At its 27 March 2008 meeting, our Board of Directors made some decisions that relate to matters discussed in recent posts on this blog. I like these Board decisions.
Regarding parking in our garage, the Board decided NOT to require registration of vehicles with management, NOT to provide hanging parking tags, and NOT to move ahead with the draft parking resolution.
The Board delayed the elections for two or three of the five Director positions until 12 November 2008. This delay in the Director elections results from the Board’s decision to hold the annual Unit Owners Association meeting then instead of in June 2008, in the hope that getting the required 25% of the unit owners to attend the meeting (in person or by proxy) will be easier in the fall than in summer.
The Board will now meet each month (vice nominally every other month). Also, the meetings will start at 7:30 pm (vice 7 pm), in the hope that more of the Directors can be present during the 30 minutes at the beginning of each Board meeting during which unit owners have an opportunity to comment on any matter relating to our Unit Owners Association.
The Board decided NOT to move ahead with the draft collections resolution, but to instead review the existing collections resolution that the Board adopted 21 March 2006, and revise it if appropriate. You can view this existing collections resolution at this link:
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/CollectionAssessmentPolicy.pdf
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Garage Parking Draft Resolution
I have good news and bad news related to the most recent three posts that precede this post.
The good news is that our Unit Owners Association President intervened to reverse the Association Manager position I characterized as “reprehensible” in the most recent post preceding this one. In other words, our On-Site Manager has now provided me a copy of the draft resolutions I referred to in that post. Other good news is that the draft resolutions are just drafts--drafts that, fortunately, the Board of Directors hasn’t adopted, and that can be readily changed before adoption.
The bad news is the draft parking resolution contains provisions with which I am sure most of us unit owners don’t agree. One provision with which I strongly disagree is the (proposed) right of the Board of Directors to have any vehicle failing to display a properly registered hanging tag towed from the garage and stored at the expense of the owner. Does that mean your vehicle could be towed from your assigned parking space simply because you forgot to hang your parking tag on your rear view mirror?
As I suggested in the third post preceding this one, I don’t think I need any “assistance” from management (or--worst nightmare--towing companies) in checking for “unauthorized” vehicles in my parking space. For me and other unit owners who feel similarly, I don’t see what purpose hanging parking tags (or registering vehicles with management) would serve. I don’t need to see a parking tag hanging from the rear view mirror of a vehicle parked in my space to know whether I authorized it to be parked there. On the other hand, I am okay with use of hanging parking tags and management assistance for unit owners who want help in keeping unauthorized vehicles out of their parking spaces. (But I doubt there are many unit owners in this category.)
I am hopeful that the Board will solicit extensive unit owner input before adopting any parking resolution.
If you wish to post a comment regarding this issue, I suggest you do so in the “Garage Parking” thread in the “registration required” area of http://marketstreet.proboards83.com/ or, register and start a thread on my new forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
The good news is that our Unit Owners Association President intervened to reverse the Association Manager position I characterized as “reprehensible” in the most recent post preceding this one. In other words, our On-Site Manager has now provided me a copy of the draft resolutions I referred to in that post. Other good news is that the draft resolutions are just drafts--drafts that, fortunately, the Board of Directors hasn’t adopted, and that can be readily changed before adoption.
The bad news is the draft parking resolution contains provisions with which I am sure most of us unit owners don’t agree. One provision with which I strongly disagree is the (proposed) right of the Board of Directors to have any vehicle failing to display a properly registered hanging tag towed from the garage and stored at the expense of the owner. Does that mean your vehicle could be towed from your assigned parking space simply because you forgot to hang your parking tag on your rear view mirror?
As I suggested in the third post preceding this one, I don’t think I need any “assistance” from management (or--worst nightmare--towing companies) in checking for “unauthorized” vehicles in my parking space. For me and other unit owners who feel similarly, I don’t see what purpose hanging parking tags (or registering vehicles with management) would serve. I don’t need to see a parking tag hanging from the rear view mirror of a vehicle parked in my space to know whether I authorized it to be parked there. On the other hand, I am okay with use of hanging parking tags and management assistance for unit owners who want help in keeping unauthorized vehicles out of their parking spaces. (But I doubt there are many unit owners in this category.)
