[Editor’s note: Linda also stated that the Amendment was not a “bundling” and that the community didn’t understand what the Board was trying to do. Nonsense: give your constituents more credit than that.
Harvey echoed this sentiment that it was not “bundling” and rationalized it by saying the issues are in the same paragraph in the governing documents. These propositions are silly because clearly the issues are separate: one calls for a community vote threshold and the other calls for a Board spending threshold. Forcing an all or nothing vote on both is bundling. Linda also stated that it is “impossible to vote on them separately.” This is blatantly untrue.
The vote question is self-explanatory: should the required percentage for a community vote to pass on an issue be reduced from 75% to 66 2/3% and should the amount the Board can spend without a community vote be reduced to a smaller percentage of the budget. You either vote yes, no, or you leave it blank. Those are your choices. Vote well.
The lengthy presentation, which was made at the March 9, 2021 meeting, in our opinion, was to convince you to vote a certain way, and that’s why we refused to report on it. It was stated at the March 9th meeting that since Eileen was not running for re-election and not a candidate, that she should do the presentation and that therefore somehow any conflicts of interest were thereby avoided. Hogwash. She was a current Board member during that entire presentation. Her future status is irrelevant.
As a current Board member, she presented a lengthy dissertation on how the community should vote on the matter pending. If the entire Board approved of this presentation, then shame on all of them. We believe you should decide without the input of these individuals because they have a unique platform as Board members, and their obligation is to represent the interests of all residents equally, including those residents who don’t agree with them on this issue.
We don’t think Board members ought to be touting their position on this matter during an official Board meeting. Official Board meetings are specifically for the purpose of conducting official HOA business, and they are not to be used as propaganda opportunities for individual Board members to urge a specific community vote, especially on a hotly contested issue such as this one.
This is not a Board vote where discussion and opinions are welcome. This is a community vote matter, where each Board member’s vote counts the exact same as every other household’s vote. It is the one time that a Board member’s vote is not worth more than yours or mine. That is why it is wholly inappropriate for a Board member to use his or her bully pulpit in this manner.
The right to speak at Board meetings on one’s opinion on this matter should be during the Residents’ Input Sessions only. If a Board member wants to opine on a community vote issue, do it the same way the rest of the members are required to do so, at the Residents’ Input Session, because that’s where your opinions on a community vote issue belong.
The argument in favor of the Amendment is that without it, nothing will get done and the place will continue to deteriorate, and the community will be less desirable to potential buyers. This is a false argument. The streets are budgeted for, the landscaping is budgeted for, the signs are budgeted for, the roof is budgeted for, even the hurricane windows for the fitness building were budgeted for.
There are actually very few issues that require a community vote and few if any will affect the value of the community and here’s the proof: In Richard’s Treasurer’s Report for this Board meeting, it states that there were so many home sales in a mere two months’ time period that the revenue from those home sales alone already equaled 50% of the annual budget. Those are his words, not ours. Read it: it is attached to your meeting notice.
For those of you who don’t have your notice handy, here is exactly what he wrote under “Association Total Revenue:”
“The reason that the Revenue is higher than the Budget is house sales are running higher than was anticipated when the Budget was prepared. In two months the number of houses sold already equaled 50% of the annual budget.”
Wow. So the community is not, in fact, lacking in competitiveness in the marketplace, screams to the contrary notwithstanding.
Therefore, obviously the argument that we need hard court surfaces for pickleball in order to remain competitive in the marketplace is not borne out by the facts. Hard courts for pickleball should be considered on its own merit, standing alone, without regard to real estate sales, because the facts show that the sales are brisk without hard courts. You either want hard courts or you don’t, but that’s strictly a pickleball issue, not a real estate sales issue. Don’t be fooled by false arguments to the contrary.
Finally, Linda wanted the voting to be declared null and void. Marion objected, noting that 180 ballots already voted, and it would be inherently unfair to pull their votes. Deborah suggested that people do understand it and that she received over 30 loose proxies and they did it correctly. Linda bemoaned that the Amendment meeting of March 9th was a “sham” and an “embarrassment.”
Harvey and Bob thought the Amendment vote should not be pulled and Bob further stated, “I trust the residents to do what they think is right.” Eileen moved to remove the Amendment vote and Linda Seconded it. Marion called the question: “all in favor to take the Amendment off the election ballot.” In favor of doing so: Eileen, Linda, and Sue. Opposed: Marion, Harvey, and Bob. Richard abstained. The motion failed.
Since there was a quorum of residents who already voted, the Board actually had no authority to even entertain such a motion. Once the HOA members create a quorum, it is out of the Board’s hands. This concept seems to have been lost on some Board members.
2. Benches for Bocce Court & Polly Park - Eileen Olitsky
[Editor’s note: There was an email circulated among Board members to change the location of the new benches which were to be at the bocce court and one on Polly Park, and put them instead on Cascade Lake Blvd., and move the current ones on Cascade Lakes Blvd., which just need bolts, to the bocce court.
There was an objection raised to doing it via email instead of by an open meeting of the Board. Sue complained about the intention of other Board members to do it via email and she responded to that Board email admonishing her colleagues on the Board not to do it and that it is against our Rules and Regulations. Eileen joined in the objection and stated that one of the reasons she decided not to run for re-election is the “tension and stress of the Board meetings and there is wheeling and dealing behind the scenes to change votes and that’s shameful.”
Harvey made the motion to amend the placement of the new benches to Cascade Lakes Blvd. and move the Cascade Lakes benches to the bocce courts; Bob Seconded it. Marion called the question: Harvey and Richard voted for it; the rest opposed it except for Bob who abstained.]
3. Power Point Presentation – Election packet- Harvey Ginsberg
[Editor’s note: Harvey made an excellent presentation. It was short and clear. We believe that residents understand how to mark their ballots and what to do with them.]
4. PBB – W. Glenville entrance - $1,420 (O) (1) – Marion Weil
E. Glenville, S. CL Blvd - $7,550 (O) (1)
Corbel N. Pod Entry - $860 – (O) (1)
[Editor’s note: once again, by not having a Schedule A to the landscaping contract, things are continually done piecemeal, which most certainly is not cost-efficient. By the way, when these proposals are presented to the Board by the landscaping company, does anyone at that point call up PBB and negotiate the prices, and if not, why not?
These proposals all passed unanimously. The first was proposal number 26-21 to install Panorama Rose seven gallon plants and 30 bags of mulch. Marion made the motion, Linda Seconded it.
The second one was proposal number 28-21, revised east side, includes both sides with new hedge, pallets of sod, 3 gallon Calusa and 12 cap palms at seven gallons. Marion made the motion, Harvey stated he would Second, Marion stated “Seconded by Eileen.”
The last proposal, number 27-21, north entrance bed, install additional plants and remove Trinettes. The motion was made by Marion, Seconded by Harvey (again forcefully asserting himself before anyone else could get a word in edgewise).]
5. Clubs and Politics:
[Editor’s note: Marion added this to the Agenda. Marion lamented that the pickleball club officers sent out an email to all club members on their endorsements for the upcoming Board election and that this act went beyond the club’s charter or mission statement which is strictly to play pickleball and do fun things connected therewith.
Harvey made a “motion to send a letter of reprimand to the pickleball club leadership for overstepping their bound because endorsing candidates is not part of their mission statement,” admitting that it wouldn’t have any bite to it anyway, and Marion Seconded it, but after the Board’s discussion, he rescinded his motion and so the matter died. Some on the Board felt it was a free speech issue, and Linda erroneously compared it to our endorsements on our News Site.
It is not similar to our endorsements at all. Marion is 100% correct. The email sent on behalf of the pickleball club officers was completely improper and went beyond the club’s mission statement. We have been warning you about this club’s exceeding its mission statement for quite some time now, and now you’re seeing it come home to roost.
The First Amendment applies to our News Site which is independent from the HOA. The First Amendment prevents the government from interfering with free speech (with limited exceptions). This means a court (an arm of the government) could not stifle our speech here on the News Site, and any attempts to shut us down by legal action would fail miserably.
The First Amendment, however, does not apply to private corporations such as this HOA. The clubs exist at the pleasure of the Board and must conduct themselves within the purviews of their mission statements. If they fail to do so, their charter risks suspension. The fact that most Board members don’t understand this is troubling.
Anyone can send an email to people on their private email list endorsing whomever they want. That is not what the pickleball club did. The pickleball club, invoking its name and its officers on behalf of the Pickleball Club of Cascade Lakes, sent out an endorsement email to the entire club. This was wholly improper and should have resulted in a fine or suspension. Allowing this to continue gives the impression that the Board approves it, and therefore you can expect more deviations from this group’s mission statement in the future because by not calling it out, you empower these rule-breakers to continue to defy the rules.
The fact that the Board still has not removed their lame and unenforceable “Governing Documents” from the pickleball page on the HOA website sends a clear message to this group that they have carte blanche to do whatever they please. I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: the politics of appeasement never works. Until the Board does its job and reigns in this aberrant group, they will continue to engage in this type of inappropriate behavior.]
Second Residents’ Input Session:
1. Roberta Alter: [Editor’s note: Roberta said that the individuals who circulated an anonymous flier on the Amendment vote are cowards for not identifying themselves. The flier, for those of you who did not get it, was resoundingly against the Amendment.] Roberta: second, any club, and the pickleball club made their recommendations on Facebook also, very self-purposing of clubs…wrong… [Editor’s note: we agree on the issue concerning the pickleball club for the reasons we stated above.]
2. Linda Bennis: [Editor’s note: Linda asked if all residents had to submit the phone book form if they are already in the book and Deborah said yes, if you don’t submit the form you will not be in the new book. That was an excellent question by Linda. Linda stated she was also bothered by the flier left in her birdcage.]
[Editor’s note: the flier issue disturbed Harvey as well. We are curious, though, if the backlash by a few would be as vocal if the flier had favored the Amendment.]
3. Judie Delman: I have to agree with Marion, I have checked off many clubs so I know what’s going on, but the email fostered by the group – already had their own agenda…then everybody starts to take advantage of it. These people should be talked to so it’s frowned upon.
[Editor’s note: these people (the current pickleball club Dons and Doñas) don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. Talking to them is a waste of time. Reprimands are a waste of time. The only thing that will get their attention is to pull their charter. Perhaps the new Board will be wiser in their approach to this.]
4. Giora Baram: I live on Haddon Parkway. The lanai, we face the pond. To beautify the place…request that the aerator in the pond which has electric already, will be replaced and have a light in it and also the ability to spray water, similar to the one we have near the clubhouse. It would beautify Cascade Lakes…
[Editor’s note: yes, it would. What a lovely idea from a lovely man. What is the cost, Board members, and who is interested in following up with this? My recollection is this is not the first time Giora has raised this issue at Board meetings. Stop ignoring him.]
Round Table Discussion:
