My letter to Jess Watkins, Association Secretary, regarding the omission of my candidate statement follows:
I just received the proxy forms and candidate statements from CMS. My statement is not in the package, and my name is not on the proxy form.
My candidate statement was submitted in the form requested, and on time.
Please cite the Association's legal authority (Condominium Act, Declaration, Bylaw, etc.) that justifies the removal of my name from the list of candidates.
Enver Masud
1707B South Hayes St.
Arlington, VA 22202
Friday, September 19, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Where is the CPA's audit report?
Southampton Bylaws Article XIII, Section 3 requires an audit of the books and records of the Association at the close of each fiscal year. I don't believe we've been getting these annual audits.
At the last annual meeting, Conforti said he would be getting one done soon. What is its status?
Apparently, the Board has not yet been presented with the audit report. Is the draft completed? Are Conforti and CMS negotiating changes to the report with the auditors without involving the Board?
Given the unlawful withdrawal of $8885 from Association funds, transparency in the audit process would lend greater credibility to the audit.
At the last annual meeting, Conforti said he would be getting one done soon. What is its status?
Apparently, the Board has not yet been presented with the audit report. Is the draft completed? Are Conforti and CMS negotiating changes to the report with the auditors without involving the Board?
Given the unlawful withdrawal of $8885 from Association funds, transparency in the audit process would lend greater credibility to the audit.
New rule on pets contradicts bylaws
On August 28, Yolande Nanji at CMS sent out an email on house rules. Regarding pets it says: "One dog or cat, weighing 25 pounds or less, is permitted."
The orginal Bylaws, Article X, Section 4e, permitted the keeping of a "small dog, cat". I had worked to get a definition of small. The Board fought back by unlawfully changing Southampton Bylaws to permit any number of animals of any size.
I protested the change in a letter dated December 6, 1997 (reproduced below).
Pursuant to your letter of November 19, 1997, I was able to examine the pet bylaws amendment file. In addition to violations noted in the August 25, 1997 and November 10, 1997 letters to the Board, I noted the following:
1. The Board is conspicuous by its absence in the decisions relating to the pet bylaws amendment.
2. There is only one letter from the Board in this file, dated January 29, 1996, which says: "Unless modified, this preliminary determination shall become effective on March 14, 1996. Enforcement will begin on September 7, 1996 pursuant to the December 7, 1995 letter from the Board to the Unit Owners."
3. While the Boards decision on record informs Unit owners that enforcement of then existing bylaws will begin, a group calling itself Coalition of Neighbors of Southampton was circulating a petition to amend the pet bylaws.
4. Said Coalition of Neighbors of Southampton utilized the services of CMS, Association Counsel, and the editor of the Association Newsletter to gather signatures for their petition.
According to § 55-79.51 "condominium instruments shall be construed together and shall be deemed to incorporate one another to the extent that any requirement of this chapter as to the content of one shall be deemed satisfied if the deficiency can be cured by reference to any of the others. In the event of any conflict between the condominium instruments, the declaration shall control; but particular provisions shall control more general provisions, except that a construction conformable with the statute shall in all cases control over any construction inconsistent therewith." This raises several questions:
1. Why were Association funds spent on the efforts of the Coalition of Neighbors of Southampton? Are Association funds available to anyone who wishes to circulate a petition?
2. According to Bylaws Article XIV Section 1. Amendments may be proposed by the Board of Directors or by petition signed by members representing at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the total votes of the Condominium." Why were these petitions, which are only proposals, substituted for the required votes? And, if they were accepted as votes, then:
3. According to § 55-79.77 even a proxy is void "if the signatures of any of those executing the same have not been witnessed by a person who shall sign his full name and address." Why were these petitions, not so witnessed, accepted as votes to amend the Bylaws?
4. According to § 55-79.77 "Any proxy shall terminate after the first meeting held on or after the date of that proxy or any recess or adjournment of that meeting held within thirty days. Why were these proxies not terminated as stated in § 55-79.77?
And the Board is a party to the same violations of Virginia law, and the condominium instruments, in its attempt to change the Declaration regarding Limited Common Elements.
The Board stuck with the unlawful change in the Bylaws, and Association Counsel supported the Board. Now it appears that the Board, without any change in the Bylaws, is imposing a rule that contradicts them.
I'm all for one small dog or cat (or no pets at all), but I'm for observing the Bylaws first. The Board needs to present the legal basis for this new rule.
FYI: The only other Bylaw changed from the original is the one on common areas. It too was done unlawfully. I fought that also, but Association Counsel supported the Board.
The orginal Bylaws, Article X, Section 4e, permitted the keeping of a "small dog, cat". I had worked to get a definition of small. The Board fought back by unlawfully changing Southampton Bylaws to permit any number of animals of any size.
I protested the change in a letter dated December 6, 1997 (reproduced below).
Pursuant to your letter of November 19, 1997, I was able to examine the pet bylaws amendment file. In addition to violations noted in the August 25, 1997 and November 10, 1997 letters to the Board, I noted the following:
1. The Board is conspicuous by its absence in the decisions relating to the pet bylaws amendment.
2. There is only one letter from the Board in this file, dated January 29, 1996, which says: "Unless modified, this preliminary determination shall become effective on March 14, 1996. Enforcement will begin on September 7, 1996 pursuant to the December 7, 1995 letter from the Board to the Unit Owners."
3. While the Boards decision on record informs Unit owners that enforcement of then existing bylaws will begin, a group calling itself Coalition of Neighbors of Southampton was circulating a petition to amend the pet bylaws.
4. Said Coalition of Neighbors of Southampton utilized the services of CMS, Association Counsel, and the editor of the Association Newsletter to gather signatures for their petition.
According to § 55-79.51 "condominium instruments shall be construed together and shall be deemed to incorporate one another to the extent that any requirement of this chapter as to the content of one shall be deemed satisfied if the deficiency can be cured by reference to any of the others. In the event of any conflict between the condominium instruments, the declaration shall control; but particular provisions shall control more general provisions, except that a construction conformable with the statute shall in all cases control over any construction inconsistent therewith." This raises several questions:
1. Why were Association funds spent on the efforts of the Coalition of Neighbors of Southampton? Are Association funds available to anyone who wishes to circulate a petition?
2. According to Bylaws Article XIV Section 1. Amendments may be proposed by the Board of Directors or by petition signed by members representing at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the total votes of the Condominium." Why were these petitions, which are only proposals, substituted for the required votes? And, if they were accepted as votes, then:
3. According to § 55-79.77 even a proxy is void "if the signatures of any of those executing the same have not been witnessed by a person who shall sign his full name and address." Why were these petitions, not so witnessed, accepted as votes to amend the Bylaws?
4. According to § 55-79.77 "Any proxy shall terminate after the first meeting held on or after the date of that proxy or any recess or adjournment of that meeting held within thirty days. Why were these proxies not terminated as stated in § 55-79.77?
And the Board is a party to the same violations of Virginia law, and the condominium instruments, in its attempt to change the Declaration regarding Limited Common Elements.
The Board stuck with the unlawful change in the Bylaws, and Association Counsel supported the Board. Now it appears that the Board, without any change in the Bylaws, is imposing a rule that contradicts them.
I'm all for one small dog or cat (or no pets at all), but I'm for observing the Bylaws first. The Board needs to present the legal basis for this new rule.
FYI: The only other Bylaw changed from the original is the one on common areas. It too was done unlawfully. I fought that also, but Association Counsel supported the Board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
