Board meeting notes of March 18th.

Following is a summary of my notes from last night's Board meeting.  Please feel free to contact me directly with questions or comments, or post them yourself to the comments section.

The meeting opened with Mr. Friedman in the chair.

Mr. Flink read a prepared statement in which he spoke of his high regard for the two Board members removed by ballot earlier this year, his qualifications and experience to hold the office of President and certain health challenges that he has been forced to confront.  He concluded by resigning from the Presidency of CH HOA and nominated Mr. Friedman for the post.  Mr. Friedman was duly elected.

One homeowner complained about lack of HOA action on homes next to hers where the owners are in serious breach of the CC&Rs.  Mr. Russell explained that HOAs are being progressively restrained by legislation and the Courts in terms of enforcement actions they may take.  One suggestion from the floor (Mr. Meyer) was that the community should cancel the electronic gate passes of scofflaw homeowners.  I asked the chair if the Board had asked Scott Carpenter if these cases could be settled by direct litigation.  I did not get a direct reply but I believe enforcement of CC&Rs by litigation is an option open to the Board.
OPINION: I understand that our HOA's rights to enforce its CC&Rs may have been reduced.  Nevertheless, even if there is a cost attached to our HOA enforcing the CC&Rs in a Court, I think they should do so if all other options have been exhausted.  This is a quality of life issue, and one that, if not dealt with, could quickly become unmanageable.

An attempt was made by the Board to establish that no vote had ever been taken to expand the fitness facility.  (To my mind, the issue of whether there was a vote or not is entirely moot.  What enraged the community was the Board's insistence on plowing on like the Battleship Bismark in the face of a torrent of objections from residents.)  This led to several points from the floor and Board responses about the necessity for the Board to obtain community approval for expenditures.  On December 18th 2010 I wrote:

"In terms of the management of our HOA, Bill (Fuchs, the then HOA Prseident) is correct in his assertion that the Board is mandated to run the HOA as it sees fit as an elected Board. Having served on the Board with Bill I must also agree that with him that HOA governance by referendum has the potential to be troublesome unless it is clearly defined. ..... There are ways to solicit homeowner input on an annual basis to assist the Board in getting some feedback from homeowners. An annual survey, printed, or online would be easy to distribute and collate and could give the Board valuable feedback on the desires of its homeowners. This is exactly what the HOA at my Tahoe home does and it works very well – as the Board pays attention to the feedback (and discusses it at the AGM), even if they don’t always agree or act on it."

OPINION: This does not need to be a black and white issue. There is a way for the Board to solicit and consider opinions even if they do not feel bound to agree with them.

A homeowner (Mr. Meyer) raised the issue of danger to the community by fire and asked the Board to consider a Fire Protection Plan.  Mr. Feldman responded that Safeguard Security had reviewed this, and that we had received a visit from Scottsdale Fire which had led to thinning and trimming of underbrush to provide defensible space. 

"Meet the candidates" night  will be on April 11th, I believe at the McDowell Center.

To my mind the highlight of the evening was a discussion pertaining to the replacement of exercise equipment.  Mr. Russell presented his recommendations and bids which fell foul of Mr. Feldman, much to the irritation, I observed, of one homeowner in particular who pointed out that this matter had been going on for some time (months).  Eventually the Board kicked the can down the road, as it were, in a desperate attempt to demonstrate fiscal responsibility.  All would have been well, I believe, had Mr. Feldman not pointed out that (I am paraphrasing) the Board was only three as two other members had been removed, they were only volunteers and they (he in particular) had a great deal of work to do.  Mr. Meyer pointed out from the floor  that the Board had had every opportunity to fill the vacant Board seats either by appointment or special election (I believe Mr. Meyer is correct). This then provoked a rambling and amplified diatribe (I am sorry to call it thus, but that is what it was) from Mr. Feldman that veered off into various topics.  Eventually Mr. Friedman was able to close the meeting and we all went on our merry way, but only after the issue of replacement of the exercises equipment had been deferred for a month, principally, it seems, because Mr. Feldman does not like to mix brands.
OPINION: Agreeing as I do with Mr. Meyer on the Board's opportunity to promptly appoint or elect replacement Board members, which they declined to do, I find Mr. Feldman's protestations of overwork because the Board is short-handed to be the ultimate in chutzpah.  I will also say that, having countenanced the possible spending of significant chunks of our money on gym expansions, monuments, etc.I find it somewhat amusing that now being faced with a fast approaching election some members of the Board are desperately attempting to wrap themselves in the mantle of parsimony.

There was also a discussion on legislative initiatives, which I have excluded from these notes as I wish to deal with them as a longer and separate post.