I have not received my copy of the letter. I wonder if other new residents have received the letter.
Yes the by laws allow all kinds of votes by members at meetings as do the state statutes. Perhaps members at meetings should decide the method of voting on an issue. AVoice vote, hand vote, or standing vote could have gotten everyone out of the meeting much faster. The vote called for by the President or board was a ballot vote. Proxies cannot be mixed with ballots. Would any of you hand over your primary or presidential ballot to someone else to fill out and cast? Proxies may have a place, but member participation should be the main goal. When Proxies ate used they must contain the whole agenda of the meeting, and must contain a section where the grantor can do a directed proxy, and even can contain a square which the grantor can check stating the proxy is for quorum purposes only. The Proxies provided were substandard. The actual ballots were potentially confusing and did not conform to statute requirements.
One member of the board never was given or told of this advice that likely was never given. At least at no announced meeting, nor executivecsession at a meeting. We are free to assume no advice was given.
Ultimately the statutes reference all the members of the HOA. Not members at the meeting. This us not addressed in the meeting. No board member received the 43 votes required to remove them, or the a two third majority that would be required at a meeting. The letter is a nice piece of sophistry. It mainly advantages one person. That person should have paid out of their pocket rather than the membership. Yes you and I paid for this. How much, well we have a right to know, we have right to see the minutes of the meetings a board decision was made to approve those funds. Were these announced meetings or unlawful secret meetings? And at these meetings was a proper quorum of the board present. Could it be having couple on the board has again meant misappropriation of HOA resources. I think so and this letter smacks of corruption. Looking forward to my copy.
Enter your info to be subscribed to our quarterly email newsletter and receive all the most current Bay Ridge Community Club info straight to your Inbox!
1 Comment
I have not received my copy of the letter. I wonder if other new residents have received the letter.
Yes the by laws allow all kinds of votes by members at meetings as do the state statutes. Perhaps members at meetings should decide the method of voting on an issue. AVoice vote, hand vote, or standing vote could have gotten everyone out of the meeting much faster. The vote called for by the President or board was a ballot vote. Proxies cannot be mixed with ballots. Would any of you hand over your primary or presidential ballot to someone else to fill out and cast? Proxies may have a place, but member participation should be the main goal. When Proxies ate used they must contain the whole agenda of the meeting, and must contain a section where the grantor can do a directed proxy, and even can contain a square which the grantor can check stating the proxy is for quorum purposes only. The Proxies provided were substandard. The actual ballots were potentially confusing and did not conform to statute requirements.
One member of the board never was given or told of this advice that likely was never given. At least at no announced meeting, nor executivecsession at a meeting. We are free to assume no advice was given.
Ultimately the statutes reference all the members of the HOA. Not members at the meeting. This us not addressed in the meeting. No board member received the 43 votes required to remove them, or the a two third majority that would be required at a meeting. The letter is a nice piece of sophistry. It mainly advantages one person. That person should have paid out of their pocket rather than the membership. Yes you and I paid for this. How much, well we have a right to know, we have right to see the minutes of the meetings a board decision was made to approve those funds. Were these announced meetings or unlawful secret meetings? And at these meetings was a proper quorum of the board present. Could it be having couple on the board has again meant misappropriation of HOA resources. I think so and this letter smacks of corruption. Looking forward to my copy.