Post by Honeylioness on Apr 7, 2011 14:08:48 GMT -5
Honeylioness - Mar 3, 2011, 2:59pm[/u]
Condo Board - The "fun" continues. After what I thought was a rather benign meeting at my home last Sunday I got a shot over my prow with a document "she" sent for review ... I replied and got a really nasty e-mail in response. *sigh* Actually, if anyone would be willing to read it for me and give me your honest feedback I would appreciate it ... as I am not sure if I am just being overly sensitive or if it really is as bad as I think it is.
mizbear - Mar 3, 2011, 6:00pm
Condo board[/b]- Are the other members aware of what she is sending you? I suspect that she may be freelancing to a point. And I know I don't have to tell you this- keep copies of everything she sends you.
spruby - Mar 3, 2011, 7:45pm
honey [/b]- good luck with the hosting application and getting the position that will supplement the food budget. I can see if you were a new host they might want 2 the first year - but you are an experienced one! Also, I'm happy to read the email/document from your Board member if you like - I remember one of the people on our HOA Board had no idea how they came across in email. I had to explain - I don't work for you - I volunteer with so that our community will be well maintained.
ses - Mar 4, 2011, 2:36pm
Honey-[/b]-Karma for dealing with her. You have email.
spruby - Mar 4, 2011, 8:00pm
honey -[/b] I got the message - I'll be replying and include my email - but may kudos to you for not slapping her upside the head for the 2nd one
ses - Mar 4, 2011, 11:01pm
spruby--[/b]I think Honey is a saint for her response. If it were me, I'd be off the board, because I would be residing somewhere else at the county's expense!
spruby - Mar 5, 2011, 9:57am
ses [/b]- the fact the honey is even willing to continue to work with those numb skulls makes her far saintly than me. I'd be smacking the b**ch upside the head. Honey clearly cares about her community and is willing to invest her time and talent in making things good for everyone. I suspect the email writer is a busybody who is on the Board so she can stick her nose in where it doesn't belong.
**********************************************
Sent to SES and Spruby
Sent: Thu, Mar 03, 2011 10:46 PM
First - thanks for taking a look at these for me. I must tell you I have a really REALLY hard time even looking at these words from this woman. My stomach just goes into knots and I feel as though I not only may throw up but I feel incredibly guilty for some reason... maybe because she is pushing my buttons even without knowing it.
Thanks,
~M
*************************************************************************
First e-mail - February 12th. Don't know if she blind copied anyone else on this message
Hi, Melissa,
I was very disturbed to learn this week that you have not yet resolved the issue of your overdue condo fees, and that it has reached the point where Whitetail is now having to send you certified letters. As you are probably aware, the condo docs require that Trustees be fully paid up-to-date on their condo fees. In the past, you have often been on the list of owners in arrears. However, it has never before reached a critical point, and I have chosen not to make an issue of it. Now, however, I can no longer turn a blind eye. I'm writing you this email in order to suggest that you proactively resign from the board so that we may all avoid the unpleasantness of a formal and on-the-record disqualification of you from service as a Trustee. At our last board meeting you expressed a desire to continue as a Trustee, but your actions (and not only with regard to your condo fees) indicate that service on the Board is not a priority for you.
I want to be very clear that it is not my intent with this email to initiate a dialogue. Rather, this is a heads-up to provide you the opportunity to resolve this privately and quietly. If I feel it is necessary, however, I will elevate this to the Board/Whitetail for resolution. If you do wish to reply in email, please cc the Austin Square Yahoo group.
Sincerely,
Mim
******************************************************
Draft of condo meeting notice, February 27th:
If you would like to help build and improve the Austin Square community by running for the board, please contact Matt by email (Whitetailtree@yahoo.com) or phone ( ) and let him know your name and Unit number. In order to qualify, you must be an owner in good standing at Austin Square. An owner in good standing has been up-to-date on their condo fees during the last 12 months (not more than 1 month behind, for not more than 1 month).
My notes: After our meeting yesterday I thought about this clause that you want to put into the nominations. The Master Deed makes no such stipulations, nor does a Trustee even have to be a Unit Owner:
Article III
The Trustees
Section 3.1. Number of Trustees. There shall be a Board of Trustees (the "Board" or the "Trustees") consisting of three (3) natural persons who shall be elected as herinafter provided by the vote, in person or in proxy, of the Unit Owners holding at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the Beneficial Interest. Trustees need not be Unit Owners.
Once such moralistic conditions begin to be placed on who can step up to help it leaves room for too many “exceptions”. Owners who had a financial downturn and ran behind a month for three months, people who have owned less than a year, bookkeeping errors or changes in personal circumstances that caused them to fall behind but made good faith efforts and corrected the situation. And according to the Master Deed someone like Barry’s wife COULD run if she was so inclined per the guidelines. And perhaps as a spouse there would be no record of her EVER having paid dues … it would all be in his name.
