Please pass along anything you think people should know about. Email mark at firstname.lastname@example.org
November 2019 Blog
The Board for 2018-2019
Bob Watson - President ... 352-291-1512
Louis Bartolomeo - Vice President ... 352-871-3484
Tom Steggall - Secretary ... 352-502-6025
Herb Zabroski - Treasurer ... 352-509-3026
Anthony Lepordo - Archetectural Change Reveiw... 352-237-9514
In the packet of materials received by Majestic Oaks Homeowners there is a page for homeowners to vote yes or no regarding five amendments and a page to vote yes or no to hiring a management company. There is nothing on any page for homeowners to vote yes or no about turning over the power to hire a management company to the BOD.
Therefore please take careful note of what is printed on one of the Proposed Amendments page.
There are two proposed amendment pages. On the “PROPOSED AMEMNED” page that presents the covenant revision for “Section 1.14” notice the clause above the heading “ARTICLE 1.”
The clause reads .
“WHEREAS , the hiring, engaging, or making contract with a Property Management Company may only occur by a majority vote of THE BOD. ( BOARD OF DIRECTORS. ) “
That is not currently the rule. The homeowners have that authority not the BOD. Furthermore there is no proposed amendment in this packet to vote on such a statement. And even if people vote yes to hire a management company that “WHEREAS still isn't appropriate.
Currently the covenants reserve hiring a management company as a choice for “THE WHOLE ASSOCIATION’S MEMBERSHIP “, not the BOD. Why is that sentence there?
It is troubling to see this WHEREAS statement. Since it is not true currently and we are not voting on it in this packet of materials, is there contemplation to contradict the wishes of a majority of the “THE WHOLE ASSOCIATION’S MEMBERSHIP and have the BOD hire a company any way. That would be wrong and could lead to an even more contentious environment and probably a recall of the BOD. Keep an eye out for that WHEREAS.
Another BIG PROBLEM
The white pages for voting yes or no for a management company and voting yes or no for the five amendments have no place on them for a signature and lot address identifier. If this is mailed in it should not be counted.
The pink mail in candidate election ballot has a lot address and signature identifier. The white page documents need the same. Without such identifiers verification is impossible. There would be no way to disprove a charge of vote tampering. The management company is a controversial subject already. Doing a vote that can't be verified would be a BIG mistake (assuming it is even legal.). This is an unfortunate oversight. These pages can't be used for mail in.
A lesser problem but still …
The election ballot says it must be received by November 4. The meeting is the 15th. Why would they need a cut off date eleven days before the meeting. Furthermore that means homeowners have maybe a week from the time they receive the document to when they have to have them back to the election committee. That seems a little inappropriate.
The Five Amendments
A couple folks asked what I thought about the amendments. Below are my thoughts at the moment.
“(1) Section 1.21 - If this is approved you can't park on your own property grass for family social gatherings. AND working families can't park their company vehicle at there home. Vote NO.
“(2) Section 1.14.8 – Fences – What is being proposed for fences seems like a positive change for fence arrangement. However they are making material choices more restrictive. Next time lets re-due this with out the choice limitations while giving the new fence location arrangement part. Vote No for now.
“(3) Article 6 Section 6.3 - / Article 6 in our covenants is about COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS.
The word TRAILER does not appear in section 6. I think they are trying to add the term maintenance trailer to one of the other sections. What ever they are trying seems to have the wrong section number so that is a NO
“(4) Pods... There is no definition of the term POD. And there is no designation of what article or section of the covenants they are referencing. If it's called a moving container rather than a POD then there is no regulation. This could b written better and a specific section should be designated. . There is no designation of where this rule goes. VOTE NO until it is clear.
“(5) Section 1.7 – Renting - Currently the property must be owned for 1 year before renting. If it is changed to 5 years renting would likely be non-existent. There are pros and cons to that for sure. I'm Undecided.
In summary I know this packet has to represent a lot of work by someone but I don't see where it can be of much use. The three candidates will be seated because there are three openings. So there was no need for a candidates ballot. The amendment ballot isn't verifiable and the management company ballot isn't verifiable. They can't be used with confidence.
I know there are those who don't want some of these changes and those who do, I don't see where the documents in this packet can be used to really gain any verifiable insights as to the wishes of the majority of the Homeowners. And after all its the majority of the homeowners who are suppose to be in charge.
I know this Homeowner Board work is challenging. Many people helped for many year. I even led the board for a year. AS hard as it may be for the BOD, the homeowners must retain control and the BOD must work within the framework that the homeowners want. We have managed for over two decades and will likely continue on for several more.
Maybe we can try again in the future.
Email to have your house listed