MEADOWCREEK APRIL 2010 NEWSLETTER

Several comments made in the most recent newsletter sent to our members simply defy reason. Let’s take them one at a time:

1. The writer indicates that the Board is “happy to know” that the community is monitored closely by resident homeowners. The writer indicates a “welcome” for more to get involved. I guess that the actions at the April meeting, including going into executive session and throwing homeowners out of the meeting shows exactly how “happy” they really are. Then, attempting to throw out the new board members reflects their happiness. Then notifying homeowners that had signed up to speak that they could come in one at a time to address the board, effectively insuring that other homeowners could not hear and comment on what was said reflects their happiness and joy.

2. The writer refers to “false allegations” from a few homeowners, but fails to identify what allegations are false. They invite us to come out and show our support, but fail to say what we should support. Is “secrecy” an action that deserves support? Is operating in a manner that does not support free and open discussion something to support?

3. The $100 increase was again referenced as an operational necessity. Frivolous spending and/or misappropriated spending among past board members were also mentioned. How many unanswered questions have you heard at prior meetings regarding how our money is being spent? Has any old board member made an adequate explanation as to how the expenses of the town homes are being met? What money is being used when the financials that the board provides shows a negative balance in the town home fund?

4. Then the writer makes an appeal for everyone to “be a voice against” dragging our community’s name in the mud over and over again, in the news (television), newspapers and internet blogs, etc. This is nothing more than asking each of us to support secrecy, and to stop those who feel that freedom to express ones opinion is both a right and a privilege in our society. Do you want to support anything that curtails these rights? The picture showing a group of people huddled together with their backs to everyone else truly portrays how the “old board” would like to operate.

Your comments, as always, are welcomed. Become a follower. Stay informed!

TEXAS SENATE HEARS TESTIMONY ON HOA FORECLOSURES

City council member Russell Jones (also Mayor Pro Tem) of Sugarland recently presented testimony to the Texas Senate committee investigating HOA foreclosures. During testimony, he defended the current laws dealing with the right of HOA's to foreclose, and also presented a position paper of the City of Sugarland (10-15) that also reflects an attitude of protecting the HOA's as an important part of the city. The Sugarland document can be viewed at:

http://www.sugarlandtx.gov/city_hall/city_secretary/agendas/FY2010/040610cc/3a/3a.htm

What Mr. Jones failed to reveal is the number of cases Holoway Jones has filed in Fort Bend County Courts over the past several years on behalf of HOA's, through an associate attorney that works for the firm.

Mr. Lewis Smith IV, state bar number 00794656, employed by the Holoway Jones firm has filed hundreds of cases against homeowners since 2006. This represents possible attorney fees in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in income to the firm. You might recall that Lewis "Chip" Smith is the attorney that hangs around during Meadowcreek HOA meetings.

Mr. Jones never mentioned his relationship (partner) with Holoway Jones. In fact, he presented himself as a Councilman and Mayor Pro Tem of the great City of Sugarland, and testified as such. The testimony is available at the 1:58 mark in the audio recording available at:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/commit/c520/c520.htm (April 7th Audio)

Another speaker discussed Mr. Jones testimony at the 2:15 mark on the audio, explaining the relationship Holoway Jones has with several HOA’s in the Missouri City – Sugarland area, causing some concern with his testimony. It seemed that several members of the committee were sorry that he had left.

LAWSUIT FILED

It is now a matter of public record. For perhaps the first time in Texas history, four new Board Members of a Home Owners Association (Meadowcreek Association, Inc.) have filed a lawsuit naming the incumbent Board Members as Defendants.

In Cause Number 10-DCV-179320 (Fort Bend County), the four new members along with two residents have filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Application for Temporary Injunction, naming Meadowcreek Association, Inc., Terry Strickland, Mildred Johnson Jackson Mills, David Hamner, Eugene Placke and Claude L. Whitaker as Defendants. The incumbent Board, most notably the President Terry Strickland, once again leaving a meeting on March 11, 2010 that was in order and without a proper adjournment, necessitated the legal action. This tactic has been used more than once to stop any Board actions from taking place when the incumbent members no longer enjoyed a majority position at the meeting (See January 30th Meeting blog).

It will be interesting to see how this case develops, as the legal firm (Holoway Jones) that normally represents the Association will certainly have a conflict of interest in defending the incumbent members from a lawsuit filed by new members of the same Board.

The lawsuit details have not been posted to the county website yet, but will probably be available soon. Individuals can visit the Fort Bend website by going to the following link:

http://ccweb.co.fort-bend.tx.us/

The suit can be found under the Civil/Probate Court link.

MARCH 2010 MEETING OF MEADOWCREEK ASSOCIATION

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.

ARE WE A PART OF A BIGGER PROBLEM?

This Letter from a Quail Valley East Community Association Owner to Missouri City Mayor Allen Owen was posted on the American Homeowners Resource Center website. Note some names that you might recognize (in bold and underlined by Blogger). Do you think the problem might be bigger than many of us realize?

From: LYNNE MOYER
3434 Quail Meadow
Missouri City, TX 77489

Date: October 10, 2007 9:15PM PDT

Subject: Q.V.E.C.A. CHARGES $3,000 LATE FEE FOR $96 YEARLY ASSESSMENT THAT HAS BEEN PAID FOR 31 YEARS

Missouri City, Texas Mayor - Allen Owen:

October 10, 2007

Your Honorable Mayor Allen Owen

I am a single professional woman and feel I am the victim of harassment, over-reaction, and inappropriate use of power by Quail Valley East Community Association over the original payment of $96 that I have been paying for 31 years. How many original people even still own property in Quail Valley East?

