05/18/22 BOD MEETING: SYNOPSIS AND COMMENTARY BY VICKI ROBERTS
Posted May 25, 2022. Your Editor provides the following synopsis of the May 18, 2022 Board meeting with commentary, parody, and satire indicated inbold blue and pictures.
The Editor’s Opening Monologue and the synopsis and commentary are the property of Vicki Roberts, are my independent work product, and are not affiliated with the HOA.
Bizarro cartoons are courtesy of Dan Piraro, www.Bizarro.com. Those cartoons and other cartoons and images are licensed by me for use on my website only. Redistribution or republication of licensed cartoons and images is strictly prohibited and may subject you to legal liability for copyright infringement.
This prohibition also includes illegal email distribution of this synopsis and commentary. The licensor and/or copyright holder has the legal right to seek compensation from you under the Copyright Act for between $150 and $50,000 per image illegally distributed.
Thank you, and you may now enjoy the show.
Editor’s Opening Monologue:
This edition is entitled“Alleged False Pretenses, Fraud, Elder Abuse, and Defamation,” “Terms of Endearment?”, “Secretly Paying the Lawyer to Explain Plain English,” and “the Troublesome Twosome”
(including: alleged fraud, elder abuse, and defamation, major update to the HOA website Terms of Service, a crack in the group formerly known as the Gang of Five, incurring HOA debt secretly, Board member nicknames, and other juicy stuff!)
I. Alleged False Pretenses, Fraud, Elder Abuse, and Defamation
There are residents purportedly and repeatedly targeting elder residents in the community and falsely telling them that Arthur is costing the community money, and for that reason he should be removed from the Board. Upon information and belief, they are begging and pressuring residents to sign a paper to remove him based on this false premise.
In fact, the opposite is true: he’s saving the community money, and lots of it. Here are the true facts:
1. Fence/gate scandal: Arthur saved the community $60,000 for the fence/gate scandal that he uncovered and exposed, forcing the Board to cancel that ill-conceived $60,000 contract. That was an unnecessary expense you all would have incurred but for Arthur.
2. Landlines: Arthur saved the community hundreds of thousands of dollars by convincing the Board not to force you to get a telephone landline paid for with about $25 per month added to your monthly maintenance dues. It is true that your Editor assisted in this successful endeavor to save the community money.
Here’s the math on that: $25/month x 12 months = $300 per resident per year x 600 homes = $180,000 per year. To date, that’s three years’ savings of $540,000. The Board was successfully pressured not to do this, thus saving the community from this huge but unnecessary and ongoing expense.
3. Root mounds: Arthur also alerted the Board that the landscaping company was overcharging $1,350 for the root mound removal because the HOA had already paid for it on a previous invoice at a previous Board meeting, so it would have been double billing. The next day, PBB deleted that charge. Arthur alone raised that issue.
Those are three examples. Arthur’s focus from Day One has always been about protecting the residents, their rights, and their money. Anyone who says otherwise is in the opinion of your Editor engaging in alleged fraud, false pretenses, elder abuse, and defamation.
Presumably, these purveyors of this defamation are falsely claiming that Arthur is costing the HOA hefty legal fees, although he has never taken the HOA to court and their claim cannot be substantiated because it’s demonstrably false.
Here is an interesting excerpt of Richard’s speech from this Board meeting under New Business, Item #6 (his entire speech is reprinted there), where Richard, a CPA and the HOA Treasurer, talked about the HOA’s legal fees in general, not about Arthur or anyone in particular:
Richard: “My personal feeling is, I watch the finances very closely. I’m not so much concerned. The legal costs are less than .4% of our total budget. It’s more important that we do things correctly and we’re protected…
Don’t worry about the few pennies we’re spending on a lawyer. We have to protect the assets of this community. This is ridiculous; we have other financial issues and we’re talking about spending a few dollars for a lawyer? I think that’s crazy.”
So, in fact, per Richard, a CPA and the Treasurer of the HOA, the legal bills are a de minimus part of the budget (meaning they are so minor as to be disregarded or unconcerned about).
In fact, on top of that, usually it’s Arthur and Sue who advise against going to the lawyer because it’s not necessary, especially when statutes are written in plain English.
These defamers may ultimately be found to have engaged in elder abuse in addition to fraud and defamation. Hitting up frail and elderly residents and bombarding them with such false statements is a particularly pernicious form of elder abuse in my opinion. And it causes additional stress on the elders of our community, which is extremely unhealthy.
When one of the youngest members of the community, someone around 57 years old, does this to older members, for hidden motivations which have nothing to do with the truth and the facts, to me, that’s engaging in cruelty toward those elders as well.
Jeff Green, the HOA president, was also purportedly seen soliciting signatures at the pool. Why? What facts has he identified to support his efforts to remove Arthur from the Board? We have yet to hear one true fact.
And now for some irony.
Part II: Terms of Endearment?
This matter is found under New Business, Item #11, Motion to Revise Website Terms of Service, presented by Director Arthur. This is a tremendous win for the community!
Arthur made the motion that includes the critical provision that webmasters can no longer impose discipline on anyone for any reason.
Only the Board has jurisdiction (which is actually what Florida statute 720.305 requires) after written notice to you, a vote at a duly noticed Board meeting, and an opportunity for you to appeal an adverse decision to the Grievance Committee. They’ve been illegally imposing discipline on you for long enough!
And for those of you who majored in pig-Latin, the Gang of Five didn’t ix-nay it! In fact, Jeff worked with Arthur on the revisions and updates, so kudos to Jeff as well, and with Jeff’s participation and recommendation, the motion passed 4-2-1. (Four voted for the motion; two opposed; one abstained.)
Otherwise, even though it’s legally required, it would have been doomed for defeat had Jeff not exercised his leadership skills and made it happen.
Actually, originally Jeff was going to present the motion. Arthur offered to present it and Jeff was fine with that. It was lovely to see the boys working so well together!
The updated Terms of Service reflect what we have wanted since Day One: remove the webmasters’ ability to impose discipline, any discipline, on other residents because we have always maintained it’s illegal as it is a virtual common area and only the Board has the right to impose suspensions from use of a common area (Florida statute 720.305).
The webmasters can remove what they believe is an “offensive” message board post and refer its author to the Board for review and potential disciplinary action at the next open board meeting. Then, if the Board votes to discipline you, you have the right to demand and receive a Grievance hearing.
