Sue: It’s a Point of Order. Jeff and others: no, it’s not. Jeff: it’s not Point of Order. [where is the authority for this?] Harvey: this is a discussion of your objection.
[Notice the gang pile-on to shut down a fellow Board member? This is abusive, and it is coming from the very people who are demanding that no Board member should be allowed to interrupt another Board member for any reason at any time, and yet they’re doing it constantly to Sue.]
Harvey: and you have every right to make it, but let’s get a second to the motion, and then, as the motion presenter, I have the right to finish, to start the discussion. [wrong, wrong, wrong. That’s not how a Point of Order works. A Point of Order interrupts discussion for a procedural challenge to the discussion, and properly occurs before discussion.]
Harvey: I ask the Chair for a ruling.
[There is no Chair; see page 374 of Robert’s Rules, section 43:29. When the presiding officer participates in debate and votes, he is specifically not a Chair because he is presumed to be partisan.
And if there’s no Robert’s Rules, then there’s no “Chair ruling” because that’s part of Robert’s Rules, assuming there were a Chair in this situation, which there isn’t.]
Sue: it is also a question as to whether or not the Chair can participate because he is involved in the discussions as well, and it may be a conflict of interest, but Points of Order, I do believe were done as the motion is made and when you think there is something that is procedurally incorrect.
Barbara Green [wife of president Jeff D. Green, in the audience, directed to Sue]: "SHUT UP." [yes, I personally heard it, and so did other people within hearing distance. In my opinion, that wasn’t very ladylike of our non-First Lady.]
Sue: but I’m not going to debate it, make it, I will make my points when you finish your rationale for doing this.
[Pat seconded the motion, and Harvey stated that based on an article from a professor emeritus from the University of Wisconsin that they can limit debate and that “the short answer is yes, it’s not a violation of free speech, nor is it a violation of Robert’s Rules.”
Then he remembered that now they’re supposedly not following Robert’s Rules, so, oops, he just contradicted the article he relied on and which he himself put in the Board packet which references Robert’s Rules.
Our short answer: what he means is, “Robert’s Rules for me, but not for thee.”]
Harvey: We don’t follow Robert’s Rules. [then why did you just quote an article relying on Robert’s Rules that you yourself put in the Board packet?]
Sue: Point of Order. You’re incorrect about Robert’s Rules not being followed. Harvey: we don’t follow Robert’s Rules [except when he uploads an article that mentions it in its (faulty) rationale and then he relies on it] so your point is moot…and we can always vote to extend debate… cut down on incessant Points of Order…
[Editor’s note: audience clapped. The presiding officer failed to control the small crowd, failing one of his few functions as presiding officer.]
Sue: Harvey…your reason for this motion is that decorum can be maintained and that limiting debate among directors can potentially avoid lengthy and perhaps antagonistic discourse. My response to you was in part the following: “decorum is maintained when all of us adhere to the same set of standards.”
Your rationale is not based upon any rule… I did say that democracy is messy and I did refer to Winston Churchill who did indicate that democracy is the best of the worst forms of government.
I also added that while democracy is messy, we could make it a little neater.
You highlighted the wrong paragraphs your Limiting Debate article as it referred to MEMBERS and not to DIRECTORS. In fact, paragraph 4 refers to Roberts Rules…
This is especially important since we are making decisions that affect the lives of the entire community. This is the first time we’ve ever questioned whether or not directors can spend more than three minutes… I do believe that we do follow Robert’s Rules… there was never a time when the Board voted that we didn’t… this Board has to decide first what Robert’s Rules we are referring to, if indeed we are referring to them all.
We never officially voted. The procedures here clearly indicate that we are following established parliamentary procedure. Established parliamentary procedure, folks, is Robert’s Rules.
[Pat then falsely claimed that this came up because one person “talked for 25 minutes straight and won’t allow anyone else to speak.”
This was a patent lie. She was referring to Arthur, who’s constantly interrupted speech at the organizational meeting actually was, in full, about 3 minutes and 20 seconds without interruptions, depending on the speed in which it was recited. And the interruptions came from the partisan moderator and other Board members, but that was apparently fine.
Pat’s claim never happened: he did not speak for 25 minutes straight; the entire meeting was only 25 minutes. Every Board member who wanted to speak was given the opportunity. The partisan moderator was rude and so were one or two other Board members, and they were constantly interrupting Arthur. Rewriting history in this fashion doesn’t work. Using this false claim as the basis for this motion is corrupt.