It would be lovely if we lived in a perfect world where everyone behaved as we would like .. but it is not realistic and I am not comfortable leaving this qualification in. Besides, someone who is in collections with the attorney or being foreclosed on probably won’t step up anyway.
*****************************************************************
Her reply e-mail on March 1st - this time she copied the other trustee:
Hi,Melissa,
Thanks for providing the reference regarding who is eligible to run. I did think that I read somewhere that Trustees had to be paid-up owners, but I guess I was mistaken. Not the first time. In future, the Board can explore the possibility of amending that, but that's neither here nor there at the moment.
That said, given that one of our stated financial goals during the past year was to reduce the number of owners and the $ amount in arrears, it think it is entirely inappropriate and counter-productive to have on the board an owner who is repeatedly, even consistently, in arrears. That is not "moralistic". It is about an owners' willingness to prioritize and meet their financial obligations to Austin Square. I do feel the Board members have additional responsibility to be above reproach in complying with financial obligations as well as rules and regs incumbent on all owners at Austin Square.
Yes, if an owner has a rough patch, but then pays up and stays current, well, there will now be an election every year in which they can run when they are able to meet their obligations. By contrast, in a case in which a unit owner is in arrears almost every month, going back over a period of years -- and there are several such cases -- it doesn't appear to be a rough patch at all. It just looks to me like staying current on Austin Square condo fees isn't a priority for that person.
On a personal note, Melissa, you have the same access to the financials as I do. Does it not bother you to see your name on the arrears list every month? I know it would bother me, and if I felt it were inaccurate I wouldn't be waiting months, or even weeks, to rectify the situation. Doesn't it bother you, Melissa? Don't you care? Is it just not a priority for you? And if it isn't, why do you want to even be on the Board? (Those were rhetorical questions.)
Andy, I agree to whatever edits are necessary to bring the letter into agreement with the docs, so we can just eliminate the sentences about who is qualified. Agree also re renewal of pet permissions.
Mim
******************************************
From SES - Fri, Mar 04, 2011 02:24 PM
First thoughts--would God qualify according to her? What is her financial situation? Does she not realize how many Americans are struggling to just survive and put food on the table. This recession is no where near over (month 20 out of the average 60 months). Stand your ground, you can't be the only name on the "list." Are the other members in arrears getting these same "nastigrams"? I would quietly check out other members financial stability and point out to her the undesireability of antagonizing other residents.
When people move for financial reasons all the other homes in that neighborhood lose value. I guess I am just stunned at her lack of compassion in these stressful times. Or is she just one of those people who want to be Queen of the World and rule everyone in her sphere according to her plans? What are the opinions of the other board member?
I think this will become an even more common issue with so many cuts coming to the states, localities and individuals. It may be more beneficial to plan how the board can be more supportive toward others who might face this situation in the future. Don't let her make it only "owners" who can participate (a son/daughter buying a unit for an elderly parent or parents buying unit for adult children) She seems so nattow minded.
My compliments to you for remaining even civil to her!!
S
**********************************
spruby - Mar 4, 2011, 8:26pm
Wow - pardon my language - what a pregnant dog and a half. The first email was borderline - it would have been overly blunt/rude if she had been correct about the provisions - but by being wrong - it crossed the border.
Your response was correct in pointing out it is a slippery slope and frankly the docs don't have a morals clause - which is what she was looking for.
The 2nd message from her is so far past the border of acceptable that you can't see the border. What an idiot first for saying this, second putting it in writing and 3rd sending it to more than you!
Your response to the 2nd message depends on whether you want to continue on the Board or not. I am assuming you do - I suggest something along the lines of the following:
I appreciate your acknowledgment that you were in error in suggesting that I needed to resign from the Board and not seek reelection because of the situation with my dues. Like you I see our financial reports and more importantly am aware of my financial situation and the steps I am taking to resolve the situation. The particulars of which would be inappropriate to discuss in this forum.
I intend to continue on as a Board member for as long as I believe I can add value to this group and as long as my fellow home owners support me (this assumes you are voted in). Obviously as Board members our contributions to the community extend far beyond our dues since we contribute the even more valuable resources of our time and energy.
I will say that if you intend to introduce a "morals" clause of any type to the HOA I will be vigorously objecting to it - both in Board meetings and in talking with other homeowners. Such a clause, besides being potentially discriminatory and opening us up to litigation, is frankly of no value. Determining arbitrary criteria to exclude interested parties from participating in their community is counter-productive.
Now that we have wasted more time than was necessary on this issue, I think the Board should return its attention to the more pressing issues facing the community namely (insert issue here).
My general theme is refuse to engage on your personal issues - this isn't the forum, she doesn't know the facts and she isn't interested in knowing the facts. You started up the high road - stick to it!
Condo Board - The "fun" continues. After what I thought was a rather benign meeting at my home last Sunday I got a shot over my prow with a document "she" sent for review ... I replied and got a really nasty e-mail in response. *sigh* Actually, if anyone would be willing to read it for me and give me your honest feedback I would appreciate it ... as I am not sure if I am just being overly sensitive or if it really is as bad as I think it is.
mizbear - Mar 3, 2011, 6:00pm
Condo board[/b]- Are the other members aware of what she is sending you? I suspect that she may be freelancing to a point. And I know I don't have to tell you this- keep copies of everything she sends you.
spruby - Mar 3, 2011, 7:45pm
honey [/b]- good luck with the hosting application and getting the position that will supplement the food budget. I can see if you were a new host they might want 2 the first year - but you are an experienced one! Also, I'm happy to read the email/document from your Board member if you like - I remember one of the people on our HOA Board had no idea how they came across in email. I had to explain - I don't work for you - I volunteer with so that our community will be well maintained.
ses - Mar 4, 2011, 2:36pm
Honey-[/b]-Karma for dealing with her. You have email.
spruby - Mar 4, 2011, 8:00pm
honey -[/b] I got the message - I'll be replying and include my email - but may kudos to you for not slapping her upside the head for the 2nd one
ses - Mar 4, 2011, 11:01pm
spruby--[/b]I think Honey is a saint for her response. If it were me, I'd be off the board, because I would be residing somewhere else at the county's expense!
spruby - Mar 5, 2011, 9:57am
ses [/b]- the fact the honey is even willing to continue to work with those numb skulls makes her far saintly than me. I'd be smacking the b**ch upside the head. Honey clearly cares about her community and is willing to invest her time and talent in making things good for everyone. I suspect the email writer is a busybody who is on the Board so she can stick her nose in where it doesn't belong.
**********************************************
Sent to SES and Spruby
Sent: Thu, Mar 03, 2011 10:46 PM
First - thanks for taking a look at these for me. I must tell you I have a really REALLY hard time even looking at these words from this woman. My stomach just goes into knots and I feel as though I not only may throw up but I feel incredibly guilty for some reason... maybe because she is pushing my buttons even without knowing it.
Thanks,
~M
*************************************************************************
First e-mail - February 12th. Don't know if she blind copied anyone else on this message
Hi, Melissa,
I was very disturbed to learn this week that you have not yet resolved the issue of your overdue condo fees, and that it has reached the point where Whitetail is now having to send you certified letters. As you are probably aware, the condo docs require that Trustees be fully paid up-to-date on their condo fees. In the past, you have often been on the list of owners in arrears. However, it has never before reached a critical point, and I have chosen not to make an issue of it. Now, however, I can no longer turn a blind eye. I'm writing you this email in order to suggest that you proactively resign from the board so that we may all avoid the unpleasantness of a formal and on-the-record disqualification of you from service as a Trustee. At our last board meeting you expressed a desire to continue as a Trustee, but your actions (and not only with regard to your condo fees) indicate that service on the Board is not a priority for you.
I want to be very clear that it is not my intent with this email to initiate a dialogue. Rather, this is a heads-up to provide you the opportunity to resolve this privately and quietly. If I feel it is necessary, however, I will elevate this to the Board/Whitetail for resolution. If you do wish to reply in email, please cc the Austin Square Yahoo group.
Sincerely,
Mim
******************************************************
Draft of condo meeting notice, February 27th:
If you would like to help build and improve the Austin Square community by running for the board, please contact Matt by email (Whitetailtree@yahoo.com) or phone ( ) and let him know your name and Unit number. In order to qualify, you must be an owner in good standing at Austin Square. An owner in good standing has been up-to-date on their condo fees during the last 12 months (not more than 1 month behind, for not more than 1 month).
My notes: After our meeting yesterday I thought about this clause that you want to put into the nominations. The Master Deed makes no such stipulations, nor does a Trustee even have to be a Unit Owner:
Article III
The Trustees
Section 3.1. Number of Trustees. There shall be a Board of Trustees (the "Board" or the "Trustees") consisting of three (3) natural persons who shall be elected as herinafter provided by the vote, in person or in proxy, of the Unit Owners holding at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the Beneficial Interest. Trustees need not be Unit Owners.
Once such moralistic conditions begin to be placed on who can step up to help it leaves room for too many “exceptions”. Owners who had a financial downturn and ran behind a month for three months, people who have owned less than a year, bookkeeping errors or changes in personal circumstances that caused them to fall behind but made good faith efforts and corrected the situation. And according to the Master Deed someone like Barry’s wife COULD run if she was so inclined per the guidelines. And perhaps as a spouse there would be no record of her EVER having paid dues … it would all be in his name.
It would be lovely if we lived in a perfect world where everyone behaved as we would like .. but it is not realistic and I am not comfortable leaving this qualification in. Besides, someone who is in collections with the attorney or being foreclosed on probably won’t step up anyway.
*****************************************************************
Her reply e-mail on March 1st - this time she copied the other trustee:
Hi,Melissa,
Thanks for providing the reference regarding who is eligible to run. I did think that I read somewhere that Trustees had to be paid-up owners, but I guess I was mistaken. Not the first time. In future, the Board can explore the possibility of amending that, but that's neither here nor there at the moment.
That said, given that one of our stated financial goals during the past year was to reduce the number of owners and the $ amount in arrears, it think it is entirely inappropriate and counter-productive to have on the board an owner who is repeatedly, even consistently, in arrears. That is not "moralistic". It is about an owners' willingness to prioritize and meet their financial obligations to Austin Square. I do feel the Board members have additional responsibility to be above reproach in complying with financial obligations as well as rules and regs incumbent on all owners at Austin Square.
Yes, if an owner has a rough patch, but then pays up and stays current, well, there will now be an election every year in which they can run when they are able to meet their obligations. By contrast, in a case in which a unit owner is in arrears almost every month, going back over a period of years -- and there are several such cases -- it doesn't appear to be a rough patch at all. It just looks to me like staying current on Austin Square condo fees isn't a priority for that person.
On a personal note, Melissa, you have the same access to the financials as I do. Does it not bother you to see your name on the arrears list every month? I know it would bother me, and if I felt it were inaccurate I wouldn't be waiting months, or even weeks, to rectify the situation. Doesn't it bother you, Melissa? Don't you care? Is it just not a priority for you? And if it isn't, why do you want to even be on the Board? (Those were rhetorical questions.)
Andy, I agree to whatever edits are necessary to bring the letter into agreement with the docs, so we can just eliminate the sentences about who is qualified. Agree also re renewal of pet permissions.
Mim
******************************************
From SES - Fri, Mar 04, 2011 02:24 PM
First thoughts--would God qualify according to her? What is her financial situation? Does she not realize how many Americans are struggling to just survive and put food on the table. This recession is no where near over (month 20 out of the average 60 months). Stand your ground, you can't be the only name on the "list." Are the other members in arrears getting these same "nastigrams"? I would quietly check out other members financial stability and point out to her the undesireability of antagonizing other residents.
When people move for financial reasons all the other homes in that neighborhood lose value. I guess I am just stunned at her lack of compassion in these stressful times. Or is she just one of those people who want to be Queen of the World and rule everyone in her sphere according to her plans? What are the opinions of the other board member?
I think this will become an even more common issue with so many cuts coming to the states, localities and individuals. It may be more beneficial to plan how the board can be more supportive toward others who might face this situation in the future. Don't let her make it only "owners" who can participate (a son/daughter buying a unit for an elderly parent or parents buying unit for adult children) She seems so nattow minded.
My compliments to you for remaining even civil to her!!
S
**********************************
spruby - Mar 4, 2011, 8:26pm
Wow - pardon my language - what a pregnant dog and a half. The first email was borderline - it would have been overly blunt/rude if she had been correct about the provisions - but by being wrong - it crossed the border.
Your response was correct in pointing out it is a slippery slope and frankly the docs don't have a morals clause - which is what she was looking for.
The 2nd message from her is so far past the border of acceptable that you can't see the border. What an idiot first for saying this, second putting it in writing and 3rd sending it to more than you!
Your response to the 2nd message depends on whether you want to continue on the Board or not. I am assuming you do - I suggest something along the lines of the following:
I appreciate your acknowledgment that you were in error in suggesting that I needed to resign from the Board and not seek reelection because of the situation with my dues. Like you I see our financial reports and more importantly am aware of my financial situation and the steps I am taking to resolve the situation. The particulars of which would be inappropriate to discuss in this forum.
I intend to continue on as a Board member for as long as I believe I can add value to this group and as long as my fellow home owners support me (this assumes you are voted in). Obviously as Board members our contributions to the community extend far beyond our dues since we contribute the even more valuable resources of our time and energy.
I will say that if you intend to introduce a "morals" clause of any type to the HOA I will be vigorously objecting to it - both in Board meetings and in talking with other homeowners. Such a clause, besides being potentially discriminatory and opening us up to litigation, is frankly of no value. Determining arbitrary criteria to exclude interested parties from participating in their community is counter-productive.
Now that we have wasted more time than was necessary on this issue, I think the Board should return its attention to the more pressing issues facing the community namely (insert issue here).
My general theme is refuse to engage on your personal issues - this isn't the forum, she doesn't know the facts and she isn't interested in knowing the facts. You started up the high road - stick to it!
