There have been two changes to Southampton bylaws, and the results are not positive.
The first changed the bylaw limiting residents to one small cat or dog to any number of pets of any size — provided they did not disturb others. Lately, there has been an attempt to enforce the old bylaw. Of course this cannot be done without another bylaw change.
The second change had to do with the patios on lower units, and steps to upper units, which used to be the responsibility of individual unit owners (or both when shared). The Board had the authority to bill unit owners and perform the work if the unit owner did not.
Under the new bylaw the patios and stairs became the responsibility of the Association, but little or no consideration was given to what this would cost. The result: deferred maintenance, plundering from other budget items, and a condominium not as well maintained as it used to be.
The second change in bylaw was done in violation of the Virginia Condominium Act § 55-79.71.E which requires that "100 percent of the unit owners" agree to changing "the liability for common expenses".
Now it appears that more bylaw changes have been proposed. Of course, the Association's attorney would like to change the bylaws — it adds to his billings.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Southampton election a sham?
TO BE HAND DELIVERED AT 2008 ANNUAL MEETING
To: The Board of Directors, Southampton Condominium
My candidate statement below (reformatted to save paper) was submitted on time, and in the requested format to CMS. Its receipt was acknowledged by CMS’ Yolande Nanji. However, it was not included in the election package mailed to homeowners, and my name was not included on the proxy form.
The Association Secretary, under whose signature the election package was mailed, has not responded to my inquiry regarding this omission.
It is my understanding that this issue was not decided at a meeting of the Board, (1) who made the decision to exclude my statement from the election package, and (2) please cite the legal authority for this decision.
A Southampton election that excludes any Southampton homeowner without a legally supportable cause, is not valid.
ENVER MASUD
Engineering Management Consultant, Southampton Blogger
At the 2007 Annual Meeting, following the biggest voter turnout in Southampton history, the Southampton president and secretary were voted off the Board of Directors — they had withdrawn $8885 to defend themselves against charges of grand larceny. One would have thought that the new Board would rectify the matter. This has not been the case.
The new Board chair Conforti has refused to even hear witnesses in this matter (in which he may have a conflict of interest), and he has been supported by the other Board members who were on the Board at the time the $8885 was appropriated. Here is a summary of the facts:
• Julie Carole Handley, former Association Secretary, secretly received three checks from Association funds totaling $8885 for the legal defense of herself and Linda K. Thompson, former Association Chair, for their conduct on October 1, 2005.
• The first check to Handley for $3000 was paid out by CMS without any invoice, claim, or decision recorded in the minutes — the Secretary's responsibility — of Board meetings, and before their trial.
• The second check to Handley for $4085 was paid out by CMS without an invoice or claim to the association, or decision recorded in the minutes of Board meetings.
• The third check to Handley for $1800 was paid out by CMS without any recorded claim from Thompson and/or Handley, and without the “substance” of the Board's decision “reasonably identified” as required by the Virginia Condominium Act, §55-79.75.C.
• Southampton insurance carrier, Travelers, turned down the association's claim for “legal defense of two board members” Handley and Thompson.
• The minutes of Board meetings contain no record of a determination under Southampton Bylaws, Article VII, Section 1, that on October 1, 2005 Handley and Thompson, either did or did not, engage in “individual willful misconduct or bad faith”.
• Six witnesses presented statements that rebut Handley and Thompson's claim that, on October 1, 2005, they were carrying out their duties (removing trash) as members of the Board.
The Virginia Condominium Act, §55-79.75.C states: “No contract, motion or other action adopted, passed or agreed to in executive session shall become effective unless the executive organ or subcommittee or other committee thereof, following the executive session, reconvenes in open meeting and takes a vote on such contract, motion or other action which shall have its substance reasonably identified in the open meeting.”
At the 2007 Annual Meeting, Southampton Counsel Mercer stated that he advised the Board to pay Thompson and Handley after a “Not Guilty” verdict. The record shows that the first check to Thompson and Handley was paid on August 17, 2006 — before their trial on October 19, 2006.
