QUESTIONS re payments to Handley and Thompson

1 - Was the fact of Handley and Thompson’s arrest noted in the packages provided to potential homebuyers bewteen May 17, 2006 and October 19, 2006?

2 - Following Handley and Thompson’s arrest, did the Association or its agents provide any written statements regarding this matter to the Office of the County Attorney?

3 - Following Handley and Thompson’s arrest, did the Association or its agents make any attempt to defend Handley and Thompson’s conduct on October 1, 2005 before the the Office of the County Attorney?

4 - When and how did the Board decide that Handley and Thompson’s conduct on October 1, 2005 did not constitute their “own individual willful misconduct or bad faith" for which the Association is not liable?

5 - Given that there is no vote recorded in the minutes of Board meeings, why was check #1711 written to Julie Handley without an invoice or Board vote?

6 - Given that there is no vote recorded in the minutes of Board meeings, why were two checks (#1771, #1818) written to Julie Handley without an invoice from Julie Handley or Board vote?

7 - When and how did Stephen Dougherty tender his resignation as Treasurer?

8 - How was Frank Conforti identified and selected to become Treasurer to replace Stephen Dougherty?

9 - Since the County Attorney was not charging the Association, and/or Handley and Thompson as officers of the Association, why was Handley and Thompson’s claim for reimbursement not presented in open session pursuant to § 55-79.75.C?

Board chairman refuses to examine the facts

Frank Conforti, refuses to examine the facts—fully and openly—of the $8885 handed out to Handley and Thompson. There is no paper trail of the kind required by § 55-79.75.C. In fact there is no record of a Board vote to authorize these payments.

At the Board meeting last night Conforti said, "the matter is closed."

Board considering landscaping changes

At the Board meeting last night landscaping changes were discussed, and a decision made to ask the grounds maintenance company for recommendations.

We agree that landscaping in several areas has deteriorated, and that ad hoc changes detract from the overall look of Southampton.

What is needed is an update of the Master Plan. Perhaps this could be presented to homeowners at the next Annual Meeting.

Agenda packets still not available to homeowners

At the December 13, 2007 meeting the Board voted to put the agenda packets—required by § 55-79.75.B—on the Southampton website at the same time that Board members get their's. This has yet to be done.

Homeowners 10 to 1 against reimbursing legal fees

A poll conducted at this site shows homeowners are 10 to 1 against the Association paying for Thompson and Handley's legal expenses.

$8885 unlawfully withdrawn from Association funds

Checks totaling $8885 were secretly issued to former Board member Julie Handley. More specifically:

1 - Julie Handley was issued three checks: #1711 on 8/17/06 for $3000 signed by Tom Patti and Casper; #1771 on 11/16/06 for $4085 signed by Tom Patti and Casper; #1818 on 1/25/07 for $1800 signed by Tom Patti and Casper.
2 - There is no invoice from Handley to the Association.
3 - There is no claim or justification for reimbursement filed by Handley with the Association.
4 - The minutes do not show that these disbursements were authorized by the Board—pursuant to § 55-79.75.C.

At the Annual Meeting, Association Counsel agreed that a new vote may be needed. He stated that the Board could vote at the meeting—they had the sole authority to settle claims against the Associaition.

Doing nothing is not an option—it leaves the current Board liable for the unlawful actions of others. The options open to the Board are:

1 - Vote to retroactively authorize these disbursements (upon receipt of an invoice and written claim).
2 - Recover the funds disbursed from Tom Patti / CMS Services.

A related issue is the recovery of the additional amount spent for the services of Association Counsel on behalf of Julie Handley and Lynn Thompson. The bottom line is that under Southampton Bylaws, Article VII, Section 1 the Association is not liable for Handley and Thompson's "individual willful misconduct or bad faith.”

Board continues to act in unlawful secrecy

At the February 14, 2008 meeting the Board convened in executive session to discuss "legal matters." As we've pointed out in the past, "legal matters" are not exempt from the open session requirement—see § 55-79.75.C.

Also, since the motion to convene in executive session did not "state specifically the purpose for the executive session", we have no way of knowing whether or not the Board restricted the consideration of matters during executive session to "only those purposes specifically exempted and stated in the motion"—see § 55-79.75.C.

Mr. Conforti, I understand that you are an attorney, and as the Chair of Southampton Condominium it is your duty to ensure that executive sessions conform to all requirements of the Virginia Condominium Act.

Announcements

Have an announcement of interest to Southampton Condominium? Add your comment with name and contact information.