Have you found a good plumber, painter, heating and cooling service, renovation service, etc.? Was the price fair? Tell us ("Post a Comment") and we'll add it to this list. Please include your name, email, and unit number — anonymous comments not accepted.
PLUMBING
Steinhorst Plumbing, 703-256-2421
HEATING AND COOLING
ACE Air Conditioning and Heating Service, 703-691-0095
PAINTING
RENOVATION
LOCKSMITH
Interstate Locksmiths, 703-841-3524 (make sure you get an estimate before they come out — one locksmith wanted $218 to open the simple front door lock, plus $39 for coming out).
If you call these services, tell them you found them on the Southampton 22202 blog.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Have your say
Do you have an issue, concern or complaint not addressed here? Click on "Post a Comment" or "comments" below, and describe it briefly. Please include your name, email, and unit number — anonymous comments not accepted.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Distribution of information by members
The Southampton section of the CMS website has a blank page titled "News & Views". Apparently few are aware of this feature, and even the site manager has no answer on its use.
The Virginia Condominium Act § 55-79.75:1 states:
"A. The executive organ shall establish a reasonable, effective, and free method, appropriate to the size and nature of the condominium, for unit owners to communicate among themselves and with the executive organ regarding any matter concerning the unit owners' association.
"B. Except as otherwise provided in the condominium instruments, the executive organ shall not require prior approval of the dissemination or content of any material regarding any matter concerning the unit owners' association."
On July 2, 2007 we asked Tom Patti, CMS Services, the following:
- Who is permitted to contribute "News & Views"?
- Are the "News & Views" censored or otherwise approved before appearing on the website?
- How long does it take for "News & Views" submitted by residents to appear on the website?
Tom Patti replied: "Thank you for your questions. I will forward your questions to the Board of Directors for their review and response."
Shouldn't Tom Patti have an answer to questions about a website managed by his company without having to refer the issue to the Board? Isn't that a responsibility of the Management Agent?
This seems to confirm that no one has been using "News & Views", there are no procedures in place for its use, and the Board of Directors have yet to implement § 55-79.75:1 of the Virginia Condominium Act .
The Virginia Condominium Act § 55-79.75:1 states:
"A. The executive organ shall establish a reasonable, effective, and free method, appropriate to the size and nature of the condominium, for unit owners to communicate among themselves and with the executive organ regarding any matter concerning the unit owners' association.
"B. Except as otherwise provided in the condominium instruments, the executive organ shall not require prior approval of the dissemination or content of any material regarding any matter concerning the unit owners' association."
On July 2, 2007 we asked Tom Patti, CMS Services, the following:
- Who is permitted to contribute "News & Views"?
- Are the "News & Views" censored or otherwise approved before appearing on the website?
- How long does it take for "News & Views" submitted by residents to appear on the website?
Tom Patti replied: "Thank you for your questions. I will forward your questions to the Board of Directors for their review and response."
Shouldn't Tom Patti have an answer to questions about a website managed by his company without having to refer the issue to the Board? Isn't that a responsibility of the Management Agent?
This seems to confirm that no one has been using "News & Views", there are no procedures in place for its use, and the Board of Directors have yet to implement § 55-79.75:1 of the Virginia Condominium Act .
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Annual meeting and election of the Board of Directors
Most, if not all, of the current Board of Directors have not been elected. Furthermore, they seem either insufficiently familiar with, or are deliberately violating, the Condomium Act.
The Virginia Condominium Act § 55-79.75 states:
"A. Meetings of the unit owners' association shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the condominium instruments at least once each year after the formation of said association."
We're told that the last meeting of the unit owners' association was held in 2001. We're told that the problem is the inability to obtain a quorom. We think there's a deeper problem.
The Board discourages participation. One example is the problem with obtaining the meeting agenda and information packets. Another example:
On September 13, 2001, just prior to the annual meeting of the unit owners' association, I was informed by a note left on my door that "your candidate statement dated September 11, 2001 is considered political campaign information and will not be sent out with the official notice of meeting." I immediately asked the Board of Directors to provide the legal basis for rejecting my candidate statement. No reply was received.
On October 11, 2002 I again wrote to the Board of Directors: "To my knowledge, during the 20 plus years that this Association has existed, this is the first time that a candidate was denied the same right afforded to all other candidates. My written complaint of September 19, 2001 was not answered. My formal objection at the October 11, 2001 Annual Meeting was not included in the minutes distributed on October 10 2002." No reply was received.
Lastly, the time available for questions and answers at annual meetings is insufficient. The Olympus at Landmark holds an informal get-together prior to annual meetings for owners to get to know the candidates. This may be worth considering at Southampton.
Failure to hold a meeting of the unit owners' association "at least once each year" could affect Southampton's insurance coverage.
The Virginia Condominium Act § 55-79.75 states:
"A. Meetings of the unit owners' association shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the condominium instruments at least once each year after the formation of said association."
We're told that the last meeting of the unit owners' association was held in 2001. We're told that the problem is the inability to obtain a quorom. We think there's a deeper problem.
The Board discourages participation. One example is the problem with obtaining the meeting agenda and information packets. Another example:
On September 13, 2001, just prior to the annual meeting of the unit owners' association, I was informed by a note left on my door that "your candidate statement dated September 11, 2001 is considered political campaign information and will not be sent out with the official notice of meeting." I immediately asked the Board of Directors to provide the legal basis for rejecting my candidate statement. No reply was received.
On October 11, 2002 I again wrote to the Board of Directors: "To my knowledge, during the 20 plus years that this Association has existed, this is the first time that a candidate was denied the same right afforded to all other candidates. My written complaint of September 19, 2001 was not answered. My formal objection at the October 11, 2001 Annual Meeting was not included in the minutes distributed on October 10 2002." No reply was received.
Lastly, the time available for questions and answers at annual meetings is insufficient. The Olympus at Landmark holds an informal get-together prior to annual meetings for owners to get to know the candidates. This may be worth considering at Southampton.
Failure to hold a meeting of the unit owners' association "at least once each year" could affect Southampton's insurance coverage.
Meeting agenda and information packets
We've received information that homeowners attempting to get copies of the agenda and "information packets" prior to the meetings of the Board of Directors are, in effect, being denied this information.
We received a copy of such a request to the Board of Directors and CMS dated August 6, 2003. Apparently upon receipt of this request the Board began a new policy. Agendas and information packets, which had been available to the Board of Directors well ahead of meetings since the founding of the condominium, would now be made available at the start of the meeting. This, of course, is not a very efficient method.
On January 11, 2007, during a three minute Executive Session, the Board of Directors “resolved to satisfy the request for reimbursement of legal fees.” How an unelected Board, having received their agenda and information packet at the start of the meeting, could resolve to do so in three minutes is beyond comprehension.
The Virginia Condominium Act § 55-79.75 states:
"Unless otherwise exempt as relating to an executive session pursuant to subsection C, at least one copy of all agenda packets and materials furnished to members of the executive organ or subcommittee or other committee thereof for a meeting shall be made available for inspection by the membership of the unit owners' association at the same time such documents are furnished to the members of the executive organ."
We received a copy of such a request to the Board of Directors and CMS dated August 6, 2003. Apparently upon receipt of this request the Board began a new policy. Agendas and information packets, which had been available to the Board of Directors well ahead of meetings since the founding of the condominium, would now be made available at the start of the meeting. This, of course, is not a very efficient method.
On January 11, 2007, during a three minute Executive Session, the Board of Directors “resolved to satisfy the request for reimbursement of legal fees.” How an unelected Board, having received their agenda and information packet at the start of the meeting, could resolve to do so in three minutes is beyond comprehension.
The Virginia Condominium Act § 55-79.75 states:
"Unless otherwise exempt as relating to an executive session pursuant to subsection C, at least one copy of all agenda packets and materials furnished to members of the executive organ or subcommittee or other committee thereof for a meeting shall be made available for inspection by the membership of the unit owners' association at the same time such documents are furnished to the members of the executive organ."
