(For detailed reporting, please see Bev Houston's "Informer" or the BCC official web site.)
We heard far too much from the usual "pundits" in the audience, letting the rest of us know that they have yet another opinion. Same rowdy, uncontrolled yahoos making unrecognized call outs, cat calls etc. from the audience ensured that no opinion but their own could be heard. It's small wonder that attendance at Board meetings is so small.
Interesting tidbit about bedbugs in Rec 3 and an apartment in building 11. Some effort was made to keep this barely mentioned, but it didn't slip by because it perked up some audience interest. These are reportedly persistent little buggers and we'll probably be hearing more on this subject.
While on the subject of infestation, Saundra Zubko managed to get her "legal expenses" reimbursement passed (4-3) by voting for it herself. (A clear case of conflict of interests which should have meant her refraining from a vote.) Questions as to the possibility of setting a precedent that could cost us all dearly at some future date, or why our Directors and Officers liability insurance was not paying this were brushed aside. Apparently, no legal opinion was sought.
5 comments:
INFESTATION REPLY:
How can you vote for yourself! This was outrageous at best.
Zubko's said because it was done illegally by vote...she wants her legal fees back.
1. Where are the three bids, like she insisted on with Insurance, security, from this past board?
2. Where was the emergency to pay $15,000 for 3 ice machines without a Board vote.
3. Why could it not awaited for the next Board or been voted on at the last Board meeting before they got off.
4. Spur of the moment idea............for their party? Sure everyone was invited. They know full well only "their" people will show up if the "usual suspects" have it.
If this is the case..........................
I think I should have my legal fees refunded like Zubko.
After all, THE PETS COULD "ALWAYS" WALK AND EXERCISE ON BCC PROPERTY...........legally.
ZUBKO, ROCHELLE AND LESLEY KNEW IT BUT DISREGARDED THE BCC DOCS AND COURT SETTLEMENT.
Me and many others sent letters to them while they were on the board FOR 4 YEARS...that keeping the pet owners from walking their pets was mean-spirited, frivolous, and illegal. They actually got the residents believing the pets could not walk on the property.
After 4 years, I could see they would continue harassing me and other pet owners...so I was forced to open a case.
NOW I am harassed because I "sued" BCC.................... will they tell the residents why I had to open a case..................
What they did was illegal and I caught them............so can I
have my money back that I had to spend so they were forced to conply with the COURT..................
Exibit 1. Lawyer D'anna's letter of May 2, 2003 stating that they must allow pets to walk on BCC property because of the Pet Settlement and would be sanctioned if not allowed them to do so.............
Exbit 2. The court ordered settlement..............
If anyone is interested in the truth..............I will furnish the real printed facts.
If you ask for them in the office..............who knows if they have been REMOVED.
Your are so right Joyous.
For the record. We are a pet community.
When the community voted to make Bay Colony Club a no pet community, it was done not legal.
If you did not have a voters cert....they voted FOR YOU.
IF YOU DID NOT VOTE AT ALL, THEY VOTED FOR YOU.
This was brought out when there was an abortration in Rec 2, years ago.
When Sandra and Rochelle were on the Board, ALL THE PET RECORDS WENT MISSING. Wonder who could have done such a terrible thing. Yo?
Ho Hum.
How boring.
Here we go again.
Threats of another lawsuit, anyone?
If Joyous hates our rules in here, she's quite free to move somewhere else - like Port Royale - where they WELCOME pets and they don't even have to be on a leash.
Now THAT'S where she should move.
Save the rest of us a ton of head-aches.
Get a new life, Joyous. Preferably somewhere other than BCC.
We're sick to death of the same-old-same-old. You've been barking up the same old tree for over ten years. Pardon my pun.
Something that REALLY bothers me ...... not too long ago, somebody wrote on the Blog that one of our new Security guards is carrying a gun.
We've NEVER allowed Security to carry firearms in BCC before - why now?
With all this Traymon Martin killing stuff that's going on by a self-styled vigilante-minded security guard, I'm worrying if something like that could happen here in BCC - ESPECIALLY since none of the guards really know any of us!
Next door at Bay Colony (across the canal) they openly wear a gun in a holster, but I think it's Wachenhutt and they're more like private police force than Security - and they CERTAINLY know just who is supposed to be on the grounds and who isn't.
Is it just one guard? Or is a gun kept in the rover car now that it belongs to StrikeForce - and if so, can ANY of the guards use it?
I think that Prez Bud needs to clarify this immediately - and find out IF this is so - and if so, he should send out a notice to everybody and let them know one way or another. If it IS correct, I don't think that I will be taking any late-night strolls around the place - I don't want to be shot by an over-zealous guard!
I agree. Do not go out at night. Young boys for Guards that do not speeka d englasssssse. Same ol' crap as last time. Who gained anything? It was somebody but not us the residents.
Post a Comment