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.

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

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.