TAKE THE SURVEY

If you live in Meadowcreek please take a few minutes to take our survey. We want to know what you think!
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9QW9Q8K

Thursday, December 16, 2010

SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS

As everyone knows, the annual meeting of the members is scheduled for January 8, 2011. Notice please that this is the members meeting - not the annual board meeting. At this time we (the members) will elect new board members that will serve for two years. And now the funny stuff starts:

1. Mary Forame who lives in Section one and was appointed to an at large position that would have required her to run, decided to move to position six (townhomes) that was vacated by Terry Strickland. So now she gets to serve for one more year and has never been subjected to the election process. And she doesn't even live in the townhomes. What do you folks in the townhomes think about that?

2. Mary Forame decided, against objections by several candidates, to fill the attorney slot and also the management company slot before the election. As stated, several candidates thought it would be better to wait for the election results, as the January election might cause some shift in board membership. But no - this simply had to be done immediately.

3. A new meeting announcement went out as the first letter contained incorrect information. In this announcement it was stated that any members wanting to make motions (at the members meeting) would be required to submit the motions to the board by December 15, 2010. So - it looks like the board intends to decide what motions can be made at the members meeting. The word members keeps getting underlined, simply because the board has nothing to say about how the members conduct their meeting. Mary Forame and her supporters are just members at this meeting - nothing more.

4. Mary Forame, acting in her position as president, authorized the use of an independent facilitator to run the annual meeting. Now it appears that the new management company hired by Ms. Forame and supporters will be running the members meeting. Where in the by-laws of the association does it say that this is the way the meeting is to be run? Where does it say the president or any other individual has the authority to dictate and run the members meeting? Gosh, that word members just keeps getting underlined. Maybe it should be in red.

In any event, all members of the association should remember that we are equal at the annual members meeting. We have the opportunity to have our say, to make motions, and to elect those individuals we feel will best serve our community. Our community that once again is broke due to the actions of certain board members. Our community that just hired a management company that stated the board could kinda make up it's rules as it goes merrily along. That's what the owner implied at a recent meeting anyway.

TIME FOR A CHANGE - ELECT CANDIDATES THAT WILL CHANGE THE WAY THE BOARD IS RUN! ONLY THE MEMBERS CAN MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

And don't forget to come to the clubhouse on Saturday, December 18th to meet the candidates. Ask them what they will do to return control of our neighborhood to the members.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

WHERE'S THE MONEY COMING FROM ?

At the regular December Meadowcreek board meeting it was confirmed that our Association purchased two properties at the Constables sale held on December 7th, 2010. The properties were offered for sale under a Writ of Execution and/or Order of Sale issued in favor of our Association for past due maintenance fees plus attorney's fees.

The first property, located at 2111 Long Rock Drive had a judgement amount of $2443.00 ($198 plus attorneys fees), and we apparently purchased the property at auction for this amount. The second property, located at 2715 Meadowcreek Drive had a judgement amount of $3198.00 I$198 plus $3000 attorneys fees), and once again this was the amount of the bid. Prior to the bidding, the Constables representative (Deputy Juan Diaz) explained that the bid amount was due and payable by cashiers check or money order the same day as the auction.

So - the Association had a total interest of $396 in the two properties ($198 X 2), and yet we spent $5641.00 to purchase the properties. Neither the prez (Mary Forame) nor the veep (Brian Malone) could tell the members where the money came from. The treasurer (Willie Jones) stated that he knew nothing about this, and that the prez and veep had not advised him of the purchase (the treasurer was completely in the dark). Didn't they at least need to insure we had the funds available. It hasn't been too long since we, the members, were advised we were broke. In fact, a plea for voluntary contributions went out to the membership - signed by Terry Strickland, Mary Forame, Memorie Huelett, Brian Malone, Dan Wisneski and Tony LeBarre. Some of these "appointed" individuals are seeking elected office at our annual meeting in January. We might think twice before actually electing them to office if they cannot or will not provide accurate financial information when questioned.

Now the question is how did we pay the auction amount, and how do we plan to pay the mortgages on the properties for the next seven months. Texas Property code requires that the owner who lost the interest in the properties be notified of the sale, and once notified they have 180 days under the right of redemption to pay the amount due and regain title to their homes. The first property has a first mortgage held by First Banc Home Mortgage and the second has one held by America's Wholesale lender according to the deeds.

Another "big secret" to be kept from the membership by some board members? Gee - lets hope not. Surely someone will explain soon.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

FORECLOSURES IN MEADOWCREEK

Remember when someone on the old board stated that foreclosure as a means of collection was seldom used? If you read the November 17th Independent and perhaps took a look at the Constable's Sales listed on Page 5, you might have noticed that four (4) Meadowcreek homes are scheduled for sale on the 7th day of December 2010.

One home had an association debt of $198 plus attorney fees and costs and reached an "agreed judgement". The home value is shown as $170,040 and the amount due under the agreement is $2443 plus costs.

Another had an association debt of $149 plus attorney fees and costs and the court awarded a "default judgement". The home value is shown as $129,950, and the amount due under the judgement is $2000 plus costs.

The other two were similar with default judgements awarded in the $3200 range which included $3000 in attorney fees on each.

This shows that someone is less than truthful when asked about Association foreclosures. It also shows how a homeowner can lose their home over what many would consider an insignificant sum (before the attorneys get involved).

Kinda makes you want to cry - a family home put up on the auction block during what can only be considered difficult times. Remember - yours could be the next victim of this travesty.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Take The Survey

Meadowcreek Neighborhood News has a survey running to determine the issues considered to be most important to our members. You can access this survey by clicking the following link:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9QW9Q8K

The results of the survey will be posted on this website. Click on the link and take the survey - it's short and will only take a minute or so of your time.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Meadowcreek "Old Board" at it Again

By now, you have probably received your annual statement from the Meadowcreek Association. As in the past, they have included a Proxy form that is designed to keep certain board members in place. The proxy indicates only individuals that were placed on the board by the old members. It also included Mildred Mills for Section 3 – you might remember that Ms. Mills was voted off the board recently.

In addition to the Proxy, the envelope included a letter from these fine folks that indicates the Association is out of money. The funny thing here is that the letter does not include the names of the board members elected at the last annual meeting. The treasurer, Willie Jones, is also not indicated as a sender.

By the way, they also included an order of business for the annual meeting. It included in Paragraph 6 a report from officers. They have neglected to show the Association Treasurer as a officer of the Association. I guess they do not want Mr. Jones to have an opportunity to “tell it like it is” before the election. Mr. Strickland's notice of annual meeting indicates that only four positions will be filled in the election. Actually, five positions will be addressed at this meeting (1,3,5,7 and 9). Wonder which one he plans to fill before the members have an opportunity to vote?

Now the question becomes – why would anyone execute a Proxy in favor of keeping members on a board that admits they have bankrupted our Association. If you feel you must execute a Proxy, please indicate Willie Jones, Milbrey Smith or Kenneth Murphy as your Proxy holder and insure that the Proxy form is hand delivered to the individual appointed. We must stop this abuse of power, and elect a board that will consider fiscal responsibility a prime goal.

Please – DO NOT SIGN THE PROXY ALLOWING THE PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION TO VOTE FOR YOU! This will only allow the situation to continue to deteriorate. Allow one of the reform board members (Jones, Smith, Murphy) to vote for you if you cannot attend the meeting.

Let’s get the word out now. Let your Meadowcreek friends and neighbors know what's happening. Have them visit http://meadowcreekneighborhoodnews.blogspot.com/ for the latest.

Monday, August 2, 2010

EQUAL REPRESENTATION - FACT OR FICTION

Once again, the representation of our Association is becoming somewhat stacked. As several members under the threat of recall decided to resign, handpicked new board members started to show up. Let us first take a look at the current members and their positions:

Section 1: Tony LaBarre, 2719 Meadowcreek Drive
832-877-9922 tblabarre@yahoo.com

Section 2: Kenneth Murphy, 2322 Ashmont Drive
281 499-0248 jamurph1953@aol.com

Section 3: OPEN

Section 4 (Patio Homes): Willie Jones, 2942 Creekway Circle
281-261-5808 jondw549@yahoo.com

Section 5: Memorie Huelett, 2114 Peachwood Drive
281-499-5430 hue4ms@aol.com

Section 6 (Townhomes): Terry Strickland, 3003 Beecave Drive
strick9701@aol.com

At Large 7: Brian Malone, 2518 Ashmont Drive
281-499-6658 brianwmalone@comcast.net

At Large 8: Milbry Smith, 2319 Broadgreen Drive
281-403-9009 mrslyiah@yahoo.com

At Large 9: Mary Forame, 2726 Meadowcreek Drive
713-557-3369 miss_mary66@live.com

Note that three board members (3) actually live in Section One (LaBarre, Malone and Forame). Now a rumor has started that the board plans to fill the Position Three opening with another individual that lives in Section One. This would create a board that simply does not truly represent the interests of the entire Meadowcreek neighborhood. While the current by-laws does allow this situation, it only seems fair that if a member living in Section Three has submitted a resume or letter indicating a willingness to serve, that individual should receive first consideration for the opening.

This opening will probably be filled at the meeting to be held on August 12, 2010. If you live in Section Three, you should plan to attend and make your opinion public. To be elected to a position, you have to live in the section – insist that the board appointed replacements do the same whenever possible.

Finally, attend every meeting that you can and observe the board. Determine for yourself if the board is conducting business in a fair and impartial manner. Remember that the odd numbered positions (1,3,5,7 and 9) must stand for election at the annual meeting that is really not far off.

Now on to another subject. If you attended the special meeting of the members, you heard both Tony Sherman and Lewis Smith (Holoway Jones Associate) state that the termination of the firm would create an obligation of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) that we would have to pay the firm by contract. Now let’s look at the truth. There are two agreements between the Association and the law firm. The first is a consultation and fee contract for general matters. This agreement does NOT have a term or any provision that would preclude the association from immediately terminating the agreement without penalty. No $30,000 indebtedness here.

The second agreement covers maintenance assessment collections. This agreement does have a term and an automatic renewal provision. The agreement can be cancelled effective December 31, 2010 if the association notifies the firm, in writing, on or before November 30th of any year during which the agreement is in force. Paragraph 7.02 states that “termination shall not be effective as to any Claims previously assigned to Attorney”. If the Attorney is not required to withdraw any claims, once again – no damage so no liquidated damages are due. No $30,000 indebtedness here either. Maybe Mr. Smith just likes this number and feels that some penalty is deserved.

By the way. Paragraph 7.03 allows the Attorney to take a hike whenever he/she desires without notice or penalty. In addition, the same paragraph allows the Attorney to pay himself/herself before returning any funds to the Association. Sounds fair doesn’t it?

I wonder if the board has created the committee that was called for in the special meeting, with the charter of determining the best way to effect the termination that was approved by member vote.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO....

Can someone explain where the concept of government for the people and by the people has gone? The recent article in the Fort Bend Sun (July 15, 2010) tells the story of the recent Meadowcreek Association special meeting very well. What’s missing are some very relevant facts regarding the obvious bias towards the status quo that some individuals exhibited during the meeting.

Tony Sherman, who served as the chairperson for the meeting, is stated in the article as having said, “It is unfortunate that the membership at large could not have been present to hear both sides on Saturday, because I think the final outcome would have been different”. Mr. Sherman could have simply acknowledged that a notice was sent to the entire membership as required by the by-laws, and that the actual turnout was very similar to the attendance at annual meetings, and that the voice of the people was heard.

This is the same Tony Sherman that at the beginning of the meeting introduced himself, and then stated that he was running the meeting, and that it would not be run in a democratic fashion, but rather an autocratic fashion. Autocratic is defined as “characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty” and “offensively self-assured or given to exercising usually unwarranted power”. Isn’t this attitude exactly the reason that many Meadowcreek residents are discouraged when members of the board exhibit a similar attitude during meetings? Have you ever observed a board member telling a member to “shut up” when something was said that was not what they wanted to hear? Have you ever observed the board using the police to evict a member or guest that expressed views contrary to the board’s position? Did you observe the attorney attempting to remove the media at a 2009 meeting?

Mr. Sherman also failed to note that despite the fact that two or more proxies were sent to members of the Association by the old board that defaulted to the Secretary (Mills), both motions passed (the removal of Mills and the removal of the law firm). While the exact number of proxies voted by Mills is unknown, one member believed it to be over 50. I wonder whether these proxies were voted for removal or retention. Only an audit of the ballots would answer this question.

Simply stated, democratic government means that the governing is done for and by the people. Our troops are literally fighting as we speak to insure that this basic tenant of democracy is available to the citizens of Iraq. What will it take to insure that the same rights are available in our own country?

Hopefully the new members of the board will start to work together to establish democratic principles as the norm.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTS AT SPECIAL MEETING

The special meeting of the members of the Meadowcreek Association was held on July 10th, 2010 with the following results:

Removal of Mildred Mills from her position on the board of directors:

151 Votes for removal

131 Votes to retain

Ms. Mills failed to retain her position on the board of directors. This position is now vacant (Position 3) and must be filled by the board in accordance with the by-laws of the Association.

