Saturday, December 1, 2007
More Director Elections
In addition to appointment/election of a Director to fill the Board of Directors vacancy created by GRACE’s decision to not have a representative on our Board of Directors for at least several months, there will be two other Director positions up for election by us unit owners at the annual unit owners meeting 12 November 2008. The three-year terms of Mike’s and Betty’s Director positions both end then. The elections at the 12 November 2008 annual meeting will determine who fills those Director positions for three more years--until the 2011 annual unit owners meeting (unless one or both of the people elected leave the position(s) before the three-year term ends). The terms of current Directors Jeff Taggart and Varsha Chandra run until the 2010 annual meeting.
Filling Director Vacancy
Paragraph B of Section 55.1-1940 of the Code of Virginia, and Section 6 of Article III of our bylaws, prescribe how the vacancy discussed in the previous posting shall be filled. Our bylaw says the vacancy “…shall be filled by a vote of a majority of the remaining Directors…” (which is consistent with the cited Code of Virginia paragraph).
(Our bylaws can be viewed by clicking on this link: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF )
However, there is an important disagreement between our bylaw and the Code of Virginia regarding how long such a Director appointed by the Board of Directors shall serve before that Director position shall be subject to election by vote of the unit owners. Our bylaw (apparently wrongly) states “Each person so elected shall be a member of the Board of Directors for the remainder of the term of the member being replaced.” (which in this case would be until the annual unit owners meeting in October 2009). But the Virginia law cited above states “Each person so elected shall serve until the next annual meeting of the unit owners' association at which time a successor shall be elected by a vote of the unit owners.” As explained in the “Legal Underpinning” posting on this blog 28 October 2007, Virginia law trumps our bylaw, so such an appointment by our Board of Directors should last only until our 12 November 2008 annual unit owners meeting. Unless GRACE then exercises its right to appoint a member of our Board of Directors, we unit owners--if the law is obeyed--will elect a successor at the 12 November 2008 annual unit owners meeting.
(Our bylaws can be viewed by clicking on this link: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF )
However, there is an important disagreement between our bylaw and the Code of Virginia regarding how long such a Director appointed by the Board of Directors shall serve before that Director position shall be subject to election by vote of the unit owners. Our bylaw (apparently wrongly) states “Each person so elected shall be a member of the Board of Directors for the remainder of the term of the member being replaced.” (which in this case would be until the annual unit owners meeting in October 2009). But the Virginia law cited above states “Each person so elected shall serve until the next annual meeting of the unit owners' association at which time a successor shall be elected by a vote of the unit owners.” As explained in the “Legal Underpinning” posting on this blog 28 October 2007, Virginia law trumps our bylaw, so such an appointment by our Board of Directors should last only until our 12 November 2008 annual unit owners meeting. Unless GRACE then exercises its right to appoint a member of our Board of Directors, we unit owners--if the law is obeyed--will elect a successor at the 12 November 2008 annual unit owners meeting.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Director from GRACE
At the Board of Directors meeting 29 Nov 07, the President announced that GRACE has chosen not to have a representative on our Board of Directors for at least the next several months. If GRACE chooses in the future to appoint a member of our Board of Directors, I strongly urge that GRACE comply with the below-discussed requirement that any GRACE representative appointed to our Board of Directors be concurrently a member of the GRACE Board of Directors.
Section 4 of Article III of our bylaws contains the following sentence: "If the Commercial Unit Owner(s) is not a natural person but is an Entity Owner, then any member of the Board of Directors shall be an authorized representative of such Entity Owner."
(Our bylaws can be viewed by clicking on this link: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF )
In November 2005, I made a written suggestion--followed by an e-mail to our on-site Property Manager (at that time, Sherrie Cole)--in which I called attention to that sentence, and recommended that the President check with the Association attorney about the issue before a GRACE representative was appointed to our Board of Directors, and requested feedback after the attorney had been consulted. Having never heard anything back about the matter, I asked the Association attorney about the issue myself at the annual meeting in June 2006 (in private, not in the open forum of the meeting).
