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.
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.
As a home owner that was there at the meeting I was at lost for words, ME BEING A LOSS FOR WORDS WOW! Yes I would have to agree the old guard has to go something doesnt smell right and it clearly dosent look right as to what the old board members are tring to pull?
ReplyDeleteI've said it before and I'll say it again, we as home owners have got to stick together and run the old board members out of POWER. I would like to see more of our homeowners show up for our monthly meetings.
If your not going to show up to the meetings then dont say a word when things get real bad around here. What more can I say we need to do something and do it now.
Sat. March 13,2010
ReplyDeleteVery interesting reading of tommy's account of the latest board meeting. Although I missed attending, several things stand out.
First off, this meeting sounds very familiar to the last two or three I HAVE attended. No one wants to abide by a majority rule of the homeowners wants or needs. It is one quarter of the way through the new year and to date there hasn't been one LEGAL or full board meeting since we took what I thought was a Democratic vote.
I feel I belong to a time-share organization where I pay yearly dues and have no place to vacation. Better yet I belong to a nudist colony , pay my dues, and nobody gets naked!
Even the state of Texas has a right in our constitution to seceed from the union; where are my rights to suceed from this crazy H.O.A.?
I'm personally glad to see you all standing up to the old guard. Why don't you all appoint a member to make quorum like they did when they duck and run for cover?
ReplyDeleteThere are a whole lot of HOA members who would very much like to secede from their HOAs! We must have statewide and nationwide limits to these quasi despotic governments. HOA governments that have no oversight and no accountability and yet can foreclose on homes for something as trite as a visible garbage can. There will be a legislative HOA hearing on foreclosures at TSU on April 7. Homeowners must make a visible presence to bring about real change on this widespread HOA problem. It cannot be done without YOU.
ReplyDelete