Pat then stated: “I think Robert’s Rules has been misused, not used properly.” This makes no sense whatsoever. Relying on Robert’s Rules cannot by definition be a misuse of the rules. And there was no explanation as to how it was “not used properly.” The comment is utterly nonsensical.
She falsely claimed that “denigrating another Board member is completely against the principles of Robert’s Rules.”
Wrong again: she is mixing apples and oranges. Setting forth facts, the good, the bad, and the ugly, is the responsibility of each director; Robert’s Rules allows for that so that the public can have an informed debate, not a one-sided lovefest. This argument is not only absurd, but also completely undemocratic. She spoke for just shy of two minutes.
And here’s one last thing: by lying about one Board member, didn’t she just denigrate that Board member? We are truly seeing – not democracy in action, but hypocrisy in action.]
Arthur: I believe debate is a form of checks and balances. By disenfranchising another Board member, it disenfranchises the community at large. And I don’t remember any debate going more than four minutes, five minutes, without interruptions.
[Arthur spoke for 14 seconds, which was actually the least amount of any Board member, and Harvey spoke more than once.]
Sue: in the cheat sheet, Harvey, that you gave us, and you were the one that said in an email, quote, ‘attempt to follow Robert’s Rules of Order.’ And you gave all of us copious notes on Robert’s Rules. So obviously at some point you believed that either we did follow it or we should.
But if you read Robert’s Rules, even on the cheat sheet… Robert’s Rules does allow a means by which debate can be closed, when additional comments become meaningless. It would require a 2/3 vote of the Board.
And one of the things that I seriously question is that I have listened to Board meetings, I’ve been on the Board going on my third year, and this is the first time it’s been brought up?... I have reasons in my own mind to question the timing.
[Harvey then once again invoked Robert’s Rules by moving to call the question. It passed 5-2 with the Gang of Five aka The Lemmings voting for it and your community champions, Sue and Arthur, opposed. The small audience of stacked supporters clapped.]
2. Procedure for contacting the attorney- Jeff Green
[Editor’s note: This is another motion aimed directly at Director Arthur and to a lesser extent, Sue. It seeks to limit other Board members besides the president from interfacing with the HOA’s attorney. It also states that the president will decide if the legal matter is minor or major before sharing it with the other Board members. For the record, here is what Jeff said:]
Jeff: Next item. Procedure for Contacting the Attorney. I would like to table this agenda item until the next meeting and take a vote of the Board to invite the attorney to attend the meeting, [Florida statute 720.303 (2)(a) specifically prohibits voting by email] since he is the one who provides us with legal advice here.
And I don’t want to get into a long discussion of who can contact the attorney and who can’t; I’d like to get a legal interpretation from a Florida attorney on how we can do it. So, my motion is to table the motion. Harvey: I’ll second it.
[Editor’s note: Pat falsely stated that one or more Board members “refused to meet with the lawyer.” Sue stated, “that is not true.” Sue said a few words championing free speech, during which there was rude and obnoxious heckling from the small audience. The presiding officer once again failed to control the small crowd.
The motion passed unanimously, and the agenda item was tabled. So, there was no vote to invite the attorney to the next meeting; the vote was that the motion was simply tabled.]
[Editor’s note: Many important items are still being ignored. Details are found on our page entitled “Agenda Items.”]
1. Update on COVID Restrictions – Harvey Ginsberg
Harvey: The positivity rate for PBC has remained <3 for="" the="" last="" three="" weeks="" and="" covid-19="" community="" level="" has="" remained="" low="" month="" thererfore="" ad="" hoc="" medical="" advisory="" group="" decided="" to="" suspend="" meeting="" unless="" situation="" warrants="" no="" further="" increase="" in="" ballroom="" capacity="" is="" anticipated="" until="" pandemic="" declared="" be="" endemic="" at="" which="" time="" it="" will="" increased="" 100="" this="" item="" removed="" from="" future="" agendas="" br="">
2. Board Meeting Schedule – Jeff Green
[Editor’s note: Jeff moved to have one Board meeting per month unless another one is required or there are too many agenda items (did you see the agenda for this meeting?). Sue suggested a trial period.
Arthur: it’s easier to have it scheduled and if we don’t need a meeting, just cancel it. Jeff: 80% of the communities have one meeting a month… Harvey: Florida statute says we only have to have one meeting a year.