This new rule is what we’ve been fighting for since we arrived here because the old system was arbitrary and punitive and gave the webmasters powers which were illegal under the statute (per the statute, only the Board can issue suspensions from common areas of which the message board is a virtual common area).
This means no more violation notices from the webmasters. Arthur’s motion is a huge victory for the residents. You will no longer have other residents imposing discipline upon you. You will have all the rights afforded to you under the statute (720.305) as you should have had all the years you’ve lived here and the HOA message board was in existence.
Be still my heart.
Jeff actually consulted with Arthur about revising the Terms of Service with the pivotal change of removing disciplinary powers from the webmasters. We have been fighting for this since we arrived and experienced their arbitrary decisions and punitive wrath.
Is this the beginning of a crack in the Gang of Five? Time will tell. I want this very much for the community. Jeff took the lead on this, so I give him a lot of credit for that. If not for Jeff, this never would have happened. So, Jeff has earned some hefty good will points.
Other good will points are also in order: Richard, thank you very much for approving this as well. You did a great service to the community. The same goes for Sue. Harvey, since you are a webmaster, you did the ethical thing and recused yourself. Thank you very much for doing that on your own initiative.
The revised Terms of Service will be reviewed for grammar only and then will be placed in Rules & Regs (and presumably also on the HOA website).
The two Board members who voted against this important motion to bring the Terms of Service in compliance with Florida law were Pat Nast and Bob Dingee.
Believe it or not, Bob was hung up on grammar, or so he claimed, something that never bothered him before and for which he never provided any reference to the document to substantiate his claim. I reviewed the limited changes made to the document by Jeff and Arthur, and it is clear to me that this excuse is bogus and was a ruse.
And Pat, who didn’t give a reason why, also voted no. In fact, she was noticeably quiet for the entire meeting, and it was actually quite lovely, especially considering the fact that behind the scenes there were serious issues she created that caused other Board members unnecessary angst and stress (perhaps the subject for another time).
So, the final tally was as follows: For the motion: Arthur, Jeff, Richard, and Sue. Against the motion: Bob, Pat. Abstention (appropriately): Harvey.
Director Bob, who was on Zoom from his rural Connecticut home, was furious. The source of his anger was difficult to determine. Nobody could get that angry about grammar. Well, they shouldn’t anyway.
I mean, really, if you’re going to lose it over commas, tenses, and past participles, none of which actually appear problematic in the document, shouldn’t you at least articulate in proper English what the grammatical issues are?
And since when did Bob become a “Comma-Kazi?” At least if you’re going to go comma crazy, make it for something worthwhile.
Why would someone be angry about giving the residents their legal rights and remedies mandated by the statute? I don’t get it. But if he wants to be angry, no one really cares, and it just makes him look foolish, petty, and out of control, once again.
There was a lot of robust debate about this issue (and other issues during the meeting). I wouldn’t call it “meeting mayhem,” but it was a free-wheeling back and forth discussion where each Board member had a fair opportunity to debate the issue at hand.
While some people were disturbed by it, it pretty much tracked how legislative debates often go. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Honestly, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
What’s inherently wrong with a little raucous, healthy debate? Would you prefer Stepford Wife-like Board members? So what if it were exuberant? So what if it were boisterous? So what? You have your rambunctious debate, and then you go out together and grab a couple of beers at the local pub afterwards.
And it’s a heck of a lot better than backstabbing. At least this way, you’re face to face, dealing with the issues openly, rather than engaging in secret behind-the-scenes gossip, plotting, planning, character assassination, and other nefarious schemes.
And those are the things that actually cause the true divisiveness in the community, not the open and healthy debate. The Board is a political body. Robust debate is actually built into the equation of a political body.
There seems to be an inability or a refusal by some to acknowledge the fact that this is business, not personal, and that there must be a separation between business and personal in order for individual Board members to be able to act independently per their fiduciary obligations to all.
Most of the contentious issues didn’t involve money; they involved residents’ rights, and that’s equally as important. If there were some fireworks, that’s a heck of a lot better than shutting down debate. Zealous advocacy and passion are positive traits and should be lauded, not demeaned.
Remember Pat’s Rules of Order from last month? This is where each Director gets three minutes to speak and they go around the table and no one interrupts the speaker for three minutes except Harvey who gives you a 30-second warning, which itself is disruptive, and then you pass the microphone to the next person. How utterly gentile and proper.
And let’s not forget that these rules were promulgated under false pretenses where Pat falsely claimed they were necessary so that Arthur wouldn’t talk for 25 minutes or interrupt other Board members which she claimed he did at the Organizational Meeting.
This was flat-out false as he did none of the above, and the tape bears out that truth, as opposed to the false narrative that was circulated throughout the community pods.
In fact, he never talked for 25 minutes, maybe six minutes for four speeches total (one about Sue for president, one against Jeff for president, one about an open vote for officers, and one to open the office of secretary to the membership as stated in our governing documents).
And that total included constant interruptions, and he never interrupted anyone at that meeting; he was constantly interrupted by Harvey and the property manager’s boss repeatedly.
Manipulation of the facts will not be tolerated and will be called out. And this also created anger among people based on this false premise and these false statements. This caused the community divisiveness.
Well, anyway, Pat’s Rules of Order were out the window. What this latest Board meeting proved is that Pat’s Rules which the Board passed last month (with Sue and Arthur opposing them) are kaput, as they should be.
They’re not workable, not practical, not realistic, and probably best suited for show and tell for kindergarteners where they go around the room and each person shows what they brought, and when the egg timer’s sand is all depleted, you go to the next kid in the circle.
As an aside, true confession: when I was in kindergarten, for one show and tell I remember that I was in charge of the egg timer. One kid’s presentation was so fascinating to me that when the egg timer ran out, I just turned it over and restarted the time. So, yes, I broke the rules. I was five, people, so kindly don’t hold it against me.
Once again, during the Board meeting, Director Bob lost his cool. He had yet another meltdown and outburst at the meeting, venting in apparent frustration, “Jesus Christ!” during one of Arthur’s comments about dealing with the HOA attorney.
Recall that back on December 1, 2021, he had several inappropriate outbursts at that Board meeting, including one where he used profanity.
Meanwhile, back at the Dingee residence, even the deer surrounding Bob’s rural Connecticut property stopped in their tracks and turned around when they heard his verbal eruption, asking each other, “who dat?”