Removal of Holoway Jones Law Firm as legal council for the Association:

157 Votes for removal

122 Votes to retain

Prior to the vote on this issue Tony Sherman asked for clarification as to whether the removal, if approved, would be immediate. He stated that the Association would incur some expenses under the present contract with Holoway Jones. His impression from information received from the firm was that this would be in the neighborhood of $30,000. No supporting documents were provided or discussed.

Member Tommy Blankenship made a motion clarifying the best method to use to terminate the relationship and Member Jim Fonteneaux seconded same. Mr. Sherman then asked Mr. Blankenship to take a little time and write out the motion to insure that the intent of the motion was clear. The written motion was as follows:

A motion that the Association immediately begin the process to terminate the services of Holoway Jones Law Fire no later than the end of the present contract as follows:

1. Notify Holoway Jones immediately that upon the expiration of the present contract their services will be terminated.

2. Notify Holoway Jones that they will cease all legal actions that would or could increase any amounts owed by the Association upon termination.

3. Form a member committee to monitor the activities of Holoway Jones to insure compliance with the terms of this motion and report to the Board of Directors and members.

4. Form a committee to determine the most effective method to collect Association dues/fees with minimal legal action required.


The written motion was made by Blankenship and read to the Members and was again seconded by Fonteneaux. The chairperson (Sherman) called a vote and the motion passed. The motion and terms are now binding on the Board of Directors. Written notification to the law firm is pending, and the committee appointments should be forthcoming.

As stated in the title – Interesting Developments

Thursday, July 8, 2010

IMPORTANT MEETING INFORMATION

By now, most of you have received several letters from the Association and from others in the neighborhood that are fighting for our rights as members of the Association.

The first letter advised you of the results of the recall election held on June 26th, 2010. One-hundred sixty three votes were cast for the removal of Placke, Mills, Whitaker and Hamner. One-hundred sixty three votes were cast for the removal of Holoway Jones as the law firm representing Meadowcreek Association. There were no votes for the retention of the named directors or the law firm.

Why was this meeting held – simply because it appeared that the Board was not going to honor the petition for a special meeting. They took the position that a rental of the clubhouse precluded the meeting, and instead scheduled the meeting for July 10th. When no notice was sent within 15 days as required by the by-laws, the petitioning group elected to hold the meeting as originally called for in the petition.

Then a notice of the July 10th meeting was received by many, with no date of mailing or postmark on the notice or envelope that would indicate the mailing went out in time. This notice also contained a proxy form that defaults to the secretary of the association of no individual was named. Remember that the secretary is one of the individuals subject to the recall vote (Mills).

Next, in record time, a letter was sent from the president (Strickland) advising you that the member meeting on June 26th was invalid because no notice of the meeting was sent as required. You might remember the discussion at a previous board meeting when the petition was delivered. The board had more than adequate time to send the notice of meeting but elected not to do so. It is obvious that they can get a letter out quickly (Strickland’s letter) when they so desire. The letter from Strickland also contained a proxy that defaults to the secretary.

Therefore – the July meeting of the board scheduled for July 8th is very important. Plan to attend. Also, plan to be there for the special meeting on July 10th at 10 AM. If you cannot attend, and desire to vote for the removal of the old board members and the law firm let us know by e-mail ( Meadowcreek.neighborhood@verizon.net ) and we will see that a proxy is brought by your home. Let us know your name, address and phone number. If you have signed and sent one of the board proxies and would like to revoke it let us know this too.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE?

On May 13, 2010 a Notice of a Special Meeting of the Members was presented to the Board of Directors, Russell Jones (Registered Agent) and Robert Markel and Laura Alaniz (Attorneys) by James Fonteneaux (Acting on behalf of more than 150 people who signed the document declaring the meeting). The document clearly stated that the meeting was to be held on June 26th, 2010 at 10:00 AM at the registered office of the Association (2410 La Quinta) as required in the by-laws. The document also stated the purpose of the meeting (A vote to remove Mildred Johnson Jackson Mills, Claude Whitaker, William David Hamner and Eugene Placke and also removal of the Holoway Jones Law Firm as legal council). The document was prepared according to the requirements of the by-laws of the Association, and the signatures exceeded the requirements of 1/10 of the voting members.

The cover letter requested that the Board notify the entire membership of the meeting, place and time as required by law. Adequate time was provided for the Board to do this.

Now it has been discovered that several of the “old” Board have been out in the neighborhood circulating another smear document (Fonteneaux and the new Board Members targeted as being on the attack) declaring a poor financial position as the reason they should be kept in office. The handout also states that they, the incumbent board, are now going to call a Special Meeting on July 10th at 10 AM, and that they intend to include a vote on keeping the pools and tennis courts open.

In other words, the “Old” Board is telling the membership – you cannot call or decide anything. We really do not care how many of you want something. We make the decisions as to where, when and how. We decide what the agenda will be. Just shut your collective mouths and we will run the Association as we see fit. We are the bosses – not you. If you do not like the way we do things it’s just too bad. Moreover, remember, if you come to a meeting and complain we will have the police officers that we hire with your money either throw you out or arrest you. How do you like them apples residents?

It is clearly past the time to remove these despotic members of our Board of Directors. That’s right folks – this is OUR Board and OUR Association and OUR neighborhood. It is not the property of a few individuals who have obviously become obsessed with power, and feel that they can do whatever they wish whenever they choose.

Attend the regular meeting on June 10th at the clubhouse and let this group know that they serve at our pleasure, and that the recall meeting as called by the membership will happen.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

SOMETHING WRONG HERE

Meadowcreek Association and Holoway Jones has an agreement that makes Holoway Jones the exclusive agent for the collection of outstanding claims for annual assessments and special assessments owed by homeowners. The agreement requires the Attorney to take such actions as may be reasonably necessary as to each claim, up to and including executing on properties. Marshall Management has allowed certain homeowners that have requested access to the agreement to view same.

In 2009, Holoway Jones filed thirteen (13) lawsuits on behalf of the Meadowcreek Association. Seven (7) of these were for $198.00 plus Attorneys fees of $3000 each. In other words, seven single family homeowners were sued for $198 plus costs plus $3000 in Attorneys fees. Six of these were filed on 6-11-2009. A lousy $198 debt suddenly becomes a debt of thousands of dollars!