The motion was seconded by Bob, and it passed 5-2 with Sue and Arthur opposing it. Meetings will be held on the third Wednesday of the month, starting with this month, which is in two weeks (April 20th).]
3. Iguana Proposal: $1,203.75, Iguana Blocker - Arthur Andelson
[Editor’s note: first and foremost, many thanks to the resident who brought this product to our attention. This shows that every single one of you can potentially make a difference for the betterment of our community! Thank you to this concerned, ecofriendly, humane resident. Arthur brought and held up a sample gallon of these natural repellent pellets.]
Arthur: … Per Deborah‘s report at a prior board meeting, in one year's time, Blue Iguana captured and killed 95 iguanas. That averages about eight random iguanas per month.
There is a potentially better alternative that will keep out 100% of iguanas at all times for about the same price or even less, with the added bonus that it is not inhumane to those many residents who are horrified by this killing spree.
Iguana Blocker is a natural product, made from garlic, cinnamon, cedar oil, sulfur, and other ingredients, and it creates a pellet barrier around Cascade Lakes. The goal is to keep the iguanas out 100 percent of the time.
The trial period would be purchasing one 500 pound bag that would provide approximately 6 treatments. Each treatment would be reapplied every two weeks to a month depending on weather conditions.
One bag will cost $1,203.75 without shipping, and there may or may not be a small charge for shipping. This would last for 3-5 months.
When you do the math, you find that the price is therefore about the same as Blue Iguana worst case scenario, or half the price best case scenario depending on the weather, but instead of keeping out a random eight iguanas a month, you’re keeping out all iguanas each and every month. They are literally repelled by the smell and will avoid it.
As an example of why this is better, within 24 hours of Blue Iguana being in Cascade Lakes one day, an iguana dug a hole in our backyard and laid her eggs. I saw it. I then chased her away and dug up the eggs. We live on the canal.
Had this product been applied to the perimeter of the community which includes along the canals behind the houses, there would’ve been no iguana digging and laying eggs in our backyard. And more importantly, this will keep them out of our lakes.
Therefore, I have placed this item on the agenda so that we can try this out. We can always go back to Blue Iguana in the future if for whatever reason this is not as effective as it claims to be, but they offer a money back guarantee.
I have included the proposal in the Board packet as well as the brochure of the product. I move to accept this proposal as a temporary basis just to try it for three months and see how well it does.
[Editor’s note: Sue seconded it for purposes of discussion. Richard mentioned that he, Jeff, and Deborah spoke with the vendor. The vendor was not very helpful; we can confirm that that is true of the sales rep. Richard stated it was labor intensive and would make the place smell like garlic.]
Pat stated that while it was a great idea to try some alternative solutions, in her experience and based on reviews she read that it was not very effective. Sue asked if they should table it to get more information.
Harvey stated the Blue Iguana proposal was time-sensitive; Sue asked for what the outside date was and did not get an answer. The motion was rejected: 1-5-1 (Arthur voted for it, Sue abstained, and the rest opposed it.)]
4. Renewal Iguana Control – $4500-6800 - Harvey Ginsberg
[Editor’s note: we’re back to the original contract, supposedly; this is for random iguana killing if the company happens to come across one or more while they are on the property.
Deborah reported previously that in a prior 12-month period they killed 95, which averages to about 8 per month. They chose the $4,500 amount and it passed 5-1-1 with Sue voting no and Arthur abstaining; the other five Board members approved it. It says:
“Service constitutes approximately 1 hour twice a week to alternatively service the canals, lakes, Clubhouse, tennis/fitness center and calls from homeowners or office personnel.”]
Items 1 through 4: Entertainment Contracts – Richard Green
[Editor’s note: these contracts were all approved unanimously. They concern performing acts for July 9, December 31, January 2023, and March 2023.]
5. Recreation Steel Band Contract – May 29 – Harvey Ginsberg
[Editor’s note: this contract was approved unanimously.]
6. Toilets / ADA – $10,510-18,200 - Jeff Green
[Editor’s note: there were three proposals. They went with Sharp Plumbing, LLC for $10,510 and it passed unanimously. These are ADA approved toilets. These 20 toilets will be raised an inch and a half except for the handicapped stalls which are already higher and will remain the same. The seven urinals are getting an automatic flush.]