Reimbursement of residents' legal fees
June 29, 2007
Southampton Condominium Board
c/o CMS Services
6395 Little River Turnpike
Alexandria, VA 22312-3507
Re Legal Fees Incurred in Expunging Records (Rev. 4)
It has come to my attention that the Association may have paid for expunging the legal record in the case filed by the Commonwealth of Virginia against two Members of the Board of Directors: Linda K. Thompson, and Julie Carole Handley (Case #GC06001924-00 and #GC06001925-00). I would appreciate more information on this issue.
1 - Why did the Board choose to pay the legal fees for expunging the records since this was a matter between two individuals (acting in their private capacity), and the Commonwealth of Virginia acting on a complaint filed by another homeowner Ram Reddy?
2 - What were the total legal fees paid, and to whom, in this matter? Are further payments contemplated and/or under review?
3 - At the time the Board chose to pay the legal fees, were Members aware that:
a. The Association attorney had told Mrs. Reddy, when she attempted to resolve the matter informally, that this was a private matter — not an Association matter.
b. The county detective told me that Ms. Handley claimed that the plants she and Ms. Thompson removed belonged to her (Ms. Handley). I understand that during the trial the defendants claimed to be removing trash — something I have never witnessed either of them doing.
c. I'm told that the Reddy’s had complied with all directives from the Board — a new directive sought by certain Members had not been passed by the Board.
d. In the minutes of the April 14, 2005 meeting (Thompson, Handley, Pariente, Dogan, Seekford, Dougherty) it is noted that the association attorney had advised the Board to take a picture, write a letter, and in the case of noncompliance advise the resident before removing items from common areas.
4 - Why did the Board choose not to hear from the Reddy’s and witnesses prior to making a decision?
I look forward to a timely response.
signed
Enver Masud
1707B S. Hayes St.
PS: The "trash" that Thompson and Handley were removing on Saturday, October 1, 2005 around 8:30 PM were, according to Mrs. Reddy, 32 to 34 potted plants worth about $3000. According to witnesses, it took the two Board members 20 to 30 minutes to move the plants to the foot of Handley's steps. The plants were, according to witnesses, hauled away in a green truck driven by a man living with Handley.
Southampton Condominium Board
c/o CMS Services
6395 Little River Turnpike
Alexandria, VA 22312-3507
Re Legal Fees Incurred in Expunging Records (Rev. 4)
It has come to my attention that the Association may have paid for expunging the legal record in the case filed by the Commonwealth of Virginia against two Members of the Board of Directors: Linda K. Thompson, and Julie Carole Handley (Case #GC06001924-00 and #GC06001925-00). I would appreciate more information on this issue.
1 - Why did the Board choose to pay the legal fees for expunging the records since this was a matter between two individuals (acting in their private capacity), and the Commonwealth of Virginia acting on a complaint filed by another homeowner Ram Reddy?
2 - What were the total legal fees paid, and to whom, in this matter? Are further payments contemplated and/or under review?
3 - At the time the Board chose to pay the legal fees, were Members aware that:
a. The Association attorney had told Mrs. Reddy, when she attempted to resolve the matter informally, that this was a private matter — not an Association matter.
b. The county detective told me that Ms. Handley claimed that the plants she and Ms. Thompson removed belonged to her (Ms. Handley). I understand that during the trial the defendants claimed to be removing trash — something I have never witnessed either of them doing.
c. I'm told that the Reddy’s had complied with all directives from the Board — a new directive sought by certain Members had not been passed by the Board.
d. In the minutes of the April 14, 2005 meeting (Thompson, Handley, Pariente, Dogan, Seekford, Dougherty) it is noted that the association attorney had advised the Board to take a picture, write a letter, and in the case of noncompliance advise the resident before removing items from common areas.
4 - Why did the Board choose not to hear from the Reddy’s and witnesses prior to making a decision?
I look forward to a timely response.
signed
Enver Masud
1707B S. Hayes St.
PS: The "trash" that Thompson and Handley were removing on Saturday, October 1, 2005 around 8:30 PM were, according to Mrs. Reddy, 32 to 34 potted plants worth about $3000. According to witnesses, it took the two Board members 20 to 30 minutes to move the plants to the foot of Handley's steps. The plants were, according to witnesses, hauled away in a green truck driven by a man living with Handley.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
