At the Board meeting today, the complete agenda packet given to Board members was not provided to homeowners.
§ 55-79.75.B 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."
The Board did vote to put the agenda packets on the Southampton website, but whether or not these too will be incomplete is not clear.
The October 16, 2007 item "New Board has duty to recover funds improperly disbursed" was on the agenda, but the letter itself was missing. This item will be taken up at the next Board meeting.
Sent fax asking that the Board comply with all requirements of § 55-79.75.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
Board of directors and committee meetings
For the last few years, the Board has not complied fully with the Virginia Condominium Act, specifically § 55-79.75. Meetings of unit owners' associations and executive organs.
The sections of § 55-79.75 of concern are:
Part A: “The bylaws shall specify an officer or his agent who shall, . . . at least seven days in advance of any other meeting, send to each unit owner notice of the time, place, and purposes of such meeting.” [i.e. agenda, emphasis added]
Part B: "Except as otherwise provided in the condominium instruments, the provisions of this subsection shall apply to executive organ meetings. All meetings of the unit owners' association or the executive organ, including any subcommittee or other committee thereof, shall be open to all unit owners of record. The executive organ shall not use work sessions or other informal gatherings of the executive organ to circumvent the open meeting requirements of this section.
“Voting by secret or written ballot in an open meeting shall be a violation of this chapter except for the election of officers.” [i.e. record who voted, and how they voted—absent this, even Board members cannot know if their vote is correctly recorded in the minutes]
Part C: “The executive organ or any subcommittee or other committee thereof may convene in executive session . . .upon the affirmative vote in an open meeting to assemble in executive session. The motion shall state specifically the purpose for the executive session. Reference to the motion and the stated purpose for the executive session shall be included in the minutes. The executive organ shall restrict the consideration of matters during such portions of meetings to only those purposes specifically exempted and stated in the motion. . . . 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.
Not only is this required by the Virginia Condominium Act, it will encourage greater homeowner participation.
[Sent to the Board of Directors via fax to CMS]
The sections of § 55-79.75 of concern are:
Part A: “The bylaws shall specify an officer or his agent who shall, . . . at least seven days in advance of any other meeting, send to each unit owner notice of the time, place, and purposes of such meeting.” [i.e. agenda, emphasis added]
Part B: "Except as otherwise provided in the condominium instruments, the provisions of this subsection shall apply to executive organ meetings. All meetings of the unit owners' association or the executive organ, including any subcommittee or other committee thereof, shall be open to all unit owners of record. The executive organ shall not use work sessions or other informal gatherings of the executive organ to circumvent the open meeting requirements of this section.
“Voting by secret or written ballot in an open meeting shall be a violation of this chapter except for the election of officers.” [i.e. record who voted, and how they voted—absent this, even Board members cannot know if their vote is correctly recorded in the minutes]
Part C: “The executive organ or any subcommittee or other committee thereof may convene in executive session . . .upon the affirmative vote in an open meeting to assemble in executive session. The motion shall state specifically the purpose for the executive session. Reference to the motion and the stated purpose for the executive session shall be included in the minutes. The executive organ shall restrict the consideration of matters during such portions of meetings to only those purposes specifically exempted and stated in the motion. . . . 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.
Not only is this required by the Virginia Condominium Act, it will encourage greater homeowner participation.
[Sent to the Board of Directors via fax to CMS]
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
New Board has duty to recover funds improperly disbursed
The new Board of Directors, given the facts provided at the Annual Meeting, now have the opportunity, and duty, to recover the funds improperly disbursed to Lynn Thompson and Julie Handley. Some suggestions follow:
1. Thompson and Handley should file a claim. Our examination of the Association’s books and records revealed that Thompson and Handley have not filed a claim. At the very least an invoice from them to the Association, together with an explanation of why the Association is liable, needs to be filed.
2. Examine the facts of their claim. The Association has nothing on the record stating what Thompson and Handley were doing on behalf of the Association for which they should be held harmless. There are several witnesses who contest Thompson’s and Handley’s version of the events of October 1, 2005. They should be heard. I understand that the Reddy’s have requested this.
3. Determine if Thompson and Handley were acting in their official capacity. The Reddy’s and another couple (neither of whom had anything to gain) have stated that Association Counsel, Mr. Mercer, in an informal conversation at the 2005 Annual Meeting said that this was a private matter. Apparently, Mr. Mercer has since reversed himself. How he is able to make any determination absent an examination of the facts is beyond us? Thompson’s and Handley’s guilt or innocence in a criminal trial is irrelevant. The Association is not liable for Thompson’s and Handley’s "own individual willful misconduct or bad faith."—Southampton Bylaws, Article VII, Section 1.
4. Vote on whether or not Thompson and Handley should be reimbursed. Prior decisions in this matter are not “effective”. Prior disbursement were without proper authorization (see Virginia Condominium Act § 55-79.75). Therefore, the Board must either vote to authorize payment, or recover the $8885 disbursed, plus amounts billed in this matter by Association Counsel.
The insurance carrier, St. Paul Travelers, has stated (June 30, 2006), "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." Another letter states (August 15, 2007), "this matter never rose to meet the definition of a Claim".
