Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: When, and upon what authority—none is reflected in the minutes, did you authorize the check to Julie Handley in the amount of $3000?
Conforti: When, and upon what authority—none is reflected in the minutes, did you authorize the second check to Julie Handley in the amount of $4085?
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: When, upon what authority, and by whom—none is reflected in the minutes, was Stephen Pickard asked to expunge Thompson’s and Handley’s arrest records?
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: The minutes of the January 11, 2007 meeting indicate that in a 3 minute Executive Session the Board “resolved to satisfy the request for reimbursement of legal fees.” § 55-79.75.C requires the “substance [be] reasonably identified”. Why did you not specify who was to be reimbursed, and the amount?
Conforti: The Bylaws, Article XIII, Section 3 requires an audit at the close of each fiscal year. Has that audit been performed? Who performed the audit?
Thompson: What were you doing on Saturday, October 1, 2005 around 8:30 PM when you were observed moving plants from the area adjoining 1635A across the cul-de-sac toward Julie Handley's place? Please describe what you removed, where you removed it to, how you took it there.
Handley: What was your role in removing plants from the area adjoining 1635A? Please describe what you removed, where you removed it to, how you took it there.
Thompson and Handley: On April 14, 2005, Association Counsel advised that “a picture should be taken first, then a letter written, and if no action was taken, then to remove the item(s), but not before advising the resident.” Did you follow Counsel’s advice?
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: After the insurance carrier informed you that "based upon the information provided to date, there is a question as to whether the conduct complained of stems from their capacity as members of the Board of Directors" why did you not investigate further?
Thompson: What was the effective date of resignation of the former Treasurer, and did he submit a letter of resignation? Who nominated Frank Conforti to the Board? What is the effective date that Conforti became Treasurer?
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: You have a fiduciary duty, and are expected to exercise due diligence. Why did you not hear what the Reddys and witnesses had to say prior to making your decision to reimburse Thompson and Handley?
Association Counsel: Your client is the Association, not the Board, and you are expected to exercise due diligence. Why did you not hear from the Reddys and witnesses prior to drafting your opinion?
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: The Reddy's have requested a hearing in a letter dated September 26, 2007. When will you hold this hearing?
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: If upon hearing from the Reddy’s and witnesses you find that Thompson and Handley were not acting in their capacity as members of the Board, are you prepared to recover funds paid to Handley, and to Counsel in this matter?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Joe Smith, 654B S 15th St, has the following questions regarding the legal reimbursements issue:
1. What was the nature of the “trash” removed and where was it located?
2. In the April 2005 Board meeting Mr. Mercer explained ‘due-process’ for removing items from the common areas. What was the motivation for the discussions? Were the plants on the commmon elements of 1671B and/or 1635A discussed?
3. Which Board members knew that the “trash” was to be removed before actual removal? Why were reasonable due-process procedures not followed?
4. The Board held two executive sessions in March and April of 2006. What were the purposes of the March and April executive sessions? Did they pertain to the “trash” removal incident? What decisions or resolutions were reached?
5. The Virginia Condominium Act delineates specific reasons for executive sessions. What was the rationale for the March and April 2006 executive sessions? If it was “pending litigation,” what disclosures were made in the condo resale documents during the pending litigation period?
6. Why was the August 2006 “pre-trial” reimbursement payment (for which there is no invoice) paid directly to one of the individuals without waiting for a claim against our insurance policy?
7. What provisions in our governing documents permit the Association payment of legal defense fees while a criminal prosecution is still underway?
8. Who ordered the expunction of the legal records? Was Board approval of funding given before hand and, if so when was it given?
9. The Board held a 20-minute executive session in the April 2007 meeting. What was the purpose of this session? Did it have anything to do with the “trash” removal incident? What was the rationale for the post-trial April 2007 executive session? Why does the Board continue to hold “secret” executive sessions?
10. With all reimbursement expenses, which had aggregated to a total of $8885, known by mid-January of 2007 and Association fund disbursements made by January 25, 2007, why was a claim against our insurance not submitted until July 18, 2007?
11. The August 15, 2007 insurance company response to the July 18, 2007 claim stated, “…this matter never rose to meet the definition of a Claim under the Non-Profit Management and Organizational Liability Insurance Policy.” Is it the Board’s intent to resubmit the claim? If so, what new rationale will be provided?
12. Are Counsel’s legal opinions supporting the various actions taken fully documented with appropriate references to the pertinent sections of our by-laws and/or the Condominium Act?
13. If a civil lawsuit is instituted, is it the current Board’s intention to provide Association funds for legal defense of the two Board members? If so, would this be irrespective of insurance coverage?
Post a Comment