7. Flow Meter / Glenville – $1,222.86 - Bob Dingee
[Editor’s note: it wasn’t working. It needed to be fixed. This passed unanimously.]
8. PBB / Tree Removals – $775 - Richard Greene
[Editor’s note: it’s $775 per tree; the arborist said 85 trees, so that totals $65,875. The motion was made by Richard and seconded by Pat.]
Arthur: on the Board meeting of 3-2-22, there was an approval of $55,440 to thin and raise all shade trees. Can we see which ones are going to be removed so we get a refund --
Deborah [interrupting Arthur; not nice, not appropriate, and exactly what the other Board members were complaining about previously: interruptions. It seems that others are continually interrupting the one guy who’s not interrupting anyone.]:
Deborah: we will be getting a refund on Cascade Lakes Blvd. Those are the only trees that they did not do at this time and those will be credited. I spoke to him yesterday if this should pass that we would not be trimming those trees and we would be getting a credit.
Shelly Andreas [Co-Chair, Landscaping Committee]: Arthur, good question. [Thank you, Shelly.] We also had a proposal for crown reduction; will get a credit for that since we are taking those trees down… you will get a proposal stating “x” amount of credit for the trimming and “x” amount of credit for the crown reduction on those that they did not do.
[Editor’s note: It passed unanimously.]
9. Committee Liaisons – Jeff Green
[Editor’s note: The 5-person coalition aka the Gang of Five aka The Lemmings went with unqualified directors for certain liaisonships instead of eminently qualified ones.
Sue listed via email to the entire Board her qualifications for Rules & Regs (of which she wrote many of the Rules & Regs), Long-Term Planning, and Painting. Pat and Bob respectively listed none, i.e, no discernible qualifications relevant to the positions. They voted 5-2 for Pat, Pat, and Bob respectively. (Arthur and Sue opposed, and Bob abstained from the Long-Term Planning vote.
Arthur listed via email to the entire Board his qualifications for ARB, Facilities, and Landscaping, which included Air Force Technical School, Home Insurance Field Underwriter, Certified Paralegal, graphic designer, and illustrator.
He also included that he designed and built our entire home front’s landscaping including plants and masonry, designed our entire backyard, including in-ground pool, spa, decking, kitchenette, landscaping, and is creating an exterior door out of a bathroom window, all permitted, and he also included his track record of issues he already found with PBB’s work. They voted 5-2 for Harvey (ARB), Jeff (Facilities), and Harvey (Landscaping).
It is noteworthy that no other liaisonships had dual Board members vying for that position and this was well planned and premeditated. The Gang of Five aka The Lemmings specifically targeted the ones that Arthur and Sue told them weeks ago they were best suited for and for which both Sue and Arthur had sent them all emails listing their specific qualifications.
Those were the only ones where the other Board members inserted their names next to those committee titles to create a conflict and force a Board vote with the specific intent of preventing Sue and Arthur from having those liaisonships.
They just looked at the ones Sue and Arthur chose (with their respective outstanding qualifications) and premeditatedly decided among themselves who would raid those positions and take on those liaisonships for the sole purpose of depriving you, residents, of your qualified champions in those fields.
(There was one that they didn’t target because Arthur added it much, much later without any fanfare and frankly, I think they missed it and didn’t realize it because the slot was open, and no director had claimed it.)]
Harvey: the liaison role is an advisory role; they do not participate in the meetings, they do not vote in the meetings, they only are there to answer questions that the committee may have regarding what the Board would think.
Therefore, there is no special expertise or qualifications required, so I want everybody to understand that when we start talking about why one person should be the liaison versus the other.
Former Board Member in Audience: that’s crazy.
[Editor’s note: yes, it is, and how can they answer questions if they are unqualified? And how do they know what the other six equal Board members would think? This is pure nonsense, but he said this to try and justify what they were doing.
Harvey said this because Sue and Arthur emailed their qualifications to the rest of the Board, and once they did that, the Gang of Five decided to put another Board member just for those liaisonships which Sue and Arthur listed.
This was a targeted, premeditated takeover of those committee liaisonships. This is an attempt to justify and defend the indefensible: the Gang of Five’s breach of their fiduciary duty to you, the members.
So, to heck with what’s in the best interest of the community, i.e., having the most qualified Board member as liaison to the committee with their strengths and breadths of experience.