Resolving this issue is of the utmost importance to the Association because (a) we could be held liable for defending Thompson and Handley in a civil suit, plus damages sought by the Reddys, and (b) St. Paul Traveler’s could view our claim as an attempt to defraud them.
Lastly, the Board needs to determine who authorized the improper payments to Thompson and Handley and who knew about them, and take appropriate action.
[Sent to the Board of Directors October 16, 2007 via fax to CMS— added sentence in bold to item 3, and sent on November 9, 2007 via fax to CMS]
1. Thompson and Handley should file a claim. Our examination of the Association’s books and records revealed that Thompson and Handley have not filed a claim. At the very least an invoice from them to the Association, together with an explanation of why the Association is liable, needs to be filed.
2. Examine the facts of their claim. The Association has nothing on the record stating what Thompson and Handley were doing on behalf of the Association for which they should be held harmless. There are several witnesses who contest Thompson’s and Handley’s version of the events of October 1, 2005. They should be heard. I understand that the Reddy’s have requested this.
3. Determine if Thompson and Handley were acting in their official capacity. The Reddy’s and another couple (neither of whom had anything to gain) have stated that Association Counsel, Mr. Mercer, in an informal conversation at the 2005 Annual Meeting said that this was a private matter. Apparently, Mr. Mercer has since reversed himself. How he is able to make any determination absent an examination of the facts is beyond us? Thompson’s and Handley’s guilt or innocence in a criminal trial is irrelevant. The Association is not liable for Thompson’s and Handley’s "own individual willful misconduct or bad faith."—Southampton Bylaws, Article VII, Section 1.
4. Vote on whether or not Thompson and Handley should be reimbursed. Prior decisions in this matter are not “effective”. Prior disbursement were without proper authorization (see Virginia Condominium Act § 55-79.75). Therefore, the Board must either vote to authorize payment, or recover the $8885 disbursed, plus amounts billed in this matter by Association Counsel.
The insurance carrier, St. Paul Travelers, has stated (June 30, 2006), "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." Another letter states (August 15, 2007), "this matter never rose to meet the definition of a Claim".
Resolving this issue is of the utmost importance to the Association because (a) we could be held liable for defending Thompson and Handley in a civil suit, plus damages sought by the Reddys, and (b) St. Paul Traveler’s could view our claim as an attempt to defraud them.
Lastly, the Board needs to determine who authorized the improper payments to Thompson and Handley and who knew about them, and take appropriate action.
[Sent to the Board of Directors October 16, 2007 via fax to CMS— added sentence in bold to item 3, and sent on November 9, 2007 via fax to CMS]
Friday, October 12, 2007
Thanks for voting
Thanks for voting. We had the biggest turnout in Southampton's history—over 68%. Past turnouts, when we had a quorom, were barely over 50%.
The results: Karunesh Khanna and Joe Smith are in. Lynn Thompson and Julie Handley are out. And the Reddy's will get a hearing before the Board.
The new members of the Board met and appointed Frank Conformti as President, Robert Dogan as Vice President, Karunesh Khannna as Treasurer, and Jess Watkins as Secretary.
The results: Karunesh Khanna and Joe Smith are in. Lynn Thompson and Julie Handley are out. And the Reddy's will get a hearing before the Board.
The new members of the Board met and appointed Frank Conformti as President, Robert Dogan as Vice President, Karunesh Khannna as Treasurer, and Jess Watkins as Secretary.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Questions regarding Thompson's and Handley's legal fees
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?
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?
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Members of the Board of Directors respond to our concerns
Members of the Board of Directors, Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins, in their October 1, 2007 letter to Southampton Condominium Property Owners, have responded to our concerns. Their stated position, and our comments follow:
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: "On October 1, 2005, two Board Members conducting a routine walk-through inspection of Southampton were accused by a property owner of removing plants from the common areas."
The property owners were not present to accuse anyone when the plants were removed. On May 17, 2006, after a seven month investigation, Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley were arrested and charged with Grand Larceny (Case #GC06001924-00 and #GC06001925-00). Thompson and Handley told investigating detective Guevarra that the plants belonged to them. The plants were observed being loaded on a green truck belonging to a male sharing Handley's unit. At their trial Thompson and Handley claimed they were removing "trash and weeds".
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: The "Board delayed any decision on the disbursement of legal expenses pending disposition of the legal actions."
Handley received a check for $3000 dated August 17, 2006—two months prior to the "disposition of the legal actions". The grand larceny charge—later reduced to a misdemeanor—was decided on October 19, 2006. The minutes do not show that this "disbursement" was authorized by the Board.
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: "The insurance carrier likewise recommended that the Board await the conclusion before submitting the judgement and legal bills to the carrier."
A June 30, 2006 letter from the insurance carrier states, "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." Letters dated June 29, 2007 and August 5, 2007 from Enver Masud, plus a letter dated September 26, 2007 from the Reddy's asking for a hearing, provided Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins with facts showing that the conduct complained of does not stem from Thompson's and Handley's capacity as members of the Board of Directors.
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins state, "a claim has since been filed with the insurance carrier".
The insurance carrier responded to the claim by letter dated August 15, 2007 which states, "this matter never rose to meet the definition of a Claim". In other words, based upon the facts provided, the insurance carrier will not reimburse the Association. The claim was filed on July 18, 2007—after Joe Smith and Enver Masud began their inquiries. The Association has spent more than $8885 on this issue—invoices submitted by the Association's attorney are not included in this amount.