Before that conversation with the attorney, I had thought the "Board of Directors" referred to in the quoted sentence was our Board of Directors. But the attorney told me that "Board of Directors" in the quoted sentence meant the GRACE Board of Directors. Assuming that GRACE would be nominating/appointing a member of their Board of Directors to be on our Board of Directors, the attorney's answer totally resolved the issue for me, and I told him so.
It later came to my attention that the GRACE member of our Board of Directors was NOT a member of the GRACE Board of Directors, and thus, it would seem, didn’t qualify under our bylaws to be a member of our Board of Directors.
Now that GRACE doesn’t have a representative on our Board of Directors, I believe GRACE has the following three options: (a) Appoint a member of the GRACE Board of Directors to our Board of Directors, or (b) Try to get the quoted provision of our bylaws changed so that the GRACE representative on our Board of Directors isn't required to be a member of the GRACE Board of Directors, or (c) Choose to continue indefinitely to not have a GRACE representative be a member of our Board of Directors. If GRACE chooses option (c), then a non-GRACE unit owner (or other person meeting the qualifications of Section 1 of Article III of our bylaws) would fill that Director position, probably with the result that all five of the members of our Board of Directors would be residential unit owners.
Section 4 of Article III of our bylaws contains the following sentence: "If the Commercial Unit Owner(s) is not a natural person but is an Entity Owner, then any member of the Board of Directors shall be an authorized representative of such Entity Owner."
(Our bylaws can be viewed by clicking on this link: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF )
In November 2005, I made a written suggestion--followed by an e-mail to our on-site Property Manager (at that time, Sherrie Cole)--in which I called attention to that sentence, and recommended that the President check with the Association attorney about the issue before a GRACE representative was appointed to our Board of Directors, and requested feedback after the attorney had been consulted. Having never heard anything back about the matter, I asked the Association attorney about the issue myself at the annual meeting in June 2006 (in private, not in the open forum of the meeting).
Before that conversation with the attorney, I had thought the "Board of Directors" referred to in the quoted sentence was our Board of Directors. But the attorney told me that "Board of Directors" in the quoted sentence meant the GRACE Board of Directors. Assuming that GRACE would be nominating/appointing a member of their Board of Directors to be on our Board of Directors, the attorney's answer totally resolved the issue for me, and I told him so.
It later came to my attention that the GRACE member of our Board of Directors was NOT a member of the GRACE Board of Directors, and thus, it would seem, didn’t qualify under our bylaws to be a member of our Board of Directors.
Now that GRACE doesn’t have a representative on our Board of Directors, I believe GRACE has the following three options: (a) Appoint a member of the GRACE Board of Directors to our Board of Directors, or (b) Try to get the quoted provision of our bylaws changed so that the GRACE representative on our Board of Directors isn't required to be a member of the GRACE Board of Directors, or (c) Choose to continue indefinitely to not have a GRACE representative be a member of our Board of Directors. If GRACE chooses option (c), then a non-GRACE unit owner (or other person meeting the qualifications of Section 1 of Article III of our bylaws) would fill that Director position, probably with the result that all five of the members of our Board of Directors would be residential unit owners.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Package Pick-Up Procedure
There is one thing I’ve never understood since implementation of the requirement that packages must be picked up from the concierge within three days of the date on the written notice that is left in or on the mailbox.
How are residents that are out of town on business travel or a vacation expected to know that they have a package that (supposedly) will be sent back to the sender if not picked up within three days? The preprinted notices I have received have stated that there will be no follow-up notices or phone calls. If I am out of town, I am not going to see that notice until I get back home and check my mail, by which time my package may have already been returned to the sender.
If my package gets returned to the sender, that is more trouble for me than if the postal service had simply held the package at their facility until I pick it up. (The postal service may eventually return the package to the sender, but I have more than three days before I must pick it up.)
