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.
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.
Clearly this illegal board is acting outside the confines of its charter at the direction of its legal vendor. You can now challenge that charter at the secretary of states office and/or the attorney generals office. You can also file Texas Bar complaints against the legal vendor for this illegal board and, if you choose, petition to dissolve this board entirely and form your own HOA board/organization for the community. More than likely this will lead to spin off law suits by the "illegal" boards vendor, but you all should prevail. I would like to suggest you all contact Texans for HOA reform. They have a list of several excellent attorneys that can handle such matters and will help get the word out to the public through the media!
ReplyDeleteKeep posting, many in the community are watching the actions of Mr. Jones law firm (Sugar Land city council member).
I would love to see your community win a class-action suit against these old board members who falsely claim to serve you instead of enslaving you for their vendors. Their actions are standard practice in the HOA industry. We all need your community to win your battle against this HOA corruption. And don't these old board members know it!
ReplyDeleteGood comments all - and since the DA's office refuses to look into the activities of HOA boards unless someone develops the case for them it makes a lot of sense to consider a class action civil suit.
ReplyDeleteIt's a real shame that the legal system in Texas makes it so easy for the HOA/POA's to take someones home and yet almost impossible to expose the dubious practices they use to do so.
Part of the problem is that many of these same boards engage in illegal campaigning in their communities. We've seen this is QV and other areas. As a matter of fact we see the golf cart boys quite frequently campaigning in our subdivision at the boards orders for the incumbent DA. We saw the QVFund newsletter only last year solicit funds for a district C incumbent which the IRS is currently investigating. Keep networking and keep these machines under the spot-light. You will eventually find illegal activity.
ReplyDeleteOne good thing that can be said about the QVFund gang - they don't use foreclosure to collect the annual fees, or allow any attorney the right to decide if this is the appropriate action to take.
ReplyDeleteOf course, with the mayor attending meetings, actions of this type wouldn't be "politically correct". Do you think city hall might have a little influence over the Fund?
I grew up in medowcreek and I now live in QV, where I serve on the board of QVFund. I was elected to this board and I serve to ensure that the best interests of the entire community are met responsibly. I can tell you that in absolutely no way is there any influence from the city on the decisions we make as a board. Several council members attend our meetings because they live in the neighborhood. I think what is going on in your neighborhood is a shame and since my father still lives there I am sad to see it. However I would respectfully suggest that you check your facts before you start making accusations about what goes on with the QVFund and its board.
DeleteMost definitely. We will keep an eye on things in your neighborhood. I hope you can attend the state conference in March. As for QV Fund activity I seem to remember a case reported in the AHRC data-base sometime back. One way to check on any of the legal vendors is to search the county court records online. They stick out pretty well and I'm sure they generate a great deal of fees for the courts. Of course I don't think I've seen such a clear case of abuse as with the number of filings in MC. What is it a 3rd of all the homes?
ReplyDelete