I wish to seek counsel, audience; or may I ask you to please help me; or, perhaps to guide me to an appropriate person who can assist me?

I have been a home owner at 3434 Quail Meadow, Missouri City, TX. 77459 since July, 1976.

I have been paying the Quail Valley East Community Association Annual Assessment for 31 years.

This past year through the present has been a major disruption in my life and I have for the first time in my life gone on medical leave as of June of this year. As a Pharmacist working 12 hour days looking down at an ergonomically too low counter I have managed to destroy 6 out of 7 disks in my neck accompanied with bone spurs and protrusions, a dislocated shoulder and several compromised disks in my back. I have been in the hospital 5 times since June. I have been staying with a friend ensuring I would have assistance if needed.

Last month I was looking at my taxes and found the Quail Valley E Comm. Assn. bill in a sealed envelope. I really thought I had already paid the fee. I sent the payment along with a letter describing the circumstances as well as faxing a letter notifying the Marshall Management Group, Inc. of the circumstances and that the check was sent certified mail.

I have now received notice from The Holoway Jones Law Firm, P.L.L.C.that my offer was not acceptable. I owe collection charges; which I will pay the difference of the $186 charged and the $125 I submitted.

They claim "The plaintiff claims $3,000 as attorney's fees and the recovery of court costs." They propose a settlement of $2,028.99 for the Plaintiff-Quail Valley East Community Association, Inc. who I have been paying for 31 years. This is outrageous and a complete misuse of power as well as a personal attack on myself.

Please help me.

Thank YOU

COULD IT GET ANY WORSE?

The regular monthly board of directors meeting of the Meadowcreek Association was called to order promptly at 7 PM on February 11th, 2010 with the former vice president Terry Strickland presiding. Seated at the table were Claude Whittaker, Mildred Mills, Terry Strickland, David Hamner and Eugene Placke. Yes, that’s right folks, the board member (David Hamner) that no one remembers electing to office was seated at the table to make a quorum.

Mr. Blankenship, a member of the community, stood immediately after the meeting was called to order, and following Robert’s Rules of Order stated:

“Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege affecting the assembly”. Mr. Blankenship was advised to sit down as the meeting was starting. Mr. Blankenship repeated his request and was again denied the opportunity to raise his question, after being told by attorney Lewis “Chip” Smith that he was not a member. For those of you not familiar with a question of privilege, it is defined thusly in the Rules of Order: “Questions relating to the rights and privileges of the assembly, or to any of its members, take precedence of all other motions except the three preceding relating to adjournment and recess, to which they yield”. The question that was to be asked by Mr. Blankenship was whether a quorum (5) of board members existed with the many questions regarding Mr. Hamners election/appointment/whatever in question.

So, the meeting continued with a major question unanswered – was the meeting legal? The seated board then proceeded to the election of officers for 2010, and the details are meaningless, as all four new members boycotted the meeting to prevent a quorum, and the old board decided that it did have a quorum and continued the meeting as if everything were in order.

The board then went into “executive session” and asked all neighborhood members to leave the room. This lasted for about an hour, and the regular meeting resumed at 8:20 PM. Only one thing changed – an invited guest was removed from the assembly by the Missouri City Police, acting under the direction of the board. The board, subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act, decided that this individual was not a member, not welcome, and had to leave. The meeting continued, with discussions, votes, and additional business, including the letting of a contract with Michael W. Rose CPA to conduct an audit of the associations financials. No business was opened for discussion with the members witnessing the travesty taking place.

In other words friends and neighbors – a strong armed board decided that they had a quorum (remember the famous Hamner issue), started the meeting, discussed and conducted business, threw a guest out, ignored parliamentary procedures, and continued business as usual. So where do we go from here? The only solution might be found in Vernon’s Civil Statutes, Non-profit Corporation Act as follows:

Art. 1396-7.05. APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER TO REHABILITATE CORPORATION.
A. A receiver may be appointed for the assets and business of a corporation by the district court for the county in which the registered office of the corporation is located, whenever circumstances exist deemed by the court to require the appointment of a receiver to conserve the assets and affairs of the corporation and to avoid damage to parties at interest, but only if all other requirements of law are complied with and if all other remedies available either at law or in equity, including the appointment of a receiver for specific assets of the corporation, are determined by the court to be inadequate, and only in the following instances:

(1) In an action by a member when it is established:

(a) That the corporation is insolvent or in imminent danger of insolvency; or

(b) That the directors are deadlocked in the management of the corporate affairs and the members are unable to break the deadlock, and that irreparable injury to the corporation is being suffered or is threatened by reason thereof; or

(c) That the acts of the directors or those in control of the corporation are illegal, oppressive or fraudulent; or

(d) That the corporate assets are being misapplied or wasted.

(2) In an action by a creditor when it is established:

(a) That the corporation is insolvent and the claim of the creditor has been reduced to judgment and an execution thereon returned unsatisfied; or

(b) That the corporation is insolvent and the corporation has admitted in writing that the claim of the creditor is due and owing.

(3) In any other actions where receivers have heretofore been appointed by the usages of the court of equity.

B. In the event that the condition of the corporation necessitating such an appointment of a receiver is remedied, the receivership shall be terminated forthwith and the management of the corporation shall be restored to the directors and officers, the receiver being directed to redeliver to the corporation all its remaining properties and assets.

That’s right readers – the time for a lawsuit is overdue, and receivership is just one of many remedies available. We are deadlocked, and we are oppressed, and assets are being misapplied and wasted. Sorry to be so long winded in this report, but the facts have to be made available. Good luck Meadowcreek neighbors.

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!