- 23 BCC owners
- Two lawyers
- John Tight, CEO of Campbell Property Management
- All BOD members except Paolo DiPrima
What
Got Done?
- · Seawall repairs for $71,440 (with an additional $10,000 possible) was approved.
- · New roof for Rec 2 at $32,175 (or maybe more) approved.
- · Established new rule that BOD members must submit a written request to review Association records. Requests go to BOD President then routed to manager who is responsible for over-sight. (What, no more BOD member mad dashes out of the office clutching owners' personal info?)
BCC
Documentation Amendments Dog & Pony Show
Two lawyers from the
Association's law firm and the CEO of our management company (Campbell Property
Management) were at the meeting. These
hired guns were brought in to support
the proposed Documentation changes. It's
proposed that we institute fairly drastic rental restrictions and reduce the
number of owners needed for making future amendments. Reception from the
audience was mixed, particularly about allowing future Declaration amendments
to be made by 241 owners.
According to the
Board, a grand total of 250 amendment proxies had been received as of the night
of the meeting. The Board was unable to
state definitively the percentage pro and con (so far) for the proposed 3
amendments.
Blogger's Comments
In your blogger's opinion:
1. It was a mistake to combine the rental restriction amendments with the reduction in needed votes on the same ballot. Rental restrictions may or may not be a good idea (see #2). Reducing the number of votes required for future Documentation changes is a very bad idea.
2. Explanations for why rental restrictions are desirable have been vague and unconvincing. Insurance costs will go up? How much will that cost each of us? FHA mortgages won't be available to would be buyers? How many sales are presently financed by FHA loans? Renters make undesirable neighbors? Were renters responsible for our numerous past acts of vandalism?
3. The BOD's sales effort on this amending effort has been poor to non-existent. Only 23 owners attended this meeting. Only 250 proxies returned to date. Not a good indication that 480 legitimate "pro" proxies will be obtained in order to change anything.
4. Two lawyers and the CEO of our management company attended this meeting and presumably will be paid for their time. How much more time, effort and money will be squandered?
5. So, now we have a new "rule" that a Board member must submit a written request to inspect Association records. Designed to prevent a repeat of the "alleged" copying and removal of some owners' files by Saundra Zubko in 2010? Nope, it was dreamed up because BOD member Bruno wanted to review the amendment proxy ballots. If this vote is honest, there should be no reason to delay or deny any BOD member or owner access to the proxies. Another BOD member previously stated that a suggestion to rig the election was made to him. What are the chances that this voting will be recorded honestly? (Item added 6/17.)
6. It's often impossible for the audience to hear the Board's discussion. BOD members don't use the PA system microphones, and when they do, the feedback hum blots out any speech. This is unacceptable and probably a violation of Florida law.
