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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.