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: "The arrest and other records of the proceedings were subsequently ordered expunged."
Who requested the records expunged, who issued the order, when was the work performed? From the date on the invoice from Stephen Pickard to Tom Patti—which does not itemize tasks and time spent, it would appear that this work was performed prior to any decision by the Board. It's curious that the check for $1800 is made to Julie Handley—not Stephen Pickard.
Furthermore:
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins have a fiduciary duty. They, and the Association's attorney, are expected to exercise due diligence. They should have heard from the complainant, Mr. and Mrs. Reddy, from Ron Graham and Enver Masud who witnessed the removal of the plants, and from three other witnesses who were available to testify to the ownership and condition of the 32 to 34 potted plants which were removed, before making their decision.
By not hearing from the Reddys and witnesses, the Board incurred unnecessary legal expenses, and may have forced the matter into civil litigation, thereby, incurring additional liabilities for the Association. They did this despite the cautionary note from the insurance carrier: "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." According to Bylaws, Article VII, Section 1 the Association is not liable for “individual willful misconduct or bad faith”.
Dogan, Seekford, possibly Conforti have a conflict of interest. They were not elected. The minutes show that they owe their position on the Board to Thompson and/or Handley.
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins, when they met to compose their letter of October 1, 2007 may have violated the condominium Act. § 55-79.75.B states: "All meetings of the unit owners' association or the executive organ, including any subcommittee or other committee thereof, shall be open to all unit owners of record. The executive organ shall not use work sessions or other informal gatherings of the executive organ to circumvent the open meeting requirements of this section." § 55-79.75.A requires that an officer or his agent "at least seven days in advance . . . send to each unit owner notice of the time, place, and purposes of such meeting."
The Executive Sessions at which this matter was discussed were held in violation of § 55-79.75. C: "The executive organ . . . may convene in executive session . . . upon the affirmative vote in an open meeting to assemble in executive session. The motion shall state specifically the purpose for the executive session. Reference to the motion and the stated purpose for the executive session shall be included in the minutes. . . . No contract, motion or other action adopted, passed or agreed to in executive session shall become effective unless the executive organ . . . , 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."
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: "On October 1, 2005, two Board Members conducting a routine walk-through inspection of Southampton were accused by a property owner of removing plants from the common areas."
The property owners were not present to accuse anyone when the plants were removed. On May 17, 2006, after a seven month investigation, Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley were arrested and charged with Grand Larceny (Case #GC06001924-00 and #GC06001925-00). Thompson and Handley told investigating detective Guevarra that the plants belonged to them. The plants were observed being loaded on a green truck belonging to a male sharing Handley's unit. At their trial Thompson and Handley claimed they were removing "trash and weeds".
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: The "Board delayed any decision on the disbursement of legal expenses pending disposition of the legal actions."
Handley received a check for $3000 dated August 17, 2006—two months prior to the "disposition of the legal actions". The grand larceny charge—later reduced to a misdemeanor—was decided on October 19, 2006. The minutes do not show that this "disbursement" was authorized by the Board.
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: "The insurance carrier likewise recommended that the Board await the conclusion before submitting the judgement and legal bills to the carrier."
A June 30, 2006 letter from the insurance carrier states, "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." Letters dated June 29, 2007 and August 5, 2007 from Enver Masud, plus a letter dated September 26, 2007 from the Reddy's asking for a hearing, provided Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins with facts showing that the conduct complained of does not stem from Thompson's and Handley's capacity as members of the Board of Directors.
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins state, "a claim has since been filed with the insurance carrier".
The insurance carrier responded to the claim by letter dated August 15, 2007 which states, "this matter never rose to meet the definition of a Claim". In other words, based upon the facts provided, the insurance carrier will not reimburse the Association. The claim was filed on July 18, 2007—after Joe Smith and Enver Masud began their inquiries. The Association has spent more than $8885 on this issue—invoices submitted by the Association's attorney are not included in this amount.
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: "The arrest and other records of the proceedings were subsequently ordered expunged."
Who requested the records expunged, who issued the order, when was the work performed? From the date on the invoice from Stephen Pickard to Tom Patti—which does not itemize tasks and time spent, it would appear that this work was performed prior to any decision by the Board. It's curious that the check for $1800 is made to Julie Handley—not Stephen Pickard.
Furthermore:
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins have a fiduciary duty. They, and the Association's attorney, are expected to exercise due diligence. They should have heard from the complainant, Mr. and Mrs. Reddy, from Ron Graham and Enver Masud who witnessed the removal of the plants, and from three other witnesses who were available to testify to the ownership and condition of the 32 to 34 potted plants which were removed, before making their decision.
By not hearing from the Reddys and witnesses, the Board incurred unnecessary legal expenses, and may have forced the matter into civil litigation, thereby, incurring additional liabilities for the Association. They did this despite the cautionary note from the insurance carrier: "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." According to Bylaws, Article VII, Section 1 the Association is not liable for “individual willful misconduct or bad faith”.