Now it starts to get interesting. Note that many of the suits were filed early in the year. A recent report from the accounting firm titled Aged Owner Balances as of Apr. 26, 2010 showed Terry & Emily Strickland of 3003 Beecave Drive to owe $2229.37, with $1036.37 owed from 2009. You might remember this being brought up in a recent meeting, with Mr. Strickland indicating that the amount due had been recently paid. While other records (Cash Receipt Deposits) do indicate a payment of $1000, they do not reflect total payment.

Now let us go back to the agreement with the Attorney – Why, if Mr. Strickland was in fact over $1000 in arrears for 2009, was he not sued along with thirteen other residents? Was he treated differently?

You might also remember the tirade of Mr. Eugene Placke regarding Mr. Philiposes position on the board when he was also in arrears. Why did Mr. Placke not include Mr. Strickland in his open letter to the membership? In fact, why did Mr. Placke not object to Mr. Strickland being named President of the Board when he was in such a position? Mr. Plackes statement as a sitting board member and subsequent documentation effectively made the position of a board member that was in arrears a matter of public record. The entire letter was read to the members attending the February meeting of the Board.

Each reader must reach his or her own conclusion to the above. Comments, as always are welcomed. The actual lawsuits can be viewed on the Fort Bend County Clerks website at: http://ccweb.co.fort-bend.tx.us/

The cases referred to above are numbered as follows:

09-DCV-171642, 09-DCV-172557, 09-DCV-172558, 09-DCV-172626, 09-DCV-172627, 09-DCV-172631, 09-DCV-172634, 09-DCV-172635, 09-DCV-172638, 09-DCV-172639, 09-DCV-176662, 09-DCV-176663 and 09-DCV-176694. These cases are also a matter of public record. Other documentation can be requested from the accounting firm or Marshall Management.

Friday, April 23, 2010

MEADOWCREEK APRIL 2010 NEWSLETTER

Several comments made in the most recent newsletter sent to our members simply defy reason. Let’s take them one at a time:

1. The writer indicates that the Board is “happy to know” that the community is monitored closely by resident homeowners. The writer indicates a “welcome” for more to get involved. I guess that the actions at the April meeting, including going into executive session and throwing homeowners out of the meeting shows exactly how “happy” they really are. Then, attempting to throw out the new board members reflects their happiness. Then notifying homeowners that had signed up to speak that they could come in one at a time to address the board, effectively insuring that other homeowners could not hear and comment on what was said reflects their happiness and joy.

2. The writer refers to “false allegations” from a few homeowners, but fails to identify what allegations are false. They invite us to come out and show our support, but fail to say what we should support. Is “secrecy” an action that deserves support? Is operating in a manner that does not support free and open discussion something to support?

3. The $100 increase was again referenced as an operational necessity. Frivolous spending and/or misappropriated spending among past board members were also mentioned. How many unanswered questions have you heard at prior meetings regarding how our money is being spent? Has any old board member made an adequate explanation as to how the expenses of the town homes are being met? What money is being used when the financials that the board provides shows a negative balance in the town home fund?

4. Then the writer makes an appeal for everyone to “be a voice against” dragging our community’s name in the mud over and over again, in the news (television), newspapers and internet blogs, etc. This is nothing more than asking each of us to support secrecy, and to stop those who feel that freedom to express ones opinion is both a right and a privilege in our society. Do you want to support anything that curtails these rights? The picture showing a group of people huddled together with their backs to everyone else truly portrays how the “old board” would like to operate.

Your comments, as always, are welcomed. Become a follower. Stay informed!

Sunday, April 18, 2010

TEXAS SENATE HEARS TESTIMONY ON HOA FORECLOSURES

City council member Russell Jones (also Mayor Pro Tem) of Sugarland recently presented testimony to the Texas Senate committee investigating HOA foreclosures. During testimony, he defended the current laws dealing with the right of HOA's to foreclose, and also presented a position paper of the City of Sugarland (10-15) that also reflects an attitude of protecting the HOA's as an important part of the city. The Sugarland document can be viewed at:

http://www.sugarlandtx.gov/city_hall/city_secretary/agendas/FY2010/040610cc/3a/3a.htm

What Mr. Jones failed to reveal is the number of cases Holoway Jones has filed in Fort Bend County Courts over the past several years on behalf of HOA's, through an associate attorney that works for the firm.

Mr. Lewis Smith IV, state bar number 00794656, employed by the Holoway Jones firm has filed hundreds of cases against homeowners since 2006. This represents possible attorney fees in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in income to the firm. You might recall that Lewis "Chip" Smith is the attorney that hangs around during Meadowcreek HOA meetings.

Mr. Jones never mentioned his relationship (partner) with Holoway Jones. In fact, he presented himself as a Councilman and Mayor Pro Tem of the great City of Sugarland, and testified as such. The testimony is available at the 1:58 mark in the audio recording available at:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/commit/c520/c520.htm (April 7th Audio)

Another speaker discussed Mr. Jones testimony at the 2:15 mark on the audio, explaining the relationship Holoway Jones has with several HOA’s in the Missouri City – Sugarland area, causing some concern with his testimony. It seemed that several members of the committee were sorry that he had left.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

LAWSUIT FILED

It is now a matter of public record. For perhaps the first time in Texas history, four new Board Members of a Home Owners Association (Meadowcreek Association, Inc.) have filed a lawsuit naming the incumbent Board Members as Defendants.

In Cause Number 10-DCV-179320 (Fort Bend County), the four new members along with two residents have filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Application for Temporary Injunction, naming Meadowcreek Association, Inc., Terry Strickland, Mildred Johnson Jackson Mills, David Hamner, Eugene Placke and Claude L. Whitaker as Defendants. The incumbent Board, most notably the President Terry Strickland, once again leaving a meeting on March 11, 2010 that was in order and without a proper adjournment, necessitated the legal action. This tactic has been used more than once to stop any Board actions from taking place when the incumbent members no longer enjoyed a majority position at the meeting (See January 30th Meeting blog).

It will be interesting to see how this case develops, as the legal firm (Holoway Jones) that normally represents the Association will certainly have a conflict of interest in defending the incumbent members from a lawsuit filed by new members of the same Board.

The lawsuit details have not been posted to the county website yet, but will probably be available soon. Individuals can visit the Fort Bend website by going to the following link:

http://ccweb.co.fort-bend.tx.us/

The suit can be found under the Civil/Probate Court link.

Friday, March 12, 2010

MARCH 2010 MEETING OF MEADOWCREEK ASSOCIATION

Once again, the monthly board meeting turned into a real fiasco. Eight board members were present, with Ms. Mills once again conspicuously absent. It was obvious that a real division existed between the four old board members and the newly elected members.

The meeting was called to order by Terry Strickland (President?), and the minutes of the contested February meeting were read. A motion to accept the minutes as read was made, seconded, and defeated by a split vote. The financials were then presented, a motion to accept the financials was made, seconded, and defeated. It became clear that there were going to be a few problems. The new board members were not going to be railroaded into accepting the status quo!

Despite the above, the meeting was orderly and somewhat peaceful. At approximately 8:05 PM, Ms. Mills made a late appearance. Within ten minutes, the meeting started getting louder, and when Eugene Placke began a diatribe regarding the validity of Mr. Philipose being on the board, things started to deteriorate. Some twenty homeowners in attendance started asking pointed questions that the old board was incapable or unwilling to address. At one point Ms. Mills initiated a verbal attack on Mr. Jim Fonteneaux, letting him know that he was not the President of the Association – Mr. Strickland was. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Fonteneaux never claimed to be a board member or officer in any manner whatsoever.

A few minutes later Mr. Hamner stood and indicated that he had to leave, and left the building. Within minutes Mr. Placke, without any notice, stood and left the building. These actions placed the new board members in a majority position, and Mr. Willie Jones made a motion for the removal of Mr. Hamner from the board under the provisions of Paragraph 5.12 of the Association by-laws, which reads:

5.12 Removal Any director may be removed prior to the expiration of his term at any regular or special meeting of members by a majority vote of the members present.

Board member Milbry Smith seconded the motion, and Ms. Sonya Brown of Marshall Management looked up the provision in the by-laws. Mr. Strickland indicated that the vote required a letter to the membership, and that the vote was to be conducted from the membership at large instead of a director’s vote. The paragraph, however, is clearly in the section of the by-laws dealing with directors. He stood and started to leave, but was advised that he could not leave without a proper motion to adjourn. The discussion became more heated, and Ms. Mills stood and left the building, using what some stated was questionable language. Minutes later, Mr. Whittaker also packed his bags and left.

Strickland, at this point was clearly befuddled, and Ms. Brown with Marshall was explaining to him that the meeting was still active, and that a quorum did exist. A request was made that Strickland call for a vote on the open motion, and Strickland refused to do so. Within minutes, Strickland packed his bags and left the meeting without a valid motion and vote to adjourn.

As the four remaining board members (new board) did not constitute a quorum, they did the only decent thing and made a motion to adjourn and everyone left.

Several things became very clear as a result of the above:

First, the old board refuses to conduct the business of the association in a professional manner. You do not abandon a meeting just because you are not getting things done your way. Democratic process requires that meetings follow a certain protocol, and rules are made to be followed.

Secondly, the unofficial president (remember he was elected at a meeting with a questionable quorum) is not qualified to run the association. The old saying, the buck stops here applies, and he or she must conduct meetings in a professional and responsible manner.

Third, they (the old board) will do anything, including abandoning an active meeting with open motions on the floor, to prevent the new board members from establishing a majority position. What are they trying to hide? Why would anyone fight so hard to maintain control of the association?

Finally, the old board members need to find other employment. They are disrespectful to other members, have a despotic attitude, and tend to run when things get a little warm. They simply must go and let people who are truly cognizant and caring run the association.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

ARE WE A PART OF A BIGGER PROBLEM?

This Letter from a Quail Valley East Community Association Owner to Missouri City Mayor Allen Owen was posted on the American Homeowners Resource Center website. Note some names that you might recognize (in bold and underlined by Blogger). Do you think the problem might be bigger than many of us realize?

From: LYNNE MOYER
3434 Quail Meadow
Missouri City, TX 77489

Date: October 10, 2007 9:15PM PDT

Subject: Q.V.E.C.A. CHARGES $3,000 LATE FEE FOR $96 YEARLY ASSESSMENT THAT HAS BEEN PAID FOR 31 YEARS

Missouri City, Texas Mayor - Allen Owen:

October 10, 2007

Your Honorable Mayor Allen Owen

I am a single professional woman and feel I am the victim of harassment, over-reaction, and inappropriate use of power by Quail Valley East Community Association over the original payment of $96 that I have been paying for 31 years. How many original people even still own property in Quail Valley East?

I wish to seek counsel, audience; or may I ask you to please help me; or, perhaps to guide me to an appropriate person who can assist me?

I have been a home owner at 3434 Quail Meadow, Missouri City, TX. 77459 since July, 1976.

I have been paying the Quail Valley East Community Association Annual Assessment for 31 years.

This past year through the present has been a major disruption in my life and I have for the first time in my life gone on medical leave as of June of this year. As a Pharmacist working 12 hour days looking down at an ergonomically too low counter I have managed to destroy 6 out of 7 disks in my neck accompanied with bone spurs and protrusions, a dislocated shoulder and several compromised disks in my back. I have been in the hospital 5 times since June. I have been staying with a friend ensuring I would have assistance if needed.

Last month I was looking at my taxes and found the Quail Valley E Comm. Assn. bill in a sealed envelope. I really thought I had already paid the fee. I sent the payment along with a letter describing the circumstances as well as faxing a letter notifying the Marshall Management Group, Inc. of the circumstances and that the check was sent certified mail.

I have now received notice from The Holoway Jones Law Firm, P.L.L.C.that my offer was not acceptable. I owe collection charges; which I will pay the difference of the $186 charged and the $125 I submitted.

They claim "The plaintiff claims $3,000 as attorney's fees and the recovery of court costs." They propose a settlement of $2,028.99 for the Plaintiff-Quail Valley East Community Association, Inc. who I have been paying for 31 years. This is outrageous and a complete misuse of power as well as a personal attack on myself.

Please help me.

Thank YOU

Friday, February 12, 2010

COULD IT GET ANY WORSE?

The regular monthly board of directors meeting of the Meadowcreek Association was called to order promptly at 7 PM on February 11th, 2010 with the former vice president Terry Strickland presiding. Seated at the table were Claude Whittaker, Mildred Mills, Terry Strickland, David Hamner and Eugene Placke. Yes, that’s right folks, the board member (David Hamner) that no one remembers electing to office was seated at the table to make a quorum.

Mr. Blankenship, a member of the community, stood immediately after the meeting was called to order, and following Robert’s Rules of Order stated:

“Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege affecting the assembly”. Mr. Blankenship was advised to sit down as the meeting was starting. Mr. Blankenship repeated his request and was again denied the opportunity to raise his question, after being told by attorney Lewis “Chip” Smith that he was not a member. For those of you not familiar with a question of privilege, it is defined thusly in the Rules of Order: “Questions relating to the rights and privileges of the assembly, or to any of its members, take precedence of all other motions except the three preceding relating to adjournment and recess, to which they yield”. The question that was to be asked by Mr. Blankenship was whether a quorum (5) of board members existed with the many questions regarding Mr. Hamners election/appointment/whatever in question.

So, the meeting continued with a major question unanswered – was the meeting legal? The seated board then proceeded to the election of officers for 2010, and the details are meaningless, as all four new members boycotted the meeting to prevent a quorum, and the old board decided that it did have a quorum and continued the meeting as if everything were in order.

The board then went into “executive session” and asked all neighborhood members to leave the room. This lasted for about an hour, and the regular meeting resumed at 8:20 PM. Only one thing changed – an invited guest was removed from the assembly by the Missouri City Police, acting under the direction of the board. The board, subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act, decided that this individual was not a member, not welcome, and had to leave. The meeting continued, with discussions, votes, and additional business, including the letting of a contract with Michael W. Rose CPA to conduct an audit of the associations financials. No business was opened for discussion with the members witnessing the travesty taking place.

In other words friends and neighbors – a strong armed board decided that they had a quorum (remember the famous Hamner issue), started the meeting, discussed and conducted business, threw a guest out, ignored parliamentary procedures, and continued business as usual. So where do we go from here? The only solution might be found in Vernon’s Civil Statutes, Non-profit Corporation Act as follows:

Art. 1396-7.05. APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER TO REHABILITATE CORPORATION.
A. A receiver may be appointed for the assets and business of a corporation by the district court for the county in which the registered office of the corporation is located, whenever circumstances exist deemed by the court to require the appointment of a receiver to conserve the assets and affairs of the corporation and to avoid damage to parties at interest, but only if all other requirements of law are complied with and if all other remedies available either at law or in equity, including the appointment of a receiver for specific assets of the corporation, are determined by the court to be inadequate, and only in the following instances:

(1) In an action by a member when it is established:

(a) That the corporation is insolvent or in imminent danger of insolvency; or

(b) That the directors are deadlocked in the management of the corporate affairs and the members are unable to break the deadlock, and that irreparable injury to the corporation is being suffered or is threatened by reason thereof; or

(c) That the acts of the directors or those in control of the corporation are illegal, oppressive or fraudulent; or

(d) That the corporate assets are being misapplied or wasted.

(2) In an action by a creditor when it is established:

(a) That the corporation is insolvent and the claim of the creditor has been reduced to judgment and an execution thereon returned unsatisfied; or

(b) That the corporation is insolvent and the corporation has admitted in writing that the claim of the creditor is due and owing.

(3) In any other actions where receivers have heretofore been appointed by the usages of the court of equity.

B. In the event that the condition of the corporation necessitating such an appointment of a receiver is remedied, the receivership shall be terminated forthwith and the management of the corporation shall be restored to the directors and officers, the receiver being directed to redeliver to the corporation all its remaining properties and assets.

That’s right readers – the time for a lawsuit is overdue, and receivership is just one of many remedies available. We are deadlocked, and we are oppressed, and assets are being misapplied and wasted. Sorry to be so long winded in this report, but the facts have to be made available. Good luck Meadowcreek neighbors.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

AND THE MEETING WENT SOUTH

The “Special Meeting” of the Board of Directors was called to order on Saturday, January 30th at approximately 10 AM as planned. We know that this was a special meeting of the board, as the agenda provided to attending board members clearly stated that fact in the title section.

Ms. Mildred Mills, early in the meeting, made a motion that the meeting be closed, as a few folks other that the board were present. Mr. Whittaker seconded this motion, and the motion was submitted to a vote. Three members voted for a closed meeting (old board) and four members (new board) voted for an open meeting.

The meeting almost immediately took a turn for the worse, with some folks calling for an “informal” meeting (one where no actions could be taken) and others calling for an official meeting (actions taken would be binding). It was apparent that no consensus would emerge, and things continued to degrade. The old board members were each handed a copy of a Petition calling for the removal of three old board members (Mildred Mills, Claude Whittaker and David Hamner) and these were promptly tossed with no acceptance or acknowledgement of receipt by an old board member, including the acting President. The petition, signed by over one hundred sixty (160) residents was apparently not to the liking of the old board, so they elected to simply ignore it.

Then the meeting somehow gravitated to the parking lot, where a lot of discussion continued. Ms. Mills, apparently not at all pleased, once again called the police to come to the clubhouse to enforce something or other. While some voices were perhaps a little above average in volume, no threats or violence was noted, so it is difficult to determine exactly what she wanted the police to do. As no arrests were made, it seems clear that the officers who made the call did not feel that any laws were violated.

As no motion to adjourn was made and seconded, it is not clear as to how the meeting dissolved, but it did. It makes on wonder how an official meeting of a board of directors can abruptly end without proper procedures.

All of the members (residents) who took the time to sign the Petition for Removal should be incensed. They also need to attend the scheduled February meeting of the board. The board is elected to represent the homeowners – not rule them. The time to reclaim our board is long overdue, and the only way to do this is to insist on order and proper procedures.

See you there.

Friday, January 29, 2010

AND SO IT GOES

If you attended the annual member meeting and election of new board members, you might remember the announcement by then President Doug Parker regarding the election results. Also, remember and make note of the fact that the meeting was obviously under the direction of Mr. Parker.

After the results were made public, the board consisted of the following nine individuals (in alphabetical order):

Willie Jones
Mildred Mills
Kenneth Murphy
Doug Parker
Philip Philipose
Eugene Placke
Milbry Smith
Terry Strickland
Claude Whittaker

In other words, we had a full board. No vacancies or resignations were stated and no positions were declared to be open. The By-laws clearly state (Paragraph 5.3) that the corporation shall have nine sitting members.

You might also note that the same By-laws, in Paragraph 5.7 call for a regular meeting of the new board immediately following and at the same place as the annual meeting of the members. This meeting, apparently, was not held. Instead, we now find the following announcement posted on the Meadowcreek website:

1/14/2010

The Meadowcreek Board Member Orientation and Reivew is scheduled for January 30, 2010 (Tentatively set for 10:00 a.m.)

This is an exact copy of the announcement as posted, and the misspelled word (review) and misuse of proper grammar (is/are) is the responsibility of the poster and not the blogger. The announcement does not indicate whether or not this meeting is “regular” and open or something special and closed (read this as private and we do not want you to know what is going on).

It is a good bet, however, that the sudden appearance of Mr. Hamner in the at large position 7 will be discussed. Mr. Hamner, remember, was running against Mr. Murphy for Position 2 and was defeated. How he suddenly returned to the board in Position 7, when we had a full board, and no meeting of the new (entire) board was held to discuss any opening remains a mystery. Actions of this type require a meeting and both a quorum and majority vote before they are legal (Paragraph 5.6 of the By-laws).

Therefore – If you have the time, you might consider being at the clubhouse on January 30th at 10 AM to support the new board members. If the meeting is a regular open meeting then plan to attend. If closed, ask why.

In addition, please do not forget the next scheduled meeting on February 11 at 7 PM (second Thursday). Plan to attend and support our new members. Become active in the affairs of our neighborhood. It can only result in your being better informed and a real part of the governing process.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

THE MEADOWCREEK BOARD AS SHOWN ON WEBSITE

For those of you who do not have a password on the Meadowcreek Association website here is a snapshot of the screen showing the Board Members (Snapshot taken 1-17-2010). This clearly shows Mr. Hamner as the representative in Position 7. The board secretary, Ms. Mills, has yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to how this position was filled. As secretary she keeps official minutes of any meetings, etc., so she should be able to provide this answer.




















Click on the photo to enlarge it and make the information easier to read. Use your "back" arrow to return to this page. As all documents relating to the association are subject to the Public Information Act hopefully no individual or group will object to the posting of the above.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

THE GAMES CONTINUE

A large number of our neighbors were present for the annual meeting and election of board members for 2010. Those present know that Mr. David Hamner was running for Position2 against Kenneth Murphy. You also know that Mr. Hamner was defeated, and Mr. Murphy won the position.

What you may not know is that the “old guard”, through board secretary Mildred Mills, is now maintaining that Mr. Hamner is now the board representative for the at-large position 7. In fact, Ms. Mills has instructed Ricky Hux to post the board makeup to the Meadowcreek website with Mr. Hamner as the position 7 representative.

Ms. Mills has also communicated with our new at-large position 8 board member Milbry Smith regarding the above. She states as follows:

“The list on the website is correct. Please, call me, there is a logical explanation. The returning board members have not acted dishonestly. Please know, we, welcome all of our new board members and want to do what’s best for this community. We can’t harbor hate or indifference in our hearts. We must leave it out and come together with an open mind to help the community.”

I think that everyone involved would like to know how a deposed board member could make a run for office (Position 2), be defeated, and suddenly show up as the board member for position 7. In addition, who would ever accuse anyone in our community of hate or indifference?

The “old board” is insisting on an orientation meeting for the new board members with Ms. Mills advising Ms. Smith as follows:

“I’m impressed with your passion and enthusiasm to get started as a newly elected board member. However, there is still an orientation process that must occur before we began jumping into matters of the community.”

Ms. Mills and the “old guard” apparently feel that the new board members are poorly informed, and must receive some indoctrination before they are capable of assuming their duties. It takes a massive ego for a group of board members to assume that other adults are incapable of taking on the duties for which they were elected without “orientation”. In fact, I doubt seriously that President Obama was forced to attend a so-called orientation delivered by the opposing party prior to assuming his office.

THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!

Monday, January 11, 2010

WHAT NOW?

WHAT NOW?

The new board members should be sworn in shortly, along with the board election of officers for the new regime. So what needs to happen now?

First the community needs to demand that the records of the corporation be brought together at the registered office (Clubhouse) and be made available for any member of the community to examine. No public information request should be necessary – just a request to see the documents. And no request that the members taking the time to examine records be subject to paying rent should ever be made!

Next a committee should be formed to examine the current agreements with suppliers to determine where cuts can be made. Marshall Management should be the first to go. This group has been sending out violation notices in instances where no violation exists. They fail to send the notices by registered mail, return receipt requested as required by the Texas property code. They have been charging for inspectors that obviously have no idea what the deed restrictions actually say. They have been non-responsive to complaints made by homeowners, and in some cases have been less than polite in dealing with homeowners. In fact, they have sometimes dealt with homeowners in a manner that could only be described as rude. Their excuse every time is that they only do what they are instructed to do by the board.

Then the relationship with the accountant requires some serious scrutiny. As previously reported, it is difficult to justify the expenses when considering the results. Reports that clearly show when and how our money is spent have not been made available, and this is just not acceptable. Financial reports made available to members should be clear, concise and accurate.

It might also be nice to determine how much has been spent for police protection at the board meetings. Don’t you think it strange that our money is being used to hire police officers to enforce the dictates of the board? I bet that everyone at the annual meeting recalls a board member ordering the officers to eject any member that the board member felt was being disruptive. Hiring officers to intimidate and control our neighbors who are justifiably upset is just not acceptable. Someone needs to have a discussion with our police chief to determine the legality of this use of our fine officers.

So much to do and so little time to accomplish much needed reform. There’s no doubt that the coffers are empty. With uncontrolled spending and little accountability, it’s also no surprise that we are broke. Hopefully the new board members will be able to exert enough pressure and cause the “old board” to recognize that these actions are no longer acceptable.

LET THE CHANGE BEGIN!

Saturday, January 9, 2010

HOA REFORM CAN BE A REALITY

It started with a small group of concerned residents meeting at the Black Eyed Pea on September 5th, 2009. The concern – a petition that was circulating to drastically change the restrictive covenants for single family homes in the Meadowcreek subdivision, along with an increase in the annual maintenance assessment for these properties.

It culminated in a resounding victory for reform candidates at the annual meeting held on January 9th, 2010. Four board positions were on the ballot, and reform candidates prevailed in all sections. This win represents the first time in years that new and fresh ideas will be a norm rather than the exception on the Meadowcreek Association board of directors.

A big “Thank You” to all of the volunteers that gave time, effort and sometimes a little cash (for supplies, copies, etc.) to make this a reality. And don't forget the shoe leather - miles and miles of shoe leather. It only goes to prove that a few who think big can make a difference. Here's a few of the hard workers at the clubhouse:




Now it’s time to unite the neighborhood and turn our thoughts to how we can make our neighborhood greater than before. And congratulations to the victorious candidates:

Position 2: Kenneth Murphy
Position 4: Willie Jones
Position 6: Philip Philipose
Position 8: Milbry Smith

We, your neighbors, look forward to bigger and better things in Meadowcreek.

DISENFRANCHISE - A NASTY WORD

During conversations with neighbors during the past several days it has become evident that the board of directors makes either poor or few attempts to really listen to people in our neighborhood. Perhaps the most disheartening comments came from some elderly and handicapped residents that indicated requests for equal access to our functions and meetings have been ignored.

That’s right – these individuals live in our neighborhood, pay their taxes, pay their assessments and live life just like the rest of us. The only difference is that through age and disabilities they no longer have the mobility most of us enjoy. And they are denied the ability to participate in our neighborhood politics (annual meeting no exception) because the board does not provide them access to certain events – like our annual meeting where these same board members that seem not to listen run again and again for reelection.

Complaints that the Meadowcreek board chooses to holds meetings and other events in a clubhouse that does not provide handicapped access have been ignored. And taking a long look at the facility and the narrow stairwell that allows one to gain access to the second floor meeting room I can see their point.

We seem to have deliberately disenfranchised a segment of our population, making them a somewhat silent minority. What a sad commentary. Just another in a lengthy and growing list of complaints against the way things are done in Meadowcreek. It's time for a change.

Friday, January 8, 2010

REFORM CANDIDATES

We do have some reform candidates to support. Please cast your vote for the following individuals if you would like to vote for change:

Position Two:    Kenneth Murphy
Position Four:   Willie Jones
Position Six:     Philip Philipose
Position Eight:  Milbry Smith

Once again, if you do not plan to attend the meeting be sure to sign a reform proxy so we can cast your vote for you.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

THE FINANCIALS

As previously reported the Meadowcreek attorney did turn over a box of receipts for examination. While not complete, the records did show some patterns that are disturbing. Here are a few items for consideration:

1. Not a single invoice was marked paid. It seems that a good practice would be to stamp the invoice paid, and provide a date and a reference check number. This makes it a lot easier to reconcile the records.

2. Large receipts did not have an approval for payment by a board member. In fact, payments exceeding $1000 and up to $8000 + did not have any approval for payment on the invoice. Who authorizes such payments? Is approval required at some level?

3. Invoices for town home repairs that were staggered according to level of completion were not approved for payment by a board member. Who inspected the work to insure that the partial payment was actually due and payable? Who determined that the work was actually completed and to standards? Some of these were quite large, and deserved closer scrutiny.

4. Many invoices included state sales tax. If we are a non profit corporation under Texas law, are we required to pay sales tax? Several thousands of dollars might have been retained by the Association if we are exempt from state sales tax.

5. Petty cash expenses did not include a reason for purchase. Pizza bills of $200 were noted without any explanation. Why was this necessary? Who monitors these expenditures and approves the reimbursement?

As no bank records for the entire period (2008-2009) were included in the box of records, it makes it almost impossible to reconcile the expenditures. Maybe a request for additional items is in order. Also missing were the contracts/agreements with suppliers that would explain how and when payments were due for larger expenditures.

It appears that little oversight is in place for the expenditures made by the Association. Some changes are needed here. Money does not grow on trees, and our contributions to the Association should not be treated with such casual regard, especially when we hear that we are out of money.

It also appears that the only way many questions will be answered is through a true audit of all financials. This, while probably costly, would probably be worth the expenditure. What do you the reader think? Lets see some comments.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE


Well, the board attorney (Lewis Smith) met with two individuals from the neighborhood Monday afternoon (Jan 4th) to deliver a box of documents in response to the public information request. He stated that to the best of his knowledge everything requested was in the box.

When asked if he knew exactly what was in the box he indicated that he had not been through the materials completely, so he wasn’t sure. He also stated that if other documents were needed they could be requested. This means more delay in getting to the facts as to how, where and to who our money is spent.

This practice is common in a process called “Discovery”. Fill a box with lots of paper and drop it on the opposing side and let them discover that the box contains mostly filling. A cursory inspection immediately revealed that the box contained documents that had been so heavily censored as to be useless. This picture is of an “accounting services” invoice apparently (dated Aug 01. 2006) that is outside the date window requested, and virtually useless due to the blacking out of most all data. Not really much left to peruse.

When asked if a group of neighbors could examine the documents in the clubhouse, Mr. Smith indicated that we would have to rent the clubhouse to use same. Different rules for different groups I suppose. The board seems to want to obfuscate the issues, and delay any real progress until after the annual meeting and election. The neighborhood needs to replace as many sitting board members as possible to gain some parity in representation!

By the way, attorney Smith did admit that the board has received a demand letter from a townhome owner, claiming $160,000 in damages due to improper actions by the board. He did not go into detail, but did identify the owner (what happened to attorney/client privilege here?). More questions need to be answered in this arena for sure. No wonder the board wants more cash from us. They may need it to pay off claims that resulted from poor management.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

A LETTER TO MEADOWCREEK RESIDENTS

Dear Neighbor,

In reply to the latest letter, proposed budget and proxy sent by our illustrious president Doug Parker I can only make the following comments:

First, why does it take so much pressure from the community to get the present board to go to work and do the things that should have been done in the first place? The reduction in electrical costs is long overdue. And no recent drops in the cost of electricity have been evident – so the savings have probably been available all along. All a lazy board had to do was research it and find a better deal. In other words – do their job.

Second, how can the board scream about needing additional funding when they were able, albeit under the same pressure, to present a somewhat balanced budget that even allows payment of 2009 shortfalls of Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred Ninety ($18,390) dollars?

Third, why is the proposed budget presented in a “combined” format? I think that the presentation should be by section, allowing us to see where and when the money will be spent.

Fourth, why are we budgeting $9250 dollars for accounting and CPA fees? If we assume that the association has 40 payments per month, taking an average of five (5) minutes per transaction to pay and record in a suitable accounting program, we can make a further assumption that this requires three and one third (3.33) hours per month. This works out to forty (40) hours per year. Now assume an additional ten hours at the end of the year to print out an annual line item profit/loss statement and prepare tax documents. The total is now fifty (50) hours of work. Divide the $9250 by 50 and you get a whopping one hundred eighty five dollars per hour ($185). How many of us working stiffs would like to earn this kind of money? Who is this whiz of a bookkeeper/accountant anyway? Is he/she related to anyone we know?

Fifth, how much do you suppose it costs us to have our prez send out the numerous appeals that have been sent? Let’s assume postage of $.44 and a cost, excluding any labor, of about $.20 each for a total of $.66 for each correspondence sent. Multiply this by 741 and we get a raw cost of six hundred seventy five ($675) dollars. I know of two letters that have been delivered, so Big Doug has spent at least One Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty ($1,350) dollars telling us that they can’t pay our bills. Is something wrong here? Does this sound like responsible fiscal management to you?

It’s way past time for a change. Please do come to the annual meeting. If you are unable to do so, appoint a responsible friend or neighbor as your proxy to vote for change. Please do not sign the proxy sent by the board. They will only use the vote to maintain the “status quo”.

Sincerely,

A Caring Meadowcreek Neighbor