Anyway, a simple comment by a fellow Board member about who can contact the attorney is a reason to go bananas?
I don’t think the residents appreciated this uncontrolled ebullition. And some people don’t like hearing the Big Guy’s name in vain as it’s contrary to the Ten Commandments for those of the Christian faith who are commanded not to use His name in vain.
Bob, may I suggest the “JC” euphemism of “Jiminy Cricket” next time?
Also noteworthy, but not related specifically to these motions, at some point during the beginning of the meeting, Director Pat’s husband, Jon Nast, who was in the audience, apparently had some difficulty managing his own unsourced anger.
Mr. Nast suddenly yelled out a loud, nasty, and false comment toward Director Arthur. It’s unfortunate that Jon saw fit to embarrass himself so publicly.
Do Jon and Director Bob spend a lot of time together rehearsing this stuff?
In any case, I do want to give a “shout out” to Mr. Nast concerning his outburst and acknowledge that at least his grammar appeared to be correct.
Still another resident in the audience at the meeting then screamed directly at me for no apparent or ascertainable reason. I think he just didn’t like that I was there. That seems like a nice reason, doesn’t it? His grammar also appeared proper, so kudos to him as well.
Afterwards, some residents privately expressed their utter disgust at these various outbursts from these three men. But at one point during the meeting, I suggested to the presiding officer, “Jeff, control your crowd.” He did, and then it was relatively quiet, other than a few grumblings here and there.
And to the chagrin of that self-proclaimed grand grammarian, Director Bob Dingee, I simply say:
Ain’t democracy great?
III. Secretly Paying the Lawyer to Explain Plain English
Another motion on the agenda was the procedure for contacting the HOA lawyers. Jeff moved to allow communication with the HOA attorney to be by the president, vice-president, or property manager.
After much back and forth, he amended the motion to allow it after approval by a majority of the Board after consulting each Board member, i.e., if a majority voted to approve it.
Afterwards, they would get a written response from the lawyer. I believe that the contact person would inform the Board what the lawyer said while supposedly waiting for a written response from the lawyer.
There are a number of problems with this new rule.
1. This decision allows the president, vice-president, or property manager to contact the lawyer if a quorum of the Board approves such contact in advance. This is illegal because that is an illegal vote.
The Board cannot vote via email or any method other than at an open Board meeting. For this reason alone, this motion, which passed, blatantly violates 720.303 which is the open meeting law.
Florida statute 720.303 (2) (a) states:
“Members of the board of administration may use e-mail as a means of communication but may not cast a vote on an association matter via e-mail.”
That’s plain English, folks and you don’t need a legal opinion to understand it.
There was heated debate on this issue. Ultimately, it passed 5-1-1 with Arthur voting no and Sue abstaining for procedural reasons.
Arthur made the point that it’s against Florida statute 720.303 and had previously, on March 24, 2022, provided citations to support his position to the attorneys and all Board members. Not one other Board member nor the lawyers provided any contrary citations despite having had two months in which to do so.
2. Points made by Arthur and Sue included the fact that the lawyer represents the Association through the entire Board and that the lawyer has a fiduciary duty to the entire Board, not just one or two members thereof.
The lawyer has the fiduciary obligation to the Association to refuse to communicate with less than the entire Board unless the entire Board has notice of the intended communication and an opportunity to participate.
Statute 720.303 uses the phrase “meetings between the board and its attorney” in two separate places: in subsection (a) and in subsection (b). “The board” means the entire Board, not one or two designees.
3. Another problem with this motion which Sue raised, and which Arthur had in a speech he prepared but didn’t read, is that this motion allows for the incurrence of HOA debt (legal invoices) without any notice to the community.
That’s illegal and here’s why: as with any vendor, fiscal responsibilities apply, and the entire Board must decide on how HOA money is spent, such as incurring legal fees, and that cannot be delegated, and that has to be at an open meeting.
Why is this vendor different from any other vendor? Why not have the same rule for PBB invoices? Or RCI invoices? Or Fiddler on the Roof invoices? They are all vendors and each and every one of their proposals/invoices are subject to Board approval at an open Board meeting.
The only difference is that with this vendor, the lawyer, the statute allows for very limited private Board conversations with the lawyer concerning “pending litigation.” General legal advice is not “pending litigation.”
And yet the property manager contacted the lawyer before the Board meeting, as she stated in the meeting, thus incurring an HOA debt on a non-litigation matter outside of the open meeting law.
Presumably she did this at the president’s direction. She asked the lawyer for general legal advice on how to read a statute that is written in plain English. And some Board members found out about it when she suddenly announced it at the meeting.
That was a waste of money, because we can all read English (and Harvey regularly cites the statute at Board meetings and appears to be able to read it just fine, and no one challenges his ability to read plain English and understand it). Why is the HOA incurring legal debt for something we can all read in plain English?
Arthur made this argument and there was the predictable pushback. The counterargument made was that Arthur is not a licensed Florida lawyer, to which Arthur replied, “I’m not a vet, but I know what a dog is.”
Also, the way this motion was written, Jeff or Harvey or Deborah will talk to the lawyer and then tell the other Board members what the lawyer said. Really?
At that point, Arthur stated, “have you ever played telephone as kids?” The audience either laughed or snickered or both. But truly, he was right. Can you imagine how much information is lost or wrong in translation when the individual receiving the information has literally no legal training?
The motion was amended to read that if they received a majority vote, the president or vice-president or property manager could contact the lawyer. Again, this is illegal because you cannot vote via email or via any method other than at an open board meeting. And yet this motion passed.
Part V: The Troublesome Twosome
Many of you have referred to five of the Board members as the Gang of Five. I believe I may have coined that phrase for this group. Up until this Board meeting, that moniker was fitting in my opinion. I even found their old “wanted poster” which I share with you here:
Moving forward, however, it is fair to say that this gang may have been busted up, and that’s a good thing. Time will tell, but I’m hoping it’s true.
Arthur reports that the previously named Gang of Five has a nickname of their own for him and Sue: they call them “the Troublesome Twosome!” This is outstanding use of alliteration!
It reminds me of that similar expression we all know from being around some toddlers, i.e., the terrible twos. So, without further ado, I bring you Arthur and Sue, courtesy of the previously named Gang of Five:
Now if given a choice between being a gang, which is also what you call a band of outlaws, as opposed to being the sheriff’s posse with the law on their side, which would you choose? And certainly, the law might be construed as troublesome to Butch Cassidy and the Wild Bunch.
Or to Ma Barker and her sons.
No, that is not a photo of any of the Board members.
So, this nickname, the Troublesome Twosome, which was given to Sue and Arthur by the former Gang of Five, could actually be construed as a compliment. And Bob, note the placement of the commas in that last sentence. I think they’re right but please let me know if there’s an issue.
Now let’s move on to why we’re here. To all you wonderful residents and neighbors, thank you as always for your continued loyal readership. Here’s what happened at the Board meeting and my additional comments.
Board Meeting: Audio and Video Up and Running; live Board meeting and simultaneous Zoom meeting online started at 7:00pm.
Board Members Present: (in alphabetical order)
Arthur Andelson (Equal Board member) [Your Editor’s husband]
Bob Dingee (Equal Board member)
Jeff D. Green (Equal Board member)
Richard Greene (Equal Board member)
Harvey Ginsberg (Equal Board member)
Pat Nast (Equal Board member)
Sue Schmer (EqualBoard member)
[Editor’s note: I’m no longer indicating the officer positions because some Board members don’t understand that that does not confer upon them greater status and they don’t understand that all Board members are equal. Their officer duties are strictlyministerial and administrative in nature. As such, they’re not germane to anything relevant here.]
Call to Order: Jeff D. Green.
Pledge of Allegiance: led by Jeff D. Green.
Jeff: …I’m reaffirming what I said last time. Refrain from cheering, booing, applauding at any time… [Editor’s note: he tried, but they didn’t listen. Sometimes it was like being at the old Roman Coliseum with the crowds cheering and jeering from the amphitheater seats.]
First Residents’ Input Session:
If you have a question or comment, raise your hand please.
1.Barry Gordon:When did Painting become the Painting and Roofing Committee? [Editor’s note: Barry suggested hiring a painter and to pick a vendor. He said roofs were part of ARB, not painting.]
2. Marion Weil: the Grievance Committee, my husband signed up for the first time. He’s a certified mediator from the state of Florida… I’m a webmaster…no way will there ever be a conflict. We don’t read each other’s mail, emails…
3. Howard Olarsch: there used to be an agenda when you came in. What happened to them? Deborah: we email them. Jeff: we throw them away; no one uses them.
Approval of Minutes: April 20, 2022 Board meeting: Pat Nast
Pat: Motion to approve the Minutes of the April 20, 2022 Board meeting. Jeff: seconded by Richard.
[Editor’s note: Sue graciously emailed to me the sum and substance of her comments which appear below.]
Sue: The Minutes need to reflect what was actually said. The word “recommending” needs to be removed as we didn't recommend Nancy. As originally presented by Jeff was the sheet listing Alice Silver and J. Nemerow as co-chairs of the Welcoming Committee.
The Minutes need to state that after Jeff presented his list, a verbal motion was made by him and seconded to replace those names with Nancy Rowe. That passed by a vote of 5-2.
[Editor’s note: Arthur objected to Pat’s Rule #1 which wouldn’t necessarily give the residents notice of all agenda items before the meeting.
The Minutes were slightly amended to reflect the verbal motion removing Jeff’s original spreadsheet with two different co-chairs for the Welcoming & Caring Committee and replacing them with Nancy Rowe, and the final vote to approve the Minutes was 5-1-1 with Arthur opposing and Sue abstaining.]
Treasurer’s Report: Richard Greene
[Editor’s note: the report is self-explanatory and was provided with the notice of the meeting and the agenda. Sue moved to accept it; Jeff seconded the report, and it was approved unanimously.]
Property Manager’s Report:
Deborah: …mow…26th and 27th…
1. Facilities: …completed 20 toilets…ADA toilets installed…another project started… the front entrance… got four lanterns… stonework… looking at knee walls…
1. Landscaping: [Editor’s note: as always, Shelly Andreas was kind enough to email me her report for inclusion herein.]
Shelly: “Prior to the landscape committee meeting Barry, Debra, Rob (PBB) and myself met with William a landscape designer from PBB to view the military front fountain for his suggestions on revitalizing the landscaping in that area.
His recommendations for the area were received and the landscape committee met on Thursday May 5 to discuss and review the several options and to come to a decision on what we felt would be the best options for our community.
A decision was reached by all present and an email was sent to William so that he can proceed with the sketch.
Shelly and Barry co-chairs”
3. Entertainment: [Editor’s note: flyers of upcoming events to follow.]
4. Recreation: [Editor’s note: flyers of upcoming events to follow.]
5. Painting/Roof Committee or Painting and Roof Cleaning Committee:
[Editor’s note: this was listed on the agenda as Painting/Roofing Committee at which point certain sections of the ballroom exploded with some objections as detailed later in this report. The report of this committee, whatever it’s called, was read by Director/Liaison Sue, and she graciously emailed it to me for inclusion herein.]
Sue: “At its May 3,2022 meeting the following items were discussed and agreed to:
Before new paint palettes could be chosen, we need an answer from the BOD as to whether more neutral roof colors could be made available to those who are changing their roof in the future, whether flat tiles could also be used in addition to barrel tiles, and if roof tile staining might also be an option at the individual homeowner’s expense.
Garage doors and front entry doors should be painted in a contrasting color to each home as opposed to them all being painted white. There should be an option, at the individual homeowners’ expense, for the painting contractor to make available painting of rear patio fences and birdcage structures, as well as the framework of front entry screen enclosures.
The committee scheduled a meeting with UCI on Tuesday, May 17 to have this paint company answer questions regarding the use of their paint as opposed to Benjamin Moore, and to give the committee guidance on choosing paint palettes and insight as to how we might go about deciding which homes get which colors.
The committee will review the paint manufacturer proposals along with proposals from the 3 painting contractors, copies of which were given to all committee members.
The committee agreed that both the north and south walls and the center waterfall sections would benefit from contrasting paint in the areas where the tile work is and on both sides of the Cascade Lakes logo panels.
The liaison was asked to get Board permission to proceed with getting a painting quote from our current vendor RCI so the work can be done this summer.
The committee took a ride to view the various paint palette combinations at Pipers Glen Estates and at Lakeridge to see how the garage and front entry doors look painted in contrasting colors to the homes, as opposed to stark white.
It was unanimously agreed that contrasting colors are much nicer than all white throughout the community.
Mike Gentry – Chair on behalf of the committee”
Jeff: …Facilities Committee is also looking into painting, so there has to be a communication.
5. Welcoming & Caring:
[Editor’s note: Deborah read the report; based on the report, it was clear that there was no committee meeting.]
1. “In order to be in compliance with Florida Statute 720.303, Motion to rescind Rule #1 of Pat’s Rules of Order” aka “Review procedures for conducting Board meetings” -- Sue Schmer
[Editor’s note: the language of the name of this motion was changed, presumably by the Secretary, to read: “Review procedures for conducting Board meetings - Sue Schmer.” This was what was sent to the residents but not what was posted 48 hours before the meeting. What was posted was the first way it is stated above. Those are the facts, folks.]
Sue: Motion to Rescind Item #1 under Conducting Board Meetings as presented by Pat at the April 2022 meeting. This item under old business was listed because it was brought up at the last board meeting and is in violation of State law 720.303 regarding adding agenda items after the agenda has been sent to the membership.
It is also a disservice to the membership (and also to fellow board members) in that any additions do not give the residents sufficient lead time to formulate questions and comments.
Some of you may have noticed that the original agenda item under Old Business stated Review procedures for conducting Board meetings, while a newer, later and correct version conspicuously posted (as per State law) indicated exactly what I sent to Pat, our secretary, namely “In order to be in compliance with Florida Statute 720.303, Motion to rescind Rule #1 of Pat’s Rules of Order.”
When I noticed that my motion was changed, I immediately called Pat to ask why my wording was changed. Her response was that her wording was “more professional”. For the record I would like to cite the following:
1. It is perhaps illegal, and certainly improper and disrespectful for anyone to change any wording that another director puts on the agenda without prior consultation, especially when that change does not reflect the intent of the original item.
At no time did Pat indicate, either in written or verbal form, that there was a problem with my wording prior to the change being made. Among the responsibilities of the secretary in our bylaws is to “serve notice of the meetings of the board...” which includes the agenda items.
2. It is not within Secretary Pat’s purview to decide what is “professional” and to disparage the competency of another director in the process.
The reason why I wanted the wording exactly as I stated it was to give the residents more specificity and information as to exactly what the motion would be. This will increase the membership’s ability to effectively question and comment on the item under discussion. It also should be stated that a number of residents have referred to these procedures as Pat’s rules.
3. In a subsequent conversation with Pat in the property manager’s office yesterday, I gave my rationale for why item number 1 needed to be rescinded. It has nothing to do with the rest of the items listed under conducting board meetings, and if further revisions to these procedures need to be made as Pat intimated, my motion has nothing to do with that. Procedures that are contrary to State law cannot stand.
It should also be noted that I received an email from another director (not Arthur) prior to this conversation indicating agreement with my position that this rule is contrary to State law.
In order to be in compliance with Florida Statute 720.303, I make the following motion - Motion to rescind Rule #1 of Procedure for Conducting Board Meetings which states the following: “The agenda may be adjusted if deemed necessary by the Board, and any changes will be announced by the presiding officer during opening remarks.”
[Editor’s note: Sue moved to rescind Item #1 and Arthur seconded it. Deborah then stated she changed the wording and stated, “what I saw was not professional.” Sue then stated that Pat told her directly that she, Pat, changed it.
In any event, in my opinion this rule allows for adjustments to the agenda, which necessarily includes illegal add-ons, without the required minimum 48 notice so that residents can avail themselves of their statutory right to comment on agenda items and prepare their comments in advance.
Also, fellow Board members need to be able to adequately research and prepare their comments in advance as well.
My opinion is based on a simple reading of Florida Statute 720.303 (2)(b) which states in pertinent part:
“The right to attend such meetings includes the right to speak at such meetings with reference to all designated items.”
The words “designated items” refers to the agenda. What else could it possibly refer to, and if not the agenda, then what are those words doing there? Legislative bodies rarely if ever add surplusage to language in a statute.
The HOA attorneys seem to differ with my interpretation. They rely on subsection (c) of the statute which doesn’t apply because that section just allows for amendment to the By Laws at the Board’s discretion. It has nothing to do with what the Legislature requires in subsection (b).
There were fireworks. The motion failed. Sue and Arthur voted for it, Bob abstained, and the rest voted against it.]
1. Removal of Ficus near clubhouse parking / PBB - $4380 – Harvey Ginsberg
[Editor’s note: this is to remove 295 linear feet of ficus along Cascade Lakes Blvd. and around the fountain equipment. Motion by Harvey; Bob seconded; it passed 7-0.]
[Editor’s note: this is for white fly drenching, “applied as a root drench to provide systemic protection” according to the proposal. Motion by Harvey; Sue seconded; it passed 7-0.]
3. PBB Hurricane Pricing – Harvey Ginsberg
[Editor’s note: this is for common areas only and concerns pricing for clean-up due to future hurricane damage. Per the proposal, work is billed at $50 per hour per person (more than they were paying new admittees to the Bar in California; you could literally hire one for $25 an hour to do your legal grunt work).
Tree staking is $175/hour for a bobcat and 3-man crew. Also, 2x4 tree stakes are $8.25 each (usually two to three per tree); Black Wellington tape is charged at $16 per roll which does about 3 trees, and 2-foot rebar of ½ inch is charged at $3.50 each. Stump grinding is to be billed as follows: “$75 real small, $95 for small, $135 for large.”
Harvey made the motion, Bob seconded it, and it passed unanimously.]
4. Entertainment Contract – William Clare Entertainment – Richard Greene
[Editor’s note: this is for the talent (the performing artist) for an event on July 15, 2022; Richard made the motion; Bob seconded it, and it passed unanimously.]
5. BOD Meeting Recordings – Jeffrey Green
[Editor’s note: the Board voted unanimously to delete the recordings of the Board meetings from the HOA website after two months due to bandwidth space and liability issues per Jeff.
I understand the first reason; I don’t have clarity on the second as it was not explained. The motion was then amended to include the annual meeting recordings to remain up for one year. Jeff made the motion; Arthur seconded it, and it passed unanimously.]
6. Contacting the Attorney – Jeffrey Green
[Editor’s note: Jeff moved to have a new rule that states that the president, vice-president, or property manager can contact the attorney after approval by the Board. Much of this was covered in the Editor’s Opening Monologue and will not be rehashed here.]
Sue: “1. This is an illegal delegation of authority to only 2 bd. members and the property manager.
2. The lawyer works for the association which is represented by the entire Board and not just the President and Vice President. In fact, it is the legal responsibility of our attorneys to act in the interest of the association and not in the interest of any individual Board. member.
When all directors are not privy to what is being said, there is no certainty as to whether the conversation and/or the lawyer’s response is factually correct.
3. Based upon past experiences, when the President or Vice President unilaterally
contacted the attorneys, the association incurred unnecessary legal expenses without the knowledge of the other directors. This is contrary to the Board’s fiduciary responsibilities to the members. For these reasons, I oppose the motion.”
Sue noted that “you can’t take a vote of the majority of the Board without having an open meeting.”
[Editor’s note: that’s a true statement if there ever were one. Most of them were unphased by it. So, this motion that permits these individuals to contact the lawyer after they get four Board members to approve it is on its face illegal.]
Sue continued, “this is an improper delegation of authority.” [Editor’s note: that’s true, too.]
Editor’s note: Richard, a CPA and the HOA Treasurer, then talked about the HOA’s legal fees in general, not about anyone in particular.]
Richard: “My personal feeling is, I watch the finances very closely. I’m not so much concerned. The legal costs are less than .4% of our total budget. It’s more important that we do things correctly and we’re protected. We have to be protected from being sued legally. We have to depend on the lawyer.
If we go ahead and say something that’s illegal, we can get into a lot of trouble. It’s pound wise and penny foolish not to go ahead, I should say, penny wise and pound foolish, not to bring in the lawyer when there’s a dispute here. At least we can look at the lawyer and say, ‘he told us that.’ That’s why you have a lawyer, too, to protect your assets.
Anyway, it's going ahead and we’re making decisions by ourselves, and we don’t know need [have?] a Florida lawyer to inform us. This is a terrible thing to do and could get us into a lot of trouble. Don’t worry about the few pennies we’re spending on a lawyer.
We have to protect the assets of this community. This is ridiculous; we have other financial issues and we’re talking about spending a few dollars for a lawyer? I think that’s crazy.”
[Editor’s note: so, in fact, per Richard, a CPA and the Treasurer of the HOA, the legal bills are a de minimus part of the budget (so minor as to be disregarded or unconcerned about). In fact, on top of that, usually it’s Arthur and Sue who advise against going to the lawyer because it’s not necessary, especially when statutes are written in plain English.]
Harvey: “I agree with what Sue said. It has to be a noticed meeting. A noticed motion whenever the attorney is contacted…” Jeff: “I would let every Board member know, you come to me, you’d like to speak to the attorney, we poll the Board.” Harvey: “that’s making a decision, it has to be at a noticed Board meeting.”
[Editor’s note: Harvey, you’re correct, and you acknowledged it would be an illegal vote, so why did you vote to approve this motion?]
Arthur: the goal here is to make sure that all communication with the attorney is with all Board members. And so, if it’s a written or phone call, all Board members have to be involved in that communication. Not one Board member, or two Board members, has that right… All Board members have to be present in that communication either by written or by telephone…
But once we have a meeting with the attorney, if it’s not pending litigation, then it has to be in front of the community.
Jeff: there is not another community in the presidents’ club that has every Board member in attendance. That is something that the Board president, the vice-president, and the property manager do. Most of them don’t even consult the rest of the Board, and I’m saying we are going to consult the rest of the Board and let them know what we’re calling the attorney for…
We’re asking him for advice. Arthur: then put it in writing. Why can’t you get it in writing? It’s better in writing.
Jeff: I will contact every Board member and if four agree, then we will contact the attorney…Arthur: the Board members have to be involved…Jeff: no, we’re asking the attorney for advice…
Arthur: then put it in writing… Jeff: well, I don’t agree with you. Arthur: why can’t you get it in writing? “Here are our concerns’ … it’s better in writing because then we have documentation… writing would be good for all Board members…
Jeff: I said we’re going to contact every Board member before we call the attorney… if four of you agree, then we will contact the attorney, so we need a majority of us to even just contact the attorney… Arthur: it’s best to be in writing so that you have his writing back on the reason… no reason to call him, just put it in writing, here’s our concerns… no phone calls…
Deborah: it will take more time and be more expensive… Richard: it might need a call; you might need a follow up, because you might not understand his response… Jeff: I think that’s all right, because the whole Board knows what we’re calling him for, and he’s gonna give us, if we follow up, it’s on the same item, the same concept is there…
Arthur: I appreciate this, I think we’re getting closer, and so when he gives us something, then the Board members can go between themselves through email and talk about what we all have questions about, and go back to him, so we can all be on the same page on our concerns…
Richard: I agree in certain respects, but at least we’ll have one person speaking to him, and the president, he might not understand the question, so the president… will respond and then they’ll put the response in writing to all the Board people, and if we don’t, if we feel that the response we got was incomplete, then what we should do is let everybody know.
Arthur: well, have you ever played telephone as kids? You lose the transition [sic – translation]; that’s why we want to go through email. Richard: after we settle everything, we’ll get it in writing so there won’t be any confusion. I think it’s important to get it in writing.
Deborah: I called the attorney yesterday; the attorney returned my phone call. Today he asked me if I wanted to have it in writing; I said no, because that cost more money…Email, that’s different, so we have to be clear on this…
[Editor’s note: Deborah, you had no right to contact the lawyer, absolutely no right. You are not the 8th Board member and there was no vote to authorize you to do that.]
Harvey: we don’t want another Board member just calling the attorney or sending a letter to the attorney…billable hours… like, Arthur, if you want to talk to the attorney, you bring it to Deborah or Richard or myself [why?]and we bring it to the attorney.
[Editor’s note: Harvey, you’re all equal Board members, remember? Why are you telling another equal Board member to bring it to Richard, for example? I don’t understand that mindset. You’re all equal.]
But I do agree, that even though it’s gonna cost us money, …any advice or decisions, opinions… should be in writing because without it in writing you have no documentation to back it up…everything should be in writing… from the attorney…
Sue: I think the original motion that Jeff made needs to be amended… and Richard, the point is who can contact them, under what circumstances, and how it is done procedurally…
Jeff: “All right, I will modify my motion here a little bit. I make a motion to have all contact to the HOA attorney go through the Board president, vice-president, or property manager, with a majority of Board members agreeing after contacting each Board member with the reason for the call.” [He added one phrase at the end: “and a written response from the attorney.”]
Jeff, continuing: And I think that explains why we’re calling and getting approval from four Board members, and that should be enough. Let’s not make it too difficult, because it’s just crazy, so that’s my new motion; can I have a second? Richard: Second. …
Pat: …we should get a written recommendation from the attorney; you didn’t include that in your motion. Jeff: and a written Bob: reply. Jeff: written response. Bob: response. Jeff: from the attorney. Jeff: “and a written response from the attorney.” Richard: I’ll second that.
Arthur: can we add to it, can a question that all Board members agree to, that the questions that the majority of the Board members agree to, asking the attorney, should be part of that written response. Bob: JESUS CHRIST! Arthur: Thank you, Bob.
Bob: let it go, and vote on it. Act like an adult. [Editor’s note: look who’s calling the kettle black. The one with multiple temper tantrums at multiple Board meetings is the one instructing others to “act like an adult.” How rich is that.]
[Editor’s further note: Jeff then called the amended motion; it passed 5-1-1 with Arthur voting no and Sue abstaining for procedural reasons. Harvey flip-flopped; he first correctly noted that taking a vote to get a majority to agree had to be at an open meeting, because email voting is illegal, and yet he voted for this anyway.
For those of you curious, here is the sentence in 720.303 (2)(a) that says so, and you don’t need to be a lawyer to read and understand plain English:
“Members of the board of administration may use e-mail as a means of communication but may not cast a vote on an association matter via e-mail.”
Apparently, they just don’t care. Whether to contact the lawyer on an association matter is, by definition, and “association matter” that the statute clearly says cannot be voted on via email. And yet that’s what they just approved: a vote via email.]
7. Grievance Committee Members – Jeffrey Green
Jeff: 720 says we have to have a committee, not a group. Motion to accept as listed. Second: Pat. All in favor? Five. Opposed? None. Abstain? Two.
[Editor’s note: The group en masse was approved 5-0-2 with Arthur and Sue abstaining. The members are, in alphabetical order: Paul Friedlander, Gary Gerst, Arnie Green, Jane Krive, Eileen Olitsky, Saul Roth, and Walter Weil.]
8. Painting / Roofing Committee Mission Statement – Sue Schmer
[Editor’s note: this was another contentious matter. Apparently, the “painting / roofing committee” is actually the painting and roof cleaning committee, not a roofing committee. It was stated by the Facilities and ARB Chairs that residents’ roofing belongs to the territory of the Facilities Committee with a cross-over with the ARB Committee.
Apparently, this committee never had a mission statement, per Sue’s comments. Historically, based on the comments of some residents, roofing was not part of this committee’s purview; rather, it was roof cleaning that was part of their unwritten mission.
Sue moved to accept the Mission Statement, Arthur seconded it (without the benefit of knowledge of this historical but unwritten understanding), and then we had some more fireworks.
Shelly Andreas (ARB Chair) suggested that the Board read Section J of the HOA covenants because the ARB has jurisdiction.
After the meeting, I did; it’s on page 1-17. Shelly is correct. It does come under the purview of the ARB, although that doesn’t mean other committees cannot weigh in on matters also covered by the ARB and other committees.
Shelly stated, “any change in the exterior appearance… shall be deemed an alteration requiring approval of the ARB…” She also stated that on June 23, 2021, the Board voted that the ARB must approve colors for roofs.
Jeff stated, “keep the motion, write roof cleaning, strike out “common areas and roof replacement.” Sue stated she had no authority to do that and suggested that the motion be tabled and have it go back to the Committee.
Harvey said that the Board approves Mission Statements, and the Board has the authority to strike words. Sue said she didn’t want to usurp the Committee. Bob seconded Jeff’s amendment.
Arthur: “right now, the ARB is following the strict guidelines. The homes were designed from the 1980’s. We want to be more modern. It’s not the ARB; they’re taking directions from us.” Shelley Andreas, ARB Chair: “the ARB makes the guidelines and they approved it in 2021.” Both Arthur and Shelly are correct. The Board can overrule the ARB.
Jeff moved to change the mission statement, the Board approved it 5-1-1 with Sue voting no and Arthur abstaining. The Mission Statement is listed on the HOA website.
To be clear, up until this Board meeting, apparently this Committee never had a Mission Statement specifically clarifying its exact role, although I understand that historically it was assumed that the Committee covered painting and roof cleaning and it was apparently functioning with that unwritten assumption.
So, I don’t think it was akin to original sin to have labeled it as “Painting/Roofing Committee” before the Board voted on the exact language and what was included within this Committee’s purview, especially because this is apparently its inaugural Mission Statement. Now it’s clear.
One burning question remains: why did none of the Directors who voted for the amended version presented by Jeff say anything to Sue (or Arthur) the entire time it was in their Board packet for weeks prior to the meeting? Why was Sue sandbagged again?]
9. Options for Owners’ Roof Replacements – Sue Schmer
Sue: I’m the messenger, so people don’t kill me. I’m Liaison to Painting and Roofing.
Barbara Gordon, Facilities Chair [from the audience]: it was never painting and roofing!
Sue: “At its meeting on May 3, the painting committee agreed that before new paint palettes could be chosen, the Board needs to decide from this date forward, if more neutral roof colors could be made available to those who are changing their roof in the future.
Additionally, there was discussion as to whether the Board was amenable to flat tiles being used in addition to barrel tiles in the future and if roof tile staining might also be an option, at the individual homeowners’ expense.
The rationale for having this considered now is that house painting will be done in 4 years and many homeowners are replacing their roofs now. Having more options as to roof colors as they are being replaced will give the owners more flexibility in choosing colors from a new color palette in 4 years.
Therefore, on behalf of the committee I open the floor to discussion of this matter.”
[Editor’s note: Jeff said it was an ARB area and he didn’t want to see flat roof tiles next door where everyone else has the other, that he didn’t care about the staining, and then there was some discussion about neutral colors. Bob stated it was part of ARB’s charter and Harvey agreed.
Sue stated that no one is usurping the ARB’s role and that she was just asking the Board to consider more options. Jeff stated she was putting the cart before the horse, although he didn’t explain why. An audience member shouted, “no flat roofs!” and Sue stated it was just to get information.
