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.
Friday, September 28, 2007
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)