Dogan, Seekford, possibly Conforti have a conflict of interest. They were not elected. The minutes show that they owe their position on the Board to Thompson and/or Handley.
Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins, when they met to compose their letter of October 1, 2007 may have violated the condominium Act. § 55-79.75.B states: "All meetings of the unit owners' association or the executive organ, including any subcommittee or other committee thereof, shall be open to all unit owners of record. The executive organ shall not use work sessions or other informal gatherings of the executive organ to circumvent the open meeting requirements of this section." § 55-79.75.A requires that an officer or his agent "at least seven days in advance . . . send to each unit owner notice of the time, place, and purposes of such meeting."
The Executive Sessions at which this matter was discussed were held in violation of § 55-79.75. C: "The executive organ . . . may convene in executive session . . . upon the affirmative vote in an open meeting to assemble in executive session. The motion shall state specifically the purpose for the executive session. Reference to the motion and the stated purpose for the executive session shall be included in the minutes. . . . No contract, motion or other action adopted, passed or agreed to in executive session shall become effective unless the executive organ . . . , 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."
Monday, October 1, 2007
Why did Southampton's Treasurer resign?
The minutes of the November 9, 2006 Board meeting show that Stephen Dougherty resigned as Treasurer, and Conforti was "welcomed" as Board member and Treasurer. The timing of Dougherty's resignation may be significant.
A June 30, 2006 letter from Rachel Plazk of St. Paul Travelers to Southampton states, "based on the information provided to date, there is a question as to whether the conduct complained of stems from their [Thompson and Handley] capacity as members of the Board of Directors."
On August 17, 2006 Handley received a $3000 check (#1711) from the Southampton account at CMS. She received this without presenting an invoice to Southampton, and without approval by the Board.
On November 6, 2006 Handley received an invoice from Brian Moran—the attornery retained by her and Thompson to defend them against charges of grand larceny—later reduced to a misdemeanor.
On November 16, 2006 Handley received a $4085 check (#1771) from the Southampton account at CMS. She received this without presenting an invoice to Southampton (Brian Moran's invoice is to her, not to Southampton), and without approval by the Board.
Did the new Treasurer Conforti approve the payment of Chair Thompson's and Handley's legal fees? What part did the other Board members (Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins) play in the decision to reimburse Thompson and Handley?
Did Treasurer Dougherty resign because he disagreed with the payments made to Handley?
An August 15, 2006 letter from Rachel Plazk of St. Paul Travelers to Southampton states, "this matter never rose to meet the definition of a Claim". Travelers did not reimburse Southampton for Thompson's and Handley's legal expenses incurred in defending themselves against the charge of grand larceny—later reduced to a misdemeanour—by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
A June 30, 2006 letter from Rachel Plazk of St. Paul Travelers to Southampton states, "based on the information provided to date, there is a question as to whether the conduct complained of stems from their [Thompson and Handley] capacity as members of the Board of Directors."
On August 17, 2006 Handley received a $3000 check (#1711) from the Southampton account at CMS. She received this without presenting an invoice to Southampton, and without approval by the Board.
On November 6, 2006 Handley received an invoice from Brian Moran—the attornery retained by her and Thompson to defend them against charges of grand larceny—later reduced to a misdemeanor.
On November 16, 2006 Handley received a $4085 check (#1771) from the Southampton account at CMS. She received this without presenting an invoice to Southampton (Brian Moran's invoice is to her, not to Southampton), and without approval by the Board.
Did the new Treasurer Conforti approve the payment of Chair Thompson's and Handley's legal fees? What part did the other Board members (Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins) play in the decision to reimburse Thompson and Handley?
Did Treasurer Dougherty resign because he disagreed with the payments made to Handley?
An August 15, 2006 letter from Rachel Plazk of St. Paul Travelers to Southampton states, "this matter never rose to meet the definition of a Claim". Travelers did not reimburse Southampton for Thompson's and Handley's legal expenses incurred in defending themselves against the charge of grand larceny—later reduced to a misdemeanour—by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Let’s fix the problems at Southampton
If you're ready for change, vote for
• Karunesh Khanna (lawyer), 1771-A South Hayes St
• Enver Masud (engineer), 1707-B South Hayes St
• Joe Smith (realtor), 654-B South 15th St
Voting for others nullifies the vote for your choice. If you can't make it on October 11 leave your signed proxy with one of the above.
• Karunesh Khanna (lawyer), 1771-A South Hayes St
• Enver Masud (engineer), 1707-B South Hayes St
• Joe Smith (realtor), 654-B South 15th St
Voting for others nullifies the vote for your choice. If you can't make it on October 11 leave your signed proxy with one of the above.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Reddy's request hearing on removal of plants worth '$3000'
September 26, 2007
The Board of Directors
Southampton Condominium
CMS Services Inc.
6395 Little River Turnpike
Alexandria, VA 22312
Subject: Request for a Hearing
Dear Board Members:
On the evening of October 1, 2005 two members of the Southampton Board were observed removing our plants from the Common Area adjoining 1635A South Hayes Street.
Southampton resident Ron Graham “noticed two ladies (Lynn Thompson and Julie Handley) exiting the area between the hedges and windows of 1635A and carrying plants by the stems. I continued to watch the ladies put the plants in the back of a green pickup truck.”
