[Editor’s note: because this item was so vague on the agenda, it deprived the residents of meaningful input at the First Residents’ Input Session, although frankly with the majority of the makeup of this Board, we highly doubt that any input would have mattered. In any event, the Board first discussed making club membership mandatory for league play.
After a lengthy discussion, Jeff moved to change rule P, section 1, to allow non-residents to be club members. Harvey seconded it. It passed 4-2 and you can guess who voted for it and who voted against it: the guys voted for it; the gals opposed it. (Jeff, Harvey, Bob, and Richard vs. Sue and Linda.) Jeff also stated that non-residents may join the club at the discretion of the Sports Director and the club officers.
Why does a vendor and a few club members who happen to be officers get to decide whether or not a non-resident will be allowed to join a club? There was no answer to that question.
We have noticed that some of the clubs erroneously view officers as mini-Board members within the context of the club. They erroneously believe that the officers “govern” the members. They don’t. The clubs are membership driven, meaning that if there is an issue, the members, all of them, vote on it. That’s the fair way to do it and the democratic way to do it, so naturally that’s not the way it’s done.
And with non-residents as members of clubs, do they have voting rights? Do they sign a waiver of liability to immunize the HOA? There is a league waiver, but where is the HOA waiver? We have never seen one.
Sue was kind enough to email your Editor her comments at the Board meeting for inclusion herein which she stated during the “discussion” portion of the matter.]
Sue: “I’m confused. League play has already started. Why is this on the agenda again when we overwhelmingly voted on what currently exists last January? Many of those who voted to approve the changes last year are currently on the Board this year – Richard, me, Harvey, Bob, Linda (Eileen Olitsky as well but she is not currently on the Board).
Why are we interested in this now, especially when it is so close to Board elections, and when there are so many other important issues to discuss?
You cannot change the sports center rules without changing the By-Laws first, as our By-Laws state only residents may be members of clubs (Amended Jan. 6, 2021). The By-Laws also state that clubs cannot legally enforce their own rules and regulations. This ruling is from our Association attorneys and not my own. Changing the By-Laws is not on the agenda.
Mandating club membership in order to play in league competition is contrary to stated PBC Senior tennis League rules and to the U.S. Pickleball Association rules.
Last year, before you were on the Board, [referencing Jeff] you specifically questioned me as to why one would join the tennis club if not to play in league. I responded that clubs are social and recreational entities as stated on our own website. Since facts and data are important, only about half of the current tennis club members are in league play. League play should be open to all residents.”
[Editor’s note: Bob challenged that, said last January’s “interpretation was wrong,” whatever that means, and stated that the new PBC rules say that it’s up to each “facility” to determine who is eligible to play in the league; Sue countered by stating that “facilities” does not refer to “communities” and that this was illegal as advised by the attorneys.
Sue also correctly stated that “you cannot leave Board policy to a vendor and club officers. This comes from the Board’s attorney, not from us.” Jeff then bizarrely stated, “we’ve been breaking this rule for five years.” [And so we should continue to do so?] Sue then stated, “that’s not the issue; we’re not debating guests. We’re talking about club membership.”
Regardless, league play should be open to all residents, without forcing them to pay additional money to join a club they don’t want to join in order to compete. Why does the Board want to force members of the HOA to pay money to a club they don’t want to join in order to have access to common areas for league play?
Also, for HOA members, you’re paying to be part of the HOA, then you’re paying again to be part of the club, and then you’re paying a third time to join the league. Non-resident members of the clubs are only paying twice. So, non-resident members are paying less than residents to play on HOA courts. Does that make sense to anyone?
But this is what this Board apparently wanted to do.]
Sue: “If it were more specific in the agenda items, more residents might have responded…you can’t vote on this unless you amend the By-Laws first…usually have to add agenda items at the beginning of the meetings…the lawyer’s definition of what clubs can and cannot do is a legal issue…”
Jeff: “I change my motion. Motion to amend the By-Laws… [to eliminate section P-1]” Harvey: Second.
[Editor’s note: The new motion was to delete section P, subsection 1 of the By-Laws. It passed 4-2. (again, boys all for it, girls against it – detecting a pattern here?), without ever informing the residents that it was intending to do so, thus once again depriving the members of meaningful input before the vote, however futile that would have been anyway.
The eliminated section P-1 stated: “Only residents may be members of Clubs. Amended January 6, 2021.” That’s now gone.
This type of dysfunctional behavior by the Board is not healthy. But it’s what you’re stuck with right now, and possibly into the next year until three of the four fellows on this Board come up for re-election.
At this point, however, this four-man wrecking crew appears to be a voting block, so those of you interested in running for the Board, beware of what you’re up against, and if Richard Greene is re-elected, then be prepared to be disappointed until at least March of 2023. Well, at least now you won’t be surprised. Disappointed, probably; surprised, no.]
4. Fiddler – Perimeter wall cleaning $1475 – Linda Arbeit
[Editor’s note: the areas involved include the outside perimeter of the community, the inside perimeter wall, and the top of the wall. Linda made the motion to accept the contract, Harvey seconded it, Richard said it was in the budget, and it passed 6-0.]
5. Parking Light Fixtures $5,190 - Bob Dingee
[Editor’s note: Bob reported that six lights need to be replaced and new ones installed; they were installed in 2015 with a five-year “guarantee” to use his word, which is now passed. He said it’s a reserve item, under maintenance. Bob made the motion, Linda seconded it, and it passed unanimously.]
6. Annual Election Procedures – Sue Schmer
[Editor’s note: Sue made the motion, and was kind enough to email your Editor her statement and her motion for inclusion herein.]
Sue: “Each Annual Board election meeting shall be run by members of our property management company. The minutes of the last Annual Meeting of the Members shall be approved at this meeting. The property management company member(s)and the vote counters shall be thoroughly familiar with all pertinent rules and procedures relevant to the election process.
Members of the Association shall not be in close proximity to the vote counters. The meeting held immediately after the votes have been tallied to determine Board Officers shall include nominations from the floor for the officer positions of secretary and treasurer, as those officer positions do not have to be filled by a director. Directors may nominate themselves for officer positions.
Nominations for Board Officers shall not require a second.
The voting for all Board Officers shall be done by secret written ballot. The vote tallies shall be announced by the property management company member. I make the motion that the proposed Annual Board Election Procedures be adopted and placed in the Association’s By-laws as Section J on page 3-6.”
[Editor’s note: Sue made the motion, but no one seconded it, so it died on the floor. Isn’t that sad? No one would even second it for purposes of discussion. Sue mentioned that the attorneys recommend that a Director should not be the Secretary at which point Bob looked up at the ceiling. We don’t notice him looking for divine guidance whenever one of his male colleagues speaks.]
Sue: ok, I’m going to say this for the last time… the only word that comes to mind is “really?” No second, not even for a discussion on this? And we all know the reason why, and I’m going to say it, because I do believe in transparency.
The reason why I think there is not a second has to do with the fact that the Secretary and Treasurer positions do not have to be Board positions. How else would you implement our By-Laws unless you had a means by which the Secretary and Treasurer did not have to be Board members?
The way to do this is to have nominations from the floor. Now I don’t think you’re being unfair to me… I’ve been here long enough to know about politics… you’re not being unfair to me, but you’re being unfair to the residents.
Linda: [Editor’s note: Linda stated that she was the Secretary while on the Board for six years and then made the following statements.] I feel, as in the past, after the election takes place…if there are no acceptances by the newly elected Board members, then it should be opened up to the residents for nominations from the floor. I feel that the Board members should have first dibs for Secretary or Treasurer.
[Editor’s note: First dibs? Board members should make decisions in the best interests of the community, not give themselves priority just because they are on the Board. And let us remind you that “first dibs” is actually directly contrary to what the By-Laws state, i.e., that any HOA member is eligible, and that means equally eligible.
And as for stating that you “feel” Board members should have first dibs, respectfully, the By-Laws don’t care about feelings, Linda, and they don’t say that in any event. If you are going to go with how you feel regardless of what the By-Laws actually state, then why have By-Laws?
The By-Laws are not there for selective enforcement based on how you or anyone feels at any given moment. So, this argument falls flat and is, respectfully, an affront to the By-Laws that govern this community.
Statutes, rules, regulations, By-Laws, and orders of that nature don’t care about feelings. Feelings are irrelevant. The documents say what they say; if you are not going to follow them because of your feelings or how you feel at any given moment, then why have them?
If that’s what you want, then let’s just go with chaos, and sign up for the shredding event in February and toss the By-Laws and all the HOA’s governing documents in the shredder.
As a Board member, it is your obligation, your fiduciary duty, to pick the best person for the position, the one most qualified and capable who is willing to serve. This comment, that Linda feels that Board members should get first dibs, is not in conformity with this fiduciary duty. And all five Board members who didn’t second this motion displayed a shameful alignment with Linda’s shocking and disappointing statement.
Nota bene: A Board member is elected to represent this community and is obliged to give his/her 100% attention to that fiduciary obligation; the offices of Secretary and Treasurer are a distraction to this primary obligation.]
Sue: [in response to Linda’s comment] that’s not what our By-Laws say. You want to change that, too? Jeff: the motion fails. Harvey: motion dies.
7. Har Tru - $2947.40 - Jeff Green
[Editor’s note: Jeff didn’t realize this was on the agenda. He wanted to go straight to the Second Residents’ Input Session. Deborah, the property manager, said it was clay for the tennis courts. Harvey made the motion to accept it, and Linda seconded it. It passed unanimously.]
Second Residents’ Input Session:
1. Paula Simon: I have no skin in the game on what you do about clubs and membership, but I do want to remind you that meetings are run according to Roberts Rules of Order last I looked, and I don’t believe you can make motions about changing By-Laws or actually amend them without proper notice to the community.
So, although you’ve expressed an opinion of what you want to do with respect to club membership and teams and clubs, you still need to give proper notice and details on the amendments to the By-Laws… before you can make the change. That’s my input; thank you.
[Editor’s note: Bingo, and not the Splish-Splash type. Perfectly stated and accurate.]
2. Joyce Winston: I’d like to address the subject that Sue brought up about electing the Secretary and Treasurer separately from a Board member. From a practical standpoint, poor Bob can’t concentrate, or anybody that holds that position, while taking minutes and notes, instead of concentrating on his position as a Board member, and listening to, contributing to, and voting on various motions, and the same goes for the Treasurer.
If you don’t agree with me, that’s perfectly alright. But I think it’s something you should think about it and not just dismiss out of hand. There’s a lot of Board work to do. Having a Secretary and/or Treasurer from the community is not a bad thing. It only adds. They don’t vote, they don’t do any of that stuff, they don’t pass laws. But they do a different job for the Board. Thank you.
Jeff: we’ve been doing this for 21 years [so what; that’s a reason to continue to ignore the rules?]. No one’s ever complained. [Editor’s note: are you sure about that? You just heard several people weigh in on it, and believe me, there’s more out there.] The Presidents’ Club – not one president came back and said they had outsiders.
[Editor’s note: first, residents are not “outsiders,” which is very dismissive, and second, who cares what other communities do? They also apparently don’t require vendors to break down costs of labor and materials and that’s not good practice either.]
3. Paul Friedlander: I heard your discussion about having nominations from the floor at the annual meeting to elect the Secretary and a Treasurer: the number of participants sitting at the annual meeting are clearly not representative of the community. There’s a handful of people who are there observing.
If you were to allow that small group to nominate and elect a Secretary and Treasurer, it clearly would not be representative of the community. If you want to suggest that the Secretary and Treasurer not be Board members, it should be appointed by the Board itself. Thank you.
[Editor’s note: Paul is clearly incorrect and apparently confused. The annual members’ meeting does not function to elect the offices of Secretary and Treasurer. It never did. The new Board appoints the Secretary and Treasurer by either open or secret ballot (their choice). That’s what the rules say. That is what the By-Laws currently state and that is what the Florida statute also clearly states.
The issue is not who appoints the Secretary and Treasurer: that is strictly a Board function to make those appointments. The point is that the By-Laws already provide for those offices to be filled by any member, i.e., anyone is eligible to be nominated regardless of whether or not they are a Board member.
Also, whether those present at the annual members meeting represent the community or not is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with the procedure for nominating and appointing these officers.]
4. Skip Jacobs: why was the Chat Room disabled? Mike Blackman: during the meeting, but then it’s turned back on… Skip: during the meeting, if we can’t express ourselves, what’s the purpose? Mike Blackman: residents’ sections. We’ve had it in the past. It was disruptive.
[Editor’s note: your Editor asks again: is Mike Blackman an unelected Board member? Some people don’t believe it was disruptive and in fact believe it was instructive and should never have been disabled during any part of the meeting.
This is a political discussion, and the Zoom operator does not set Board policy. Again, it is respectfully requested that the Zoom operator refrain from injecting himself into these proceedings. Perhaps he should mute himself if he cannot control himself.]
Jeff: it’s no different than when we had the Board meetings in the Board rooms… [sic]
[Editor’s note: ok, Jeff, if it’s no different from when you had Board meetings in the ballroom, as you state, then in the ballroom we recall that anyone could stand up at any time and interject and they often did. So, your statement is completely hypocritical.]
5. Jan Janow: [Editor’s note: Jan suggested a tape recorder for the meetings; Harvey stated that the meetings are recorded and then posted on the HOA website.]
6. Trudy Lieberman: I could not get into the chat room during the whole meeting; even when it was enabled, I was disabled. Mike Blackman: It’s a problem with your computer; give me a call.
Round Table Discussion: