contract is worth well over $1,000,000 with all the add-ons occurring almost monthly, so they’re not going to be so quick to walk and besides, what’s wrong with competitive bidding?
And if you’re not going to honor a contract, what’s wrong with reasonable negotiation? So per Richard, PBB asked for this increase. Harvey said, “Richard said that was reasonable.” So therefore, since Richard, the non-CPA, decreed it was reasonable, you all, along with Richard, except for Arthur, just bent over and took it.
|
Richard also feared it would be hard to replace them because landscapers are not looking for business. Really, no one wants over a million dollars a year? Where’s the evidence to support that claim?
Every little municipality I ever dealt with required competitive bidding, even if they had a preferred vendor. It’s called due diligence. Did anyone do any due diligence before agreeing to this? There’s no evidence of it. Was this really a good business practice?
How much time went by between the time PBB requested the increase and it appearing on the agenda as a done deal? Where was the careful contemplation? Where was the vetting of this sudden request by PBB?
Where was the discussion with all Board members (once again, Arthur wasn’t advised of any of this until it appeared on the agenda)? Where was even a modicum of negotiation?
Who thinks all you HOA members don’t have a right to answers to these various questions? After all, you’re paying for it with increased quarterly dues.
Now, some people believe that PBB deserved this increase based on their increased labor, material, and fuel costs (that’s what Harvey reported as the reason they asked for the increase). If that’s true, what did PBB present to the Board to substantiate this claim of theirs? Arthur reports no information or documentation whatsoever.
So, it’s one thing to say that they deserve it, and maybe they do, maybe they had some unforeseen increases that they felt they needed to pass on to the HOA in order to continue servicing the contract, but to make that claim without any evidence whatsoever is very troubling. And for the Board not to vet and investigate it is even more troubling.
Once again, Sue caught a potential error in the wording and made sure that it wasn’t 5% on top of the 2% already in the contract, so kudos to Sue for her keen eye.
The motion passed 6-1-0 with Arthur opposing because it was outside the terms of the original contract and also because there was no Board discussion about this in advance, no information provided to substantiate the request, and no apparent effort to vet or investigate any of this prior to its appearance on the agenda or the Board vote.
5. Pest Control Contract Addendum 2023 Rate Increase / All Florida – Jeff Green
This is for the clubhouse pest control and for rodent control. The prices went up. I don’t have the original contract, so I don’t know if they did the same thing that occurred with PBB, for which I did have the contract.
Jeff reported that the clubhouse monthly pest control rate went from $125 to $135, and the monthly rodent control went from $304 to $340. That’s a total monthly increase of $46 or a $552 yearly increase. He said it’s the first time we’re getting an increase since 2016. Arthur asked when the contract expires; Jeff said it’s a roll over. It passed 7-0-0.
6. Desk Replacements / Office Furniture Warehouse / $2362.56 – Richard Greene
Once again, nothing was communicated to all Board members. Why not? Arthur went into the property manager’s office and asked once he saw it in the Board packet, and he then first learned that the desks are 20 years old and file drawers are popping out and injuring the staff.
Arthur was also advised this was going on for five years. That being the case, why? Why for five years has the staff been hit by flying file drawers?
Richard: they’re falling apart, sharp edges, drawers falling out, somebody’s gonna get hurt.
Arthur: it’s a safety hazard that’s been going on for years. It’s important to take care of it immediately.
It passed 7-0-0.
7. YMCA – Renewal 2023 - $39,700 - Jeff Green
Per Jeff, the price has gone up about 9 ½ to 10%. It was approved, 7-0-0. This is a two-year contract, and it has a built-in increase of slightly more than 5% after year one, so the price on the agenda is for the first year only. Year #2 is $41,700.
Second Residents’ Input Session (highlights only):
1. Resident #1: this resident reported that someone not part of the community is using the facilities as someone else’s apparently permanent guest seven days a week; she said that individual is using the facilities without the resident with them.
She noted that if every house did this, it would double the occupancy, and this is akin to being semi-public and perhaps the HOA should charge a day fee.
Harvey said they would talk to the resident about it and that no HOA charges a fee. Richard said if the HOA charged a fee, there might be a problem with insurance.
The reporting resident said she was using a bit of sarcasm about suggesting that the HOA charge a fee but noted that it is an issue that needs to be addressed.
2. Barbara Green for Zelie Prussack: Wednesday fun bridge, we need people to join us. We’re getting bored with the same people every time.
Gee, I used to play bridge in college in the 1970’s; do you think they’d like me to join them?
|
3. Barbara Gordon (who is also the Facilities Chairperson): I have the utmost respect for the hard work of the Entertainment Committee, but the profits belong to the community. If there’s a purchase with any money, it should be brought to the Board to be voted on. The profits belong to the community.
This was 100% in support of what Arthur stated, to wit, that it is wholly improper for the committee (or its Chair) to have spent that money on their/her own, that was not their money, it was HOA money, and any proposed expenditure needs to be voted on by the Board at an open Board meeting with required resident input for that agenda item prior to the vote.
Also, after the Board meeting, as mentioned above, outside in front of the clubhouse, a former board member who is the current Budget Committee Chairperson also echoed Barbara’s sentiments that this practice is completely improper.
4. Mark Goodman: …I’m now a C.O.P. on a bike [Citizens Observer Patrol as an adjunct to the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Department]. The crosswalks, it’s a state law, cars are supposed to stop, especially at Spring Oak. We have to do something.
5. Another resident was dripping in delight at the death of iguanas on the common property. The joy he expressed in their killing, and in the exterminator’s swagger when he described the latter holding up the dead carcasses, was disturbing.
I understand that lake erosion is a big issue from these creatures and that the protection of the lakes is important, but the attitude of ecstasy at the killing and the display of the carcasses as he amply described was both disturbing, disgusting, and disrespectful. Who gets pleasure out of such a thing? Apparently, this guy does.
He was concerned that they breed across the canal in Indian Spring which is doing nothing about it and then they swim across to our HOA side. He was hoping the Board could reach out to them (Indian Spring, not the iguanas). Jeff said that Indian Spring isn’t part of the presidents’ club.
Round Table and Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:30am after all Board members passed on making any comments during the Round Table Discussion.
Conclusion:
This was a great board meeting where for the most part everyone behaved themselves, except for the constant interruption of Arthur by Jeff, Richard, and Deborah. Please stop it, folks, as it makes you look bad. And what really are you afraid of – that he might educate you?
|
It was nice to see some Chairpersons supporting Arthur’s concerns even though he was outnumbered on the Board.
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:
More On Mailboxes: Mailboxes
Debunking False Reports About Me: CL-Update 08/04/22
|
|