Southampton resident Enver Masud “observed Julie Handley and Lynn Thompson moving plants from area adjoining 1635A to Handley’s place.”
Three Southampton residents have provided written statements that the plants were in good condition.
Evelyn Troy has written us: ”when they traveled I watered their many lovely plants……some of them were across the street…..saddened to find out that more than half of those healthy and irreplaceable plants had been stolen.”
Nora Collins has written us: “I have resided at 1635A…… for two years come this April 1st 2006. Mrs. Devi Reddy approached me late one afternoon to request permission to put some of her plants in a mulched garden to the left of my condo unit…..I happily agreed to grant permission to her simple request. For several months Mrs. Reddy attended to all their care…..At no time did anyone in the condo complex neither inquire about the ownership of the plants nor complain to me about their presence in my side garden.”
Christine Kitchens has written us:”I noticed that their garden had extended across the street…. These plants also were being tended to and well taken care of by Devi and Ram……I was very honored when they asked me to take care of their plants when they went on vacation August 26th – September 3rd, 2005.”
The plants were removed without either notice from CMS or a decision by the Southampton Board, and contrary to the advice of Association Counsel Mr. Mercer.
The minutes of the April 14, 2005 Board meeting states: “Mr. Dogan asked if the Board has the authority to remove items that are on the common area. Association counsel, Mr. Mercer, stated that yes, they were authorized to do this, however, firmly suggested 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.”
At the October 13, 2005 Association meeting, upon our inquiring how this matter could be resolved, Mr. Mercer stated that “the incident was not a board matter”. This conversation was overheard by two other Southampton residents. Mr. Mercer even asked us to provide him with a copy of the police report if we have it. Now we hear that Mr. Mercer says that Thompson and Handley were acting in their official capacity. We disagree.
We, hereby, request a hearing as soon as possible before the Southampton Board to resolve this matter so that we may proceed with further course of action.
Yours truly,
Dr. P.B. Ram Reddy
1671B South Hayes St
Arlington VA 22202
Phone: 703-271-6021
The Board of Directors
Southampton Condominium
CMS Services Inc.
6395 Little River Turnpike
Alexandria, VA 22312
Subject: Request for a Hearing
Dear Board Members:
On the evening of October 1, 2005 two members of the Southampton Board were observed removing our plants from the Common Area adjoining 1635A South Hayes Street.
Southampton resident Ron Graham “noticed two ladies (Lynn Thompson and Julie Handley) exiting the area between the hedges and windows of 1635A and carrying plants by the stems. I continued to watch the ladies put the plants in the back of a green pickup truck.”
Southampton resident Enver Masud “observed Julie Handley and Lynn Thompson moving plants from area adjoining 1635A to Handley’s place.”
Three Southampton residents have provided written statements that the plants were in good condition.
Evelyn Troy has written us: ”when they traveled I watered their many lovely plants……some of them were across the street…..saddened to find out that more than half of those healthy and irreplaceable plants had been stolen.”
Nora Collins has written us: “I have resided at 1635A…… for two years come this April 1st 2006. Mrs. Devi Reddy approached me late one afternoon to request permission to put some of her plants in a mulched garden to the left of my condo unit…..I happily agreed to grant permission to her simple request. For several months Mrs. Reddy attended to all their care…..At no time did anyone in the condo complex neither inquire about the ownership of the plants nor complain to me about their presence in my side garden.”
Christine Kitchens has written us:”I noticed that their garden had extended across the street…. These plants also were being tended to and well taken care of by Devi and Ram……I was very honored when they asked me to take care of their plants when they went on vacation August 26th – September 3rd, 2005.”
The plants were removed without either notice from CMS or a decision by the Southampton Board, and contrary to the advice of Association Counsel Mr. Mercer.
The minutes of the April 14, 2005 Board meeting states: “Mr. Dogan asked if the Board has the authority to remove items that are on the common area. Association counsel, Mr. Mercer, stated that yes, they were authorized to do this, however, firmly suggested 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.”
At the October 13, 2005 Association meeting, upon our inquiring how this matter could be resolved, Mr. Mercer stated that “the incident was not a board matter”. This conversation was overheard by two other Southampton residents. Mr. Mercer even asked us to provide him with a copy of the police report if we have it. Now we hear that Mr. Mercer says that Thompson and Handley were acting in their official capacity. We disagree.
We, hereby, request a hearing as soon as possible before the Southampton Board to resolve this matter so that we may proceed with further course of action.
Yours truly,
Dr. P.B. Ram Reddy
1671B South Hayes St
Arlington VA 22202
Phone: 703-271-6021
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Board members received $7085 without authorization
Joe Smith and Enver Masud visited CMS Services on August 21 and obtained documents that show the following:
- August 17, 2006: Julie Handley received from CMS a Southampton check number 1711 in the amount of $3000—with neither an invoice to Southampton, nor authorization by the Board.
- November 6, 2006: Brian J. Moran, P.C. submitted an invoice for "Professional Services" to Julie Handley and Lynn Thompson in the amount of $7085.
- November 16, 2006: Julie Handley received from CMS a Southampton check number 1771 in the amount of $4085—with neither an invoice to Southampton, nor authorization by the Board.