I am hopeful that the Board will solicit extensive unit owner input before adopting any parking resolution.
If you wish to post a comment regarding this issue, I suggest you do so in the “Garage Parking” thread in the “registration required” area of http://marketstreet.proboards83.com/ or, register and start a thread on my new forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Board of Directors Shunning Unit Owner Input?
At the Board of Directors meeting 28 February 2008, one of the items of “New Business” on the agenda was “Recommendation of Resolutions/Policies”. When the Board considered this topic, it became clear from the discussion that the Association Manager had provided the Directors with rough drafts of possible resolutions the Board could use as starting points for resolutions the Board could eventually adopt as part of our “Rules and Regulations”. The Directors asked questions and made comments to the Association Manager regarding those draft resolutions. One of the resolutions seemingly dealt with parking in our garage, and the other seemingly dealt with collections policy, and supposedly would supersede an existing Board resolution on that issue. Neither draft resolution had been included in the Board meeting information packet available in the On-Site Manager’s office for unit owners to review.
The next day I asked our On-Site Manager to at least let me look at the draft resolutions the Association Manager had provided to the Directors for that discussion, or, preferably, to provide me a copy of each of those draft resolutions. She forwarded my request to the Association Manager.
I was astounded at the response of the Association Manager. He stated: “Once the board approves the resolution, every homeowner will receive it and it will not go into effect for thirty days. Until the resolution is approved it is for the eyes of the Board, management, and the covenants committee only. Sam”
I view that response as reprehensible in two respects. First, it appears to be a violation of law. The Virginia Condominium Act includes the following sentence within paragraph B of § 55-79.75: “…at least one copy of all agenda packets and materials furnished to members of the executive organ …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.” Those draft resolutions haven’t been made available for us unit owners to inspect.
The second reason I consider the Association Manager’s response reprehensible is that it is contrary to the best interests of us unit owners even if the law weren’t being violated. We unit owners don’t want requirements and restrictions that could possibly adversely affect our quality of life figuratively hatched by the Board of Directors in the dark of night, and then foisted upon us as a surprise after the Board has already made its decision.
While I acknowledge that we unit owners elect Directors to make decisions on our behalf, where is it written that our Board of Directors should try to avoid hearing our opinions, and try to avoid responding to our opinions if we do manage to make our opinions heard?
I believe the best solution to this situation is to elect some new Directors at the annual unit owners meeting 12 November 2008. The Director positions currently filled by Betty and Mike both are up for election for three-year terms then, and possibly the Director position currently filled by Chris will be up for election then too. So, two or three of the five Director positions will be up for election then, giving us unit owners a big say in the future composition of our Board of Directors.
The next day I asked our On-Site Manager to at least let me look at the draft resolutions the Association Manager had provided to the Directors for that discussion, or, preferably, to provide me a copy of each of those draft resolutions. She forwarded my request to the Association Manager.
I was astounded at the response of the Association Manager. He stated: “Once the board approves the resolution, every homeowner will receive it and it will not go into effect for thirty days. Until the resolution is approved it is for the eyes of the Board, management, and the covenants committee only. Sam”
I view that response as reprehensible in two respects. First, it appears to be a violation of law. The Virginia Condominium Act includes the following sentence within paragraph B of § 55-79.75: “…at least one copy of all agenda packets and materials furnished to members of the executive organ …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.” Those draft resolutions haven’t been made available for us unit owners to inspect.
The second reason I consider the Association Manager’s response reprehensible is that it is contrary to the best interests of us unit owners even if the law weren’t being violated. We unit owners don’t want requirements and restrictions that could possibly adversely affect our quality of life figuratively hatched by the Board of Directors in the dark of night, and then foisted upon us as a surprise after the Board has already made its decision.
While I acknowledge that we unit owners elect Directors to make decisions on our behalf, where is it written that our Board of Directors should try to avoid hearing our opinions, and try to avoid responding to our opinions if we do manage to make our opinions heard?
I believe the best solution to this situation is to elect some new Directors at the annual unit owners meeting 12 November 2008. The Director positions currently filled by Betty and Mike both are up for election for three-year terms then, and possibly the Director position currently filled by Chris will be up for election then too. So, two or three of the five Director positions will be up for election then, giving us unit owners a big say in the future composition of our Board of Directors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