These five other Board members deliberately sabotaged you, the residents, to backstab their fellow Board members, Sue and Arthur. In doing so, they actually backstabbed all of you. It was deliberate, and it was contrary to their fiduciary responsibilities to the community.
If they really believed that the “no special expertise or qualifications” is required, then why is Richard, a CPA, the liaison to the Budget and Auditing Committees? Why is Bob, an engineer, the liaison to the Engineering Committee? The absurdity of this argument is glaring.
Does this sound like the five other Board members fulfilled their fiscal and fiduciary responsibilities to you or does it sound like a case of pure vindictiveness against Sue and Arthur at your expense?
Knowing of this disgraceful maneuver against the community, Arthur suggested that there be co-liaisons for those committees, to try and make sure the community had the most qualified Board member in those positions, but that was shot down, too.]
Arthur: The liaison spreadsheet as is should be approved and we need to work together on filling in the other positions that are blank. I am willing to do Safety & Security and I am happy to work with my co-Liaisons on Facilities, ARB, and Landscaping. There’s no reason why we can’t have two liaisons. One could be there and one not, or both. It would be a nice team.
[Editor’s note: of course, that was rejected because that wasn’t the intent to begin with; the intent was to sabotage Arthur and Sue and by extension, the residents who are now deprived of the most qualified Board members for these important committees.
Sue noted that the only ones which had two Board members listed were Arthur’s and hers. She stated she would be more than happy to share her assignments. Again, this was a futile attempt to help the community. She corrected Harvey and Jeff and stated that the committees don’t report to the liaisons, they report to the entire Board.
Jeff then asked if anyone where there is a conflict was willing to drop off, or they would just have the vote.]
Pat: If you want to do painting, Sue, I’ll let you have Painting and roof cleaning, I can drop off of that one and let you have it.
[Editor’s note: You’ll “let” her have painting? Oh, so the five of you did all conspire against Sue and Arthur to deprive them of the liaisonships they were most qualified to have. Good to know and thanks for the admission. Hey, everybody: here’s the Gang of Five aka The Lemmings in action working against the community.
P.S. Don’t be surprised if next time around they pick one odd person out on some issues that they vote on so they can say it’s not the Gang of Five, it’s 4 on a particular vote. And let’s see if they rotate the odd person out alphabetically or randomly on issues so no one notices.
You all know how this went. Five to two in favor of the Board members with no discernible expertise. Shelly Andreas (acting Chair of ARB) stated that there is no need for an ARB liaison because if someone has a conflict with what the committee decides, they appeal to the Board, which is correct. She therefore felt having a liaison was a waste of time.
Jeff stated they’ve never had a conflict. That’s not true: the invisible dog fence denial by the ARB was appealed to the Board in 2019 and the appeal failed.]
Sue: I know that some of the people in this audience might find my adherence to rules kind of annoying, but without them you really have -- [audience member said “yes” and then some clapped; again, the presiding officer failed to take control of the crowd.] -- I accept all criticism as positive because it’s another way of looking at things.
So, I accept your comments and I would respect [sic] that you would show respect for my comments as well… the ARB’s recommendations are subject to approval by the Board of Directors, and I believe it is so stated in 720…
There are so many changes here that I just question the rationale for the changes. That’s it.
Jeff: we voted to have a liaison, let’s keep the liaison again and we’ll see what happens. Ok, so Harvey, you’re the liaison.
[Editor’s note: In my opinion they rejected Shelly’s suggestion because it went against their premeditated plot as described above.
Sue respectfully admonished the audience not to comment or applaud on the liaison choices because “I think it is very disrespectful to the directors.” That never bothered this small crowd before, Sue, so I doubt they give a hoot now.]
Jeff: well, if you think you know who’s gonna win, then drop off.” [nice sentiment, also suggesting that the fix is in.]
[For Long-Term Planning, Bob abstained because he didn’t want to vote for himself. Other than that, it was 5-2 on every single committee that this Gang of Five deliberately and in my opinion, with malice aforethought, homed in on, and overtook. And how exactly does this help the community?]
Jeff: we are not having a liaison to Grievance because the Board is not involved with Grievance… Legal was a group last year and we decided we’re not gonna have a group this year.
[They did not vote; this was done behind the scenes without the knowledge of some Board members, so when Jeff says “we decided,” exactly who is this “we?” and when was this decided and by whom? And again, how does this help the community?]