- January 16, 2007: Stephen R. Pickard, P.C. submitted an invoice for "Expungements" to Julie Handley and Lynn Thompson in the amount of $1800.
- January 25, 2007: Julie Handley received from CMS a Southampton check number 1818 in the amount of $1800—after a three minute Executive Session in which the Board “resolved to satisfy the request for reimbursement of legal fees.”
A June 30, 2006 letter from Rachel C. Plzak, Bond Claim Representative, St Paul Travelers, states: "based on 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. To the extent that the complained of conduct stems from actions taken outside the scope of Ms. Thompson's and Ms. Handley's capacity as members of the Board of Directors, coverage would be disclaimed."
On July 18, 2007, after we began inquiries, the Association's attorney, David S. Mercer, wrote to St. Paul Travelers seeking reimbursement of $8085 (actual amount paid was $8885) for payments to Ms. Thompson and Ms. Handley.
- August 17, 2006: Julie Handley received from CMS a Southampton check number 1711 in the amount of $3000—with neither an invoice to Southampton, nor authorization by the Board.
- November 6, 2006: Brian J. Moran, P.C. submitted an invoice for "Professional Services" to Julie Handley and Lynn Thompson in the amount of $7085.
- November 16, 2006: Julie Handley received from CMS a Southampton check number 1771 in the amount of $4085—with neither an invoice to Southampton, nor authorization by the Board.
- January 16, 2007: Stephen R. Pickard, P.C. submitted an invoice for "Expungements" to Julie Handley and Lynn Thompson in the amount of $1800.
- January 25, 2007: Julie Handley received from CMS a Southampton check number 1818 in the amount of $1800—after a three minute Executive Session in which the Board “resolved to satisfy the request for reimbursement of legal fees.”
A June 30, 2006 letter from Rachel C. Plzak, Bond Claim Representative, St Paul Travelers, states: "based on 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. To the extent that the complained of conduct stems from actions taken outside the scope of Ms. Thompson's and Ms. Handley's capacity as members of the Board of Directors, coverage would be disclaimed."
On July 18, 2007, after we began inquiries, the Association's attorney, David S. Mercer, wrote to St. Paul Travelers seeking reimbursement of $8085 (actual amount paid was $8885) for payments to Ms. Thompson and Ms. Handley.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Condominium books and records inspection
The following was mailed today to Tom Patti and Jess Watkins with copies to Robert Dogan, Maria-ines Pariente, and Rebecca Seekford:
On August 1, 2007, as a courtesy to CMS, Joe Smith and I requested an appointment to inspect the Southampton Condominium's books and records. We have not heard from CMS. Therefore, on or after August 20, during business hours, Joe Smith, and I will visit the CMS office to inspect and copy the following:
(1) All invoices for legal expenditures in connection with the case filed by the Commonwealth of Virginia against Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley (Case #GC06001924-00 and #GC06001925-00).
(2) Evidence of payment of invoices for legal expenditures (payments to the firm retained by Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley, and to Association Counsel, David S. Mercer) in the above mentioned case, eg. cancelled checks.
(3) All correspondence with and responses from the Association's liability insurance carrier to CMS and/or Mr. Mercer.
Pursuant to the Virginia Condominium Act, § 55-79.74:1, Parts A and B, which states that the "right of examination ... may be exercised (i) only during reasonable business hours ... and (ii) upon five days' written notice reasonably identifying the purpose for the request and the specific books and records of the unit owners' association requested."
On August 1, 2007, as a courtesy to CMS, Joe Smith and I requested an appointment to inspect the Southampton Condominium's books and records. We have not heard from CMS. Therefore, on or after August 20, during business hours, Joe Smith, and I will visit the CMS office to inspect and copy the following:
(1) All invoices for legal expenditures in connection with the case filed by the Commonwealth of Virginia against Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley (Case #GC06001924-00 and #GC06001925-00).
(2) Evidence of payment of invoices for legal expenditures (payments to the firm retained by Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley, and to Association Counsel, David S. Mercer) in the above mentioned case, eg. cancelled checks.
(3) All correspondence with and responses from the Association's liability insurance carrier to CMS and/or Mr. Mercer.
Pursuant to the Virginia Condominium Act, § 55-79.74:1, Parts A and B, which states that the "right of examination ... may be exercised (i) only during reasonable business hours ... and (ii) upon five days' written notice reasonably identifying the purpose for the request and the specific books and records of the unit owners' association requested."
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Why we shouldn't pay Thompson and Handley's legal fees
August 1, 2007
HAND DELIVERED
Southampton Condominium
Board of Directors
Jess Watkins (1679B)
Rebecca Seekford (1741A)
Maria Ines Pariente (1663B)
Robert Dogan (1723B)
Frank Conforti (604A)
RE: THE REDDYS VS THOMPSON AND HANDLEY IN A NUTSHELL
I have not received a response to my letter of June 29 inquiring about legal fees incurred by the Association in defending two Members of the Board: Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carol Handley.
In the meantime, I reviewed the Reddy’s file in this matter, and have summarized their case in the attached one page document: “The Reddys vs Thompson and Handley in a nutshell”.
I am concerned that the Reddys may file a civil suit against Thompson and Handley. Is it then your intention to pay for the defense of Thompson and Handley in the civil suit?
