The May 24 election meeting went smoothly with an air of positive energy. About fifty Owners attended, pretty good for the night before a major holiday weekend. The meeting focused on the elections of Officers and Covenants Committee and no Treasurer?’s report was rendered. Three new Officers were elected by a voice vote, and five new Covenants Committee members were elected by ballot from six nominees. We now have a full and active Board and Committee.
Officers:
2nd VP Johan Holmquist
Treasurer CeeCee Mullen
Secretary Jimmy Johnson
Covenants members (full committee)
Steve Posner, Craig Hillegass, Don Stewart, Robb Heaton and Leo Valdeserri
The only contentious moment came early when I requested closure on the unanswered question as to the validity of Jim Pennington?’s election as VP. Larry claimed that Jim was elected in the ?“same manner as CeeCee and [Greg] were elected as Auditors?” (at the February 2007 General Meeting), although no specific evidence was provided. Jim stated twice during the brief discussion that he was elected in March 2006. The issue was tabled. For the record, there was no General or Special Meeting, and therefore, no Voting of the Members, in March 2006.
On elected terms, the group agreed that Officers would serve the remaining terms only through the August 2007 General Meeting, when all Officers would be up for re-election. A consensus voice vote determined that Covenants members would serve full terms through the General Meeting in August 2009. A brief discussion of staggering terms (1-year and 2-year) to assure continuity deferred that option until the end of current terms.
Voting and eligibility for Officer candidates followed the revised Bylaws, limited to Regular (dues-paying) Members. However, apparently in response to questions about the revised Bylaws, voting for Covenants members was open to all Owners, although eligibility for candidates was restricted to Regular Members. Larry stated that those more invested would be more representative. My own thought is that if the investments in our properties does not properly motivate, an additional $50/year probably won?’t make much difference, particularly since the Covenants apply to all Owners.
Given the differences between the revised Bylaws and their application at the meeting, further revision to the Bylaws appears necessary, particularly where they conflict with the Covenants (the higher authority), and where they explicitly disenfranchise Owners, as in restricting access to HOA information. Greater openness and fairness can only encourage greater participation.
Larry made two statements that raised an eyebrow. First, he stated that the Board should review decisions made by the Covenants Committee, although the Covenants, which create the Committee, do not allow for any such oversight and would alter the autonomy that the Covenants provide to the Committee.
Second, Larry explained that the issuance of variances on smaller lots may be justifiable and is not absolutely prohibited. While I heard a few gasps at this statement, Larry is correct that the Covenants provide for the issuance of variances in certain cases, however, recent variances have not necessarily followed the procedures and criteria. With a full Committee, the Covenants procedures and criteria must be followed, including the issuance of variances only upon ?“recommendation by the Covenants Control Committee to the lot owners?” (Covenants para. 7). It is the owners who ultimately decide variances in a process obviously intended to be open.
Where once there were four participants, now there are ten, and I look forward to more perspectives being reflected in decisions and greater openness and reporting to the Owners, including announcement of Board meetings and perhaps, more frequent General Meetings to keep the Owners informed. Things are looking up.
Officers:
2nd VP Johan Holmquist
Treasurer CeeCee Mullen
Secretary Jimmy Johnson
Covenants members (full committee)
Steve Posner, Craig Hillegass, Don Stewart, Robb Heaton and Leo Valdeserri
The only contentious moment came early when I requested closure on the unanswered question as to the validity of Jim Pennington?’s election as VP. Larry claimed that Jim was elected in the ?“same manner as CeeCee and [Greg] were elected as Auditors?” (at the February 2007 General Meeting), although no specific evidence was provided. Jim stated twice during the brief discussion that he was elected in March 2006. The issue was tabled. For the record, there was no General or Special Meeting, and therefore, no Voting of the Members, in March 2006.
On elected terms, the group agreed that Officers would serve the remaining terms only through the August 2007 General Meeting, when all Officers would be up for re-election. A consensus voice vote determined that Covenants members would serve full terms through the General Meeting in August 2009. A brief discussion of staggering terms (1-year and 2-year) to assure continuity deferred that option until the end of current terms.
Voting and eligibility for Officer candidates followed the revised Bylaws, limited to Regular (dues-paying) Members. However, apparently in response to questions about the revised Bylaws, voting for Covenants members was open to all Owners, although eligibility for candidates was restricted to Regular Members. Larry stated that those more invested would be more representative. My own thought is that if the investments in our properties does not properly motivate, an additional $50/year probably won?’t make much difference, particularly since the Covenants apply to all Owners.
Given the differences between the revised Bylaws and their application at the meeting, further revision to the Bylaws appears necessary, particularly where they conflict with the Covenants (the higher authority), and where they explicitly disenfranchise Owners, as in restricting access to HOA information. Greater openness and fairness can only encourage greater participation.
Larry made two statements that raised an eyebrow. First, he stated that the Board should review decisions made by the Covenants Committee, although the Covenants, which create the Committee, do not allow for any such oversight and would alter the autonomy that the Covenants provide to the Committee.
Second, Larry explained that the issuance of variances on smaller lots may be justifiable and is not absolutely prohibited. While I heard a few gasps at this statement, Larry is correct that the Covenants provide for the issuance of variances in certain cases, however, recent variances have not necessarily followed the procedures and criteria. With a full Committee, the Covenants procedures and criteria must be followed, including the issuance of variances only upon ?“recommendation by the Covenants Control Committee to the lot owners?” (Covenants para. 7). It is the owners who ultimately decide variances in a process obviously intended to be open.
Where once there were four participants, now there are ten, and I look forward to more perspectives being reflected in decisions and greater openness and reporting to the Owners, including announcement of Board meetings and perhaps, more frequent General Meetings to keep the Owners informed. Things are looking up.