I believe that at least one phone message should be left for the package addressee at least 24 hours before a package will be returned to the sender. And, shouldn’t there be some provision for a package to be held more than three days if the addressee informs the concierge that she/he will be back from out of town within a few more days?
In case anyone is wondering, I did bring this point up when Jeff Corry (the on-site Property Manager that preceded Sue Carr) discussed this procedure at a Board of Directors meeting approximately two years ago, and he said the concierge would call before a package would be returned to the sender (but that isn’t what the written notice says). Also, I did discuss it with Sue Carr a week or two ago.
How are residents that are out of town on business travel or a vacation expected to know that they have a package that (supposedly) will be sent back to the sender if not picked up within three days? The preprinted notices I have received have stated that there will be no follow-up notices or phone calls. If I am out of town, I am not going to see that notice until I get back home and check my mail, by which time my package may have already been returned to the sender.
If my package gets returned to the sender, that is more trouble for me than if the postal service had simply held the package at their facility until I pick it up. (The postal service may eventually return the package to the sender, but I have more than three days before I must pick it up.)
I believe that at least one phone message should be left for the package addressee at least 24 hours before a package will be returned to the sender. And, shouldn’t there be some provision for a package to be held more than three days if the addressee informs the concierge that she/he will be back from out of town within a few more days?
In case anyone is wondering, I did bring this point up when Jeff Corry (the on-site Property Manager that preceded Sue Carr) discussed this procedure at a Board of Directors meeting approximately two years ago, and he said the concierge would call before a package would be returned to the sender (but that isn’t what the written notice says). Also, I did discuss it with Sue Carr a week or two ago.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Unit Owner Comments at Board Meeting?
Paragraph D of Condominium Act section 55-79.75 requires that Board of Director meetings include a designated period of time for unit owner comments. During a special meeting, such as the one scheduled for 7:30 pm Tuesday evening, the Board may limit comments of unit owners to the topics listed on the meeting agenda (which include the leasing proposal and the draft 2008 budget).
Our Board has customarily used the so-called “Open Forum” at the beginning of the “Regular” Board meetings to allow unit owner comments. However, “Special” meetings of the Board normally haven’t provided an opportunity for unit owner comments. But that doesn’t appear to be in compliance with the above-cited requirement.
I hope the Board of Directors will, in the future, comply fully with the above-cited provision.
Our Board has customarily used the so-called “Open Forum” at the beginning of the “Regular” Board meetings to allow unit owner comments. However, “Special” meetings of the Board normally haven’t provided an opportunity for unit owner comments. But that doesn’t appear to be in compliance with the above-cited requirement.
I hope the Board of Directors will, in the future, comply fully with the above-cited provision.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Legal Underpinning of Our Association
Our condominium instruments (Declaration, Bylaws, and plats and plans) are subordinate to the legal requirements of the governments of the U. S., Virginia, and Fairfax County. In other words, if there is a conflict between government legal requirements and our condominium instruments, the government legal requirements take precedence over--trump--our condominium instruments.
Of all those government legal requirements, it is the Condominium Act—Chapter 4.2 of Title 55 of the Code of Virginia—that has the most relevance for us as a condominium unit owners association (UOA). The following link displays the table of contents of the Condominium Act, and you can view particular sections of the Condominium Act by clicking on the number of the section that interests you. (You might find the .75 and .75:1 provisions interesting.)
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title55/chapter4.2/
You can see an example of our Bylaws being in conflict with the Condominium Act by clicking on this link: http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2007/12/filling-director-vacancy.html
Our Declaration and Bylaws sometimes refer us to the Condominium Act for further information. For example, our Bylaws don’t describe the procedure to amend our Bylaws, as is being considered with regard to the leasing Bylaw. Instead, Section 1 of Article XIV of our Bylaws states that our "Bylaws may be modified or amended as provided in Section 55-79.71 of the Condominium Act.” Also, the last sentence of Section 8 of Article III of our Bylaws states that “All meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held in accordance with Section 55-79.75 of the Virginia Condominium Act.”
If you want to see in context the actual Bylaw sections I cited in the above paragraph, you can do so by clicking on the below link to our Bylaws. Then go to page 60 of 64, and page 20 of 64, respectively, to see the words I quoted above.
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF
Of all those government legal requirements, it is the Condominium Act—Chapter 4.2 of Title 55 of the Code of Virginia—that has the most relevance for us as a condominium unit owners association (UOA). The following link displays the table of contents of the Condominium Act, and you can view particular sections of the Condominium Act by clicking on the number of the section that interests you. (You might find the .75 and .75:1 provisions interesting.)
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title55/chapter4.2/
You can see an example of our Bylaws being in conflict with the Condominium Act by clicking on this link: http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2007/12/filling-director-vacancy.html
Our Declaration and Bylaws sometimes refer us to the Condominium Act for further information. For example, our Bylaws don’t describe the procedure to amend our Bylaws, as is being considered with regard to the leasing Bylaw. Instead, Section 1 of Article XIV of our Bylaws states that our "Bylaws may be modified or amended as provided in Section 55-79.71 of the Condominium Act.” Also, the last sentence of Section 8 of Article III of our Bylaws states that “All meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held in accordance with Section 55-79.75 of the Virginia Condominium Act.”
If you want to see in context the actual Bylaw sections I cited in the above paragraph, you can do so by clicking on the below link to our Bylaws. Then go to page 60 of 64, and page 20 of 64, respectively, to see the words I quoted above.
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Allow only Unit Owners to view this blog?
This blog can be viewed by anyone anywhere. In an ideal world--a world in which all our Unit Owners would be willing to register and log in--I would prefer that only Unit Owners of our Market Street at Town Center Condominium could view this blog.
The problem with limiting viewing only to our Unit Owners is that I would lose access to Unit Owners who are unwilling to register and log in, but who will view this blog if they can do so without registering and logging in. I don’t want to lose access to that subset of our Unit Owners, so I am permitting anyone anywhere to view all the posts on this blog. I make my posts on this blog assuming that people who don't own Units in our Condominium will be among those who view my posts.
The problem with limiting viewing only to our Unit Owners is that I would lose access to Unit Owners who are unwilling to register and log in, but who will view this blog if they can do so without registering and logging in. I don’t want to lose access to that subset of our Unit Owners, so I am permitting anyone anywhere to view all the posts on this blog. I make my posts on this blog assuming that people who don't own Units in our Condominium will be among those who view my posts.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Why This Blog?
I am Paul Rasmussen, one of the original 333 residential Unit Owners of the Unit Owners Association of Market Street at Town Center Condominium (the “Unit Owners Association” or "Association" or "UOA"). My wife and I have lived in our unit, #305, since October 2004.
I am starting this personal, unofficial blog to provide myself an easy way to make UOA-related information--as well as my UOA-related opinions--available to the owners of the other 332 residential units and the one commercial unit.
Because there is a separate unofficial blog that addresses the leasing issue, I will use this blog to focus on non-leasing UOA issues. I will continue to post my thoughts on the leasing issue on the leasing blog, http://msa-towncenter.blogspot.com/
If you have comments or questions regarding my posts on either blog, please join my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards.com and post there. Or/and email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com.
I am starting this personal, unofficial blog to provide myself an easy way to make UOA-related information--as well as my UOA-related opinions--available to the owners of the other 332 residential units and the one commercial unit.
Because there is a separate unofficial blog that addresses the leasing issue, I will use this blog to focus on non-leasing UOA issues. I will continue to post my thoughts on the leasing issue on the leasing blog, http://msa-towncenter.blogspot.com/
If you have comments or questions regarding my posts on either blog, please join my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards.com and post there. Or/and email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