I believe that the Association should not pay to defend Board members for acting beyond the scope of their lawful duties, and against the specific advice of Association Counsel, Mr. Mercer (see attachment, April 14, 2005). While I am not a lawyer, I believe that neutral attorneys and our insurance carrier would agree.
Now that you have information that may not have been available when you voted to reimburse Thompson and Handley for their legal fees, it may be in your personal interest to rescind your decision. It is in the Association’s interest, and your fiduciary duty.
Furthermore, the vote to reimburse is questionable. If one eliminates those with a conflict of interest, and with one member of the Board absent, there could not have been a quorom.
Unless rescinded, your authorization of funds for the defense of Thompson and Handley may expose you to criminal charges.
signed
Enver Masud
---
The Reddys vs Thompson and Handley in a nutshell:
April 14, 2005 - Minutes of Board: “Mr. Dogan asked if the Board has the authority to remove items that are on the common area. Association Counsel, Mr. Mercer, stated that yes, they were authorized to do this, however, firmly suggested 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.” Following were present at the Board meeting: Thompson, Handley, Pariente, Dogan, Seekford, Dougherty. [Southampton Condominium Homeowners Manual, 2000 Edition, page 15, permits plants in common areas. This change was made following an “illegal” change of the Bylaws.]
October 3, 2005 - Letter from Ron Graham (1663A): “noticed two ladies [Thompson and Handley] exiting the area between the hedges and windows of 1635A and carrying plants by the stems. I continued to watch the ladies put the plants in the back of a green pickup truck. . . . Lynn and Julie told the officers that the plants belonged to them.”
October 3, 2005 - Letter from Enver Masud (1707B): On October 1 around 8:30 PM observed Julie Handley and Lynn Thompson moving plants from area adjoining 1635A to Handley's place. [They were at it until my return from a walk about half hour later.]
October 2005 - Enver Masud (1707B): Mr. Guevarra, detective Arlington County, told me that Lynn and Julie claim the plants in the area adjoining 1635A belonged to them. I told him I often saw Mrs Reddy tending plants there—never Lynn or Julie.
October 13, 2005 - Mr. Mercer, in a conversation with the Reddys' responded that “the incident was not a Board matter”. The minutes appear to confirm this—they do not indicate that this matter was discussed by the Board until January 11, 2007.
Sometime in 2005 - Pariente in a conversation with the Reddy's said the matter of the plants was discussed by the board but they have not authorized anybody to remove them. According to her it was not a board issue.
December 29, 2005 - Letter from Evelyn Troy (1705B): “when they traveled I watered their many lovely plants. . . . some of them were across the street . . . saddened to find out that more than half of those healthy and irreplaceable plants had been stolen.”
January 12, 2006 - Letter from Nora Collins (1635A): “I have resided at 1635A . . . for two years come this April 1st 2006. Mrs. Devi Reddy approached me late one afternoon to request permission to put some of her plants in a mulched garden to the left of my condo unit. . . . I happily agreed to grant permission to her simple request. For several months Mrs. Reddy attended to all their care. . . . At no time did anyone in the condo complex inquire about the ownership of the plants nor complain to me about their presence in my side garden.”
January 12, 2006 - Letter from Christine Kitchens (1629A): “I noticed that their garden had extended across the street . . . These plants also were being tended to and well taken care of by Devi and Ram. . . . I was very honored when they asked me to take care of their plants when they went on vacation August 26th - September 3rd, 2005.”
May 17, 2006 - Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley arrested. Charged with “Grand Larceny”—reduced to “Misdemeanor” (Case #GC06001924-00 and #GC06001925-00).
June 9, 2006 - Letter from Dr. Narayanswamy Subramanian, President, Sri Siva Vishnu Temple: “She brings to the temple special leaves . . . for performing worship to various Gods. . . . These rare religious plants are not usually available in North America.”
October 19, 2006 - Thompson and Handley found not guilty. Prosecuting attorney—appointed less than two hours prior to trial—failed to prove plants belonged to Reddy's. Letter from Dr. P. B. Reddy to Richard Trodden, Commonwealth Attorney: “the plants that were stolen were described by the defendants as trash and weeds. . . . None of the people from whom we presented letters were interviewed or called as witnesses to certify that the plants belong to us”.
Enver Masud (1707B): I have lived at Southampton since it was built, and have never seen Thompson or Handley picking up trash. Their claim to have picked up “trash” (32 to 34 potted plants worth $3000) over half an hour or so, and haul it away in a private truck, is not credible. They would have asked CMS to pick it up, or asked the trash company to haul it away.
January 11, 2007 - Minutes of Board: In a 3 minute Executive Session the Board “resolved to satisfy the request for reimbursement of legal fees.” Following were present at the Board meeting: Thompson, Watkins, Conforti, Handley, Pariente, Dogan.
HAND DELIVERED
Southampton Condominium
Board of Directors
Jess Watkins (1679B)
Rebecca Seekford (1741A)
Maria Ines Pariente (1663B)
Robert Dogan (1723B)
Frank Conforti (604A)
RE: THE REDDYS VS THOMPSON AND HANDLEY IN A NUTSHELL
I have not received a response to my letter of June 29 inquiring about legal fees incurred by the Association in defending two Members of the Board: Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carol Handley.