Jeff: we will ask different attorneys here based upon what comes up. If it’s a contract, we’ll ask a contract attorney, you’ll look at it, if it’s, uh, since there are no Florida attorneys in the community at this point, so it’s a moot question that.
[This was done to keep your Editor’s name off the HOA website and News & Views as much as possible. That’s the real reason for this.
In fact, your Editor was removed from her position on the website as part of COBWRA even though every other 2021 Chair remains on the HOA website pending the appointment of the 2022 roster.
Trying to obliterate your Editor’s existence has been a favorite pastime of certain threatened individuals here, especially the aforementioned Marion, a webmistress, who, upon information and belief, blames her election loss on yours truly.]
Jeff: webmasters, we don’t have a liaison; there are five webmasters and Mike Blackman is the head of that group and he gets to pick his five, and the reason we keep it to five is because if there’s a discrepancy in how they think about something that goes on, if they have to take something off the message board and vote, they want to have five people.
If there was more than five, if it was an even number, they wouldn’t be able to come up with a solution if three and three happened.
[Editor’s note: your Editor put her name on the committee list for webmasters, being very adept at running a website, at creating content, and also at reading and understanding the Terms of Service, what they say, and what they don’t say.
And that’s why Harvey added himself at the last minute to that committee list, because with your Editor’s name, that made five, which was Jeff’s magic number, so Harvey added himself to make six so they could bump off your Editor.
In 2021, in fact, there are only four people listed, so this rationale of needing an odd number of people to break a tie is new, and that certainly might indicate to some people that this excuse is bogus. Detecting a pattern here?
And frankly, Harvey shouldn’t even be a webmaster, as that’s a complete conflict of interest, because that group reports directly to the Board. If the webmasters remove a post, only the Board has the right to impose discipline under the Florida statute (720.305), not the webmasters who are unelected residents. The webmasters would be required to refer the matter to the Board for the Board’s vote on discipline.
Being a webmaster is therefore in direct conflict with being a Board member. In this scenario, Harvey as a Board member would be reviewing their decision and determining if the purportedly offending message board post warranted discipline or not. So, he can’t wear both those hats. He can’t vote to remove a post and refer it to the Board for discipline and then vote on that discipline at the Board level.
Anyway, the liaisons are now listed on the HOA website and will also be listed in News & Views.]
Second Residents’ Input Session:
1. Howard Orlasch: I want to say it was a very civilized meeting to look at, it was in contrast to the last one with scripted hostilities and this one went well. [He then talked about how nice it was to see a large iguana killed, and he suggested that if it were dealt with the other way], “it could have been done Marsala style for some of our residents, but I don’t think that’s gonna be very popular.” But again, thanks for a nice meeting today.
2. Marion Weil: [Marion stated that 8 years ago the Board voted to do a hybrid of Robert’s Rules.]
3. Shelly Andreas: …this Board meeting along with what Howard said was great. The one thing I want to say, you all want to ask for respect, but when one Board member is talking, and someone is up here at the podium, it is really not respectful for Board members [to be] talking to each other while someone else is talking. If you want respect, please do so also.
[Editor’s note: Bravo and thank you, Shelly. Two known culprits are the main disrupter, Harvey, who continually interrupts and talks over others, and to a lesser extent, Jeff, as they tend to talk to each other while another is speaking.]
4. Linda Bennis: [Linda talked about the tree removal which was covered during the meeting and reported above.]
5. Giora (Gary) Baram: [Gary would like some fountains and aerators in the lakes to enhance the beauty of the community, especially at night when they could be lit up. It sounds lovely! He’s raised this before; I guess hope springs eternal.]
6. Judy Delman: [Judy wanted to know if PBB is removing trees at $775 each why they charged her $1,100 to remove hers. Deborah said they received a bulk rate for the community trees, and that involves front trees, not rear trees such as Judie’s.]
7. Dorothy Waxman: [Dorothy wanted to know why all residents pay the same maintenance fees when some houses are smaller than others; she noted that at the other Cascades (on Jog Road) they don’t all pay the same amount. Deborah said it is in the governing documents.]
8. Mark Goodman: [Mark discussed why the pool waterfall is turned off and on at certain times; he didn’t articulate it clearly but what I think he meant was that turning it on earlier will cost the community more money. Any other interpretation of his comments would render them unintelligible. I apologize for that, but please feel free to listen to the tape and explain it to me.]
Round Table Discussion: