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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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