In the meantime, I reviewed the Reddy’s file in this matter, and have summarized their case in the attached one page document: “The Reddys vs Thompson and Handley in a nutshell”.
I am concerned that the Reddys may file a civil suit against Thompson and Handley. Is it then your intention to pay for the defense of Thompson and Handley in the civil suit?
I believe that the Association should not pay to defend Board members for acting beyond the scope of their lawful duties, and against the specific advice of Association Counsel, Mr. Mercer (see attachment, April 14, 2005). While I am not a lawyer, I believe that neutral attorneys and our insurance carrier would agree.
Now that you have information that may not have been available when you voted to reimburse Thompson and Handley for their legal fees, it may be in your personal interest to rescind your decision. It is in the Association’s interest, and your fiduciary duty.
Furthermore, the vote to reimburse is questionable. If one eliminates those with a conflict of interest, and with one member of the Board absent, there could not have been a quorom.
Unless rescinded, your authorization of funds for the defense of Thompson and Handley may expose you to criminal charges.
signed
Enver Masud
---
The Reddys vs Thompson and Handley in a nutshell:
April 14, 2005 - Minutes of Board: “Mr. Dogan asked if the Board has the authority to remove items that are on the common area. Association Counsel, Mr. Mercer, stated that yes, they were authorized to do this, however, firmly suggested 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.” Following were present at the Board meeting: Thompson, Handley, Pariente, Dogan, Seekford, Dougherty. [Southampton Condominium Homeowners Manual, 2000 Edition, page 15, permits plants in common areas. This change was made following an “illegal” change of the Bylaws.]
October 3, 2005 - Letter from Ron Graham (1663A): “noticed two ladies [Thompson and Handley] exiting the area between the hedges and windows of 1635A and carrying plants by the stems. I continued to watch the ladies put the plants in the back of a green pickup truck. . . . Lynn and Julie told the officers that the plants belonged to them.”
October 3, 2005 - Letter from Enver Masud (1707B): On October 1 around 8:30 PM observed Julie Handley and Lynn Thompson moving plants from area adjoining 1635A to Handley's place. [They were at it until my return from a walk about half hour later.]
October 2005 - Enver Masud (1707B): Mr. Guevarra, detective Arlington County, told me that Lynn and Julie claim the plants in the area adjoining 1635A belonged to them. I told him I often saw Mrs Reddy tending plants there—never Lynn or Julie.
October 13, 2005 - Mr. Mercer, in a conversation with the Reddys' responded that “the incident was not a Board matter”. The minutes appear to confirm this—they do not indicate that this matter was discussed by the Board until January 11, 2007.
Sometime in 2005 - Pariente in a conversation with the Reddy's said the matter of the plants was discussed by the board but they have not authorized anybody to remove them. According to her it was not a board issue.
December 29, 2005 - Letter from Evelyn Troy (1705B): “when they traveled I watered their many lovely plants. . . . some of them were across the street . . . saddened to find out that more than half of those healthy and irreplaceable plants had been stolen.”
January 12, 2006 - Letter from Nora Collins (1635A): “I have resided at 1635A . . . for two years come this April 1st 2006. Mrs. Devi Reddy approached me late one afternoon to request permission to put some of her plants in a mulched garden to the left of my condo unit. . . . I happily agreed to grant permission to her simple request. For several months Mrs. Reddy attended to all their care. . . . At no time did anyone in the condo complex inquire about the ownership of the plants nor complain to me about their presence in my side garden.”
January 12, 2006 - Letter from Christine Kitchens (1629A): “I noticed that their garden had extended across the street . . . These plants also were being tended to and well taken care of by Devi and Ram. . . . I was very honored when they asked me to take care of their plants when they went on vacation August 26th - September 3rd, 2005.”
May 17, 2006 - Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley arrested. Charged with “Grand Larceny”—reduced to “Misdemeanor” (Case #GC06001924-00 and #GC06001925-00).
June 9, 2006 - Letter from Dr. Narayanswamy Subramanian, President, Sri Siva Vishnu Temple: “She brings to the temple special leaves . . . for performing worship to various Gods. . . . These rare religious plants are not usually available in North America.”
October 19, 2006 - Thompson and Handley found not guilty. Prosecuting attorney—appointed less than two hours prior to trial—failed to prove plants belonged to Reddy's. Letter from Dr. P. B. Reddy to Richard Trodden, Commonwealth Attorney: “the plants that were stolen were described by the defendants as trash and weeds. . . . None of the people from whom we presented letters were interviewed or called as witnesses to certify that the plants belong to us”.
Enver Masud (1707B): I have lived at Southampton since it was built, and have never seen Thompson or Handley picking up trash. Their claim to have picked up “trash” (32 to 34 potted plants worth $3000) over half an hour or so, and haul it away in a private truck, is not credible. They would have asked CMS to pick it up, or asked the trash company to haul it away.
January 11, 2007 - Minutes of Board: In a 3 minute Executive Session the Board “resolved to satisfy the request for reimbursement of legal fees.” Following were present at the Board meeting: Thompson, Watkins, Conforti, Handley, Pariente, Dogan.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Repair and renovation services
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.
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.
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)