However, the criteria for reimbursement is not whether Thompson and Handley were found guilty or not guilty, but whether they did or did not, engage in "individual willful misconduct or bad faith" (Southampton Bylaws, Article VII, Section 1). This decision is not recorded in the minutes.
This decision requires hearing from witnesses which the Board refuses to do, we still haven’t received the annual audit report, and if Thompson and Handley’s version of what happened on October 1, 2005 is different from that of the witnesses, we may even be looking at a case of fraud — a criminal offense.
If you’re interested in getting to the bottom of this matter, and recovering the $8885, please copy or cut out the statement below, sign, it print your name and address (joint owners must both sign), and return it to Enver Masud, 1707B S Hayes St., Arlington, VA 22202.
********************************
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY PETITION:
Within 60 days the Board of Directors, Southampton Condominium, shall convene in open session to (1) hear Julie Carole Handley’s and Linda K. Thompson’s claim, (2) obtain testimony of witnesses and others who have knowledge of these matters; (3) permit Association members to question participants, and (4) determine, based on the hearing record (a transcript shall be made available to Condominium owners), whether or not Handley and Thompson's conduct on October 1, 2005 constitutes "individual willful misconduct or bad faith" for which the Association is not liable.
Printed Name Signature Date
Spouse’s Name Spouse’s Signature Unit Number
********************************
For details see http://sh22202.blogspot.com/ and join our mailing list — email enver.masud@gmail.com.
Additionally, I believe we need a Board that is responsive to our needs, whose operations are transparent and lawful, which is mindful of its fiduciary duty to the owners, and which represents a broad range of knowledge and experience.
With your support we can achieve these goals. The following changes in the operation of Southampton Condominium will help us move toward them:
• If an Annual Meeting cannot be organized for lack of a quorum, the meeting will be adjourned as permitted in the Bylaws Article IV, Section 6. This option has been used in the past — the current Board has not exercised this option to obtain a quorum.
• Establish an Elections Committee to encourage participation and assure fairness. One suggestion is a “Meet the Candidates” event, held about one week before Annual Meetings, where candidates are given sufficient time to informally answer questions.
• Establish a Condominium Service Request Book (or online file), available for viewing by all homeowners, which tracks the status of service requests by members. This was a part of the management contract when the Condominium was established. Issues that cannot be resolved by the Management Agent should be placed on the agenda for the next Board meeting.
VOTE ONLY FOR YOUR TOP CHOICES
CASTING MORE VOTES WORKS AGAINST YOUR TOP CHOICES
IF YOU CAN’T COME TO THE ANNUAL MEETING, SEND YOUR PROXY TO
ENVER MASUD, 1707B S. HAYES ST., ARLINGTON, VA 22202
To: The Board of Directors, Southampton Condominium
My candidate statement below (reformatted to save paper) was submitted on time, and in the requested format to CMS. Its receipt was acknowledged by CMS’ Yolande Nanji. However, it was not included in the election package mailed to homeowners, and my name was not included on the proxy form.
The Association Secretary, under whose signature the election package was mailed, has not responded to my inquiry regarding this omission.
It is my understanding that this issue was not decided at a meeting of the Board, (1) who made the decision to exclude my statement from the election package, and (2) please cite the legal authority for this decision.
A Southampton election that excludes any Southampton homeowner without a legally supportable cause, is not valid.
Engineering Management Consultant, Southampton Blogger
At the 2007 Annual Meeting, following the biggest voter turnout in Southampton history, the Southampton president and secretary were voted off the Board of Directors — they had withdrawn $8885 to defend themselves against charges of grand larceny. One would have thought that the new Board would rectify the matter. This has not been the case.
The new Board chair Conforti has refused to even hear witnesses in this matter (in which he may have a conflict of interest), and he has been supported by the other Board members who were on the Board at the time the $8885 was appropriated. Here is a summary of the facts:
• Julie Carole Handley, former Association Secretary, secretly received three checks from Association funds totaling $8885 for the legal defense of herself and Linda K. Thompson, former Association Chair, for their conduct on October 1, 2005.
• The first check to Handley for $3000 was paid out by CMS without any invoice, claim, or decision recorded in the minutes — the Secretary's responsibility — of Board meetings, and before their trial.
• The second check to Handley for $4085 was paid out by CMS without an invoice or claim to the association, or decision recorded in the minutes of Board meetings.
• The third check to Handley for $1800 was paid out by CMS without any recorded claim from Thompson and/or Handley, and without the “substance” of the Board's decision “reasonably identified” as required by the Virginia Condominium Act, §55-79.75.C.
• Southampton insurance carrier, Travelers, turned down the association's claim for “legal defense of two board members” Handley and Thompson.
• The minutes of Board meetings contain no record of a determination under Southampton Bylaws, Article VII, Section 1, that on October 1, 2005 Handley and Thompson, either did or did not, engage in “individual willful misconduct or bad faith”.
• Six witnesses presented statements that rebut Handley and Thompson's claim that, on October 1, 2005, they were carrying out their duties (removing trash) as members of the Board.
The Virginia Condominium Act, §55-79.75.C states: “No contract, motion or other action adopted, passed or agreed to in executive session shall become effective unless the executive organ or subcommittee or other committee thereof, following the executive session, reconvenes in open meeting and takes a vote on such contract, motion or other action which shall have its substance reasonably identified in the open meeting.”
At the 2007 Annual Meeting, Southampton Counsel Mercer stated that he advised the Board to pay Thompson and Handley after a “Not Guilty” verdict. The record shows that the first check to Thompson and Handley was paid on August 17, 2006 — before their trial on October 19, 2006.
However, the criteria for reimbursement is not whether Thompson and Handley were found guilty or not guilty, but whether they did or did not, engage in "individual willful misconduct or bad faith" (Southampton Bylaws, Article VII, Section 1). This decision is not recorded in the minutes.
This decision requires hearing from witnesses which the Board refuses to do, we still haven’t received the annual audit report, and if Thompson and Handley’s version of what happened on October 1, 2005 is different from that of the witnesses, we may even be looking at a case of fraud — a criminal offense.
If you’re interested in getting to the bottom of this matter, and recovering the $8885, please copy or cut out the statement below, sign, it print your name and address (joint owners must both sign), and return it to Enver Masud, 1707B S Hayes St., Arlington, VA 22202.
********************************
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY PETITION:
Within 60 days the Board of Directors, Southampton Condominium, shall convene in open session to (1) hear Julie Carole Handley’s and Linda K. Thompson’s claim, (2) obtain testimony of witnesses and others who have knowledge of these matters; (3) permit Association members to question participants, and (4) determine, based on the hearing record (a transcript shall be made available to Condominium owners), whether or not Handley and Thompson's conduct on October 1, 2005 constitutes "individual willful misconduct or bad faith" for which the Association is not liable.
Printed Name Signature Date
Spouse’s Name Spouse’s Signature Unit Number
********************************
For details see http://sh22202.blogspot.com/ and join our mailing list — email enver.masud@gmail.com.
Additionally, I believe we need a Board that is responsive to our needs, whose operations are transparent and lawful, which is mindful of its fiduciary duty to the owners, and which represents a broad range of knowledge and experience.
With your support we can achieve these goals. The following changes in the operation of Southampton Condominium will help us move toward them:
• If an Annual Meeting cannot be organized for lack of a quorum, the meeting will be adjourned as permitted in the Bylaws Article IV, Section 6. This option has been used in the past — the current Board has not exercised this option to obtain a quorum.
• Establish an Elections Committee to encourage participation and assure fairness. One suggestion is a “Meet the Candidates” event, held about one week before Annual Meetings, where candidates are given sufficient time to informally answer questions.
• Establish a Condominium Service Request Book (or online file), available for viewing by all homeowners, which tracks the status of service requests by members. This was a part of the management contract when the Condominium was established. Issues that cannot be resolved by the Management Agent should be placed on the agenda for the next Board meeting.
CASTING MORE VOTES WORKS AGAINST YOUR TOP CHOICES
IF YOU CAN’T COME TO THE ANNUAL MEETING, SEND YOUR PROXY TO
ENVER MASUD, 1707B S. HAYES ST., ARLINGTON, VA 22202
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