Arthur then asked to hear from Shelly, ARB Chair. Shelley said that about 60 people have already had new roofs installed and they didn’t have a choice of color. At that point, the discussion was essentially over.]
10. Request for Proposal - contrast paint on front gate entrance area – Sue Schmer
[Editor’s note: this was a motion to allow the Painting Committee to get a quote from the vendor for contrasting paint at the front entrance so that it would “pop.” The committee doesn’t want to waste its and the vendor’s time if the Board is not going to even consider it.]
Sue: At the May 3rd meeting of the Painting and Roofing committee it was agreed that the front entry areas would benefit from some contrasting paint to make the entrance “pop.”
Pursuant to that end, and to be certain that any project undertaken by the committee would not be in vain, on behalf of the committee I propose the following:
Motion – That the Board give permission to have the Painting Committee get a painting quote from our current painting vendor, RCI, for work to be completed this summer as to the following: contrasting paint for the north and south walls and the center waterfall sections where the tile work is, and on both sides of the Cascade Lakes logo panels. Arthur: Second.
[Editor’s note: Richard said that the Facilities Committee should handle this and that this was “ridiculous.” He said they have to work together, and that this committee should have called both the Facilities and ARB Committees.
Then there was clapping from the audience. Jeff told them to be quiet.
Jeff said the Long-Term Planning Committee should also be given the courtesy. He suggested that Sue drop the motion because “it probably won’t pass” and that the Painting Chair should talk to the Facilities and Long-Term Planning Chairs.]
Sue:I take back the motion.
11. Motion to Revise Website Terms of Service– Arthur Andelson
[Editor’s note: This was covered in the Editor’s Opening Monologue. The debate was rigorous. Arthur moved to bring the website Terms of Service in compliance with Florida Statute 720.305 which mandates that fines and suspensions are the exclusive purview of the Board.
As stated in the Editor’s Opening Monologue, webmasters may no longer discipline you; they may only remove your message board post and refer the matter to the Board, after which you have a right to demand a Grievance Committee hearing if the Board issues you a violation or suspension.
Arthur explained that it needed to be in Rules & Regs so that the Board had jurisdiction over the matter. Bob said he was in favor of the “intent” of the motion, but he was hung up on the grammar for reasons known only to him. Jeff wanted to approve it and then turn it over to Rules & Regs for grammar review only.
Marion, the Chair of Rules & Regs and a webmistress, took the podium unannounced and appeared to be troubled by it (troubled not by the podium but by this motion). Mike Blackman, another webmaster, also wasn’t happy about it. Sue reminded them that this has to do with who can impose a violation and where this revised version should go.
Marion was concerned that there would be weeks or months before a violation would be approved or disapproved; Jeff corrected her and told her that it could be 48 hours’ notice; they call a Board meeting, they have that one item, and it’s done. Jeff is 100% correct.
Webmasters may not issue any warning notices at all. They are to send a note to the resident whose post they removed that they removed it and referred it to the Board. That’s it. Arthur explained it has to be put in Rules & Regs so that the Board has jurisdiction to handle the matter.
Jeff suggested the motion be amended to include giving it to Rules & Regs to review for grammar only, and Arthur agreed to that amendment.]
Jeff: “will send to Rules & Regs to work on the changes with Pat and Arthur…” Sue: “once the Board accepts it, it’s final. The only thing Rules & Regs can do is fix the grammar, not the language. No content can be changed.” Bob: “it should not go to a vote. Give it to a joint committee, Rules & Regs and the web people.” [Bob, the “web people” are not a committee.]
Jeff: “certain things really can’t be changed.” Sue: “motion to accept Arthur’s proposal and send to Rules & Regs…for grammar. Arthur will write the motion with you [Jeff].” Jeff: All in favor? Four. Opposed? Two.
[Editor’s note: The Board passed the motion and voted to give the document to the Rules & Regs Committee to review for grammar only. This passed 4-2-1: For the motion: Arthur, Jeff, Richard, and Sue. Against the motion: Pat, Bob. Abstention: Harvey properly recused himself because he is a webmaster.]
12. Website Terms of Service – Harvey Ginsberg
[Editor’s note: Since Arthur’s motion passed, Harvey’s motion became moot, and he correctly took it off calendar.]
Second Residents’ Input Session:
1. Barbara Gordon: [Editor’s note: this resident was not happy about the sudden name change of the painting and roof cleaning committee whereby the word “cleaning” was left off after the word “roof.”
As stated previously, there apparently was never a mission statement clarifying this although historically this committee was, I am told, in charge of painting and roof cleaning.]
2. Larry Jacobowitz: [Editor’s note: this resident stated that during the meeting there were no questions by the Board about the monetary expenditures and instead there was more focus on “this other stuff, yelling and screaming about nonsense, the question is, is it worded right, is it not worded right… that’s ridiculous…you’re running a four-million-dollar business.”
Respectfully, I wouldn’t characterize it as “yelling and screaming” and “this other stuff” is not nonsense and is equally as important because it effects residents’ legal rights and remedies. And words matter. If they didn’t, you wouldn’t need a lawyer.
The purpose of spending the time on the non-monetary issues is to make sure that the procedures that are followed are proper and that they give the residents the legal rights and remedies to which they are entitled.
As for not having questions about money, as an example, there really isn’t much to say about white fly disease and the need to spray to reduce its damage.]
Jeff: thank you for your comment.
3. Shelly Andreas: What I would like to see… that whatever committees were involved in an area, that they would get together, come up with a plan, and then recommend it to the Board. Whatever happened to that? And … the snarkiness, the fighting between you people; you’re here for one reason…
The Board’s main concern, not their egos, not what they think is right or wrong, that they are for one reason only, for the wealth and the happiness and keeping our community. It’s for the community.
And that’s what you should be working on, and Larry’s right: you spent all that time on this word, that word, and 33 seconds on what was the most important thing.
[Editor’s note: words matter and it’s all important. The financial decisions on ficus removal, white fly reduction, and hurricane clean-up were all landscaping related and presumably vetted already by the landscaping committee, of which Shelly and Barry Gordon lead, and which I believe they are doing a great job.
What other questions do you believe should have been asked that were not? I’m asking because I really want to know.]
4. Barry Gordon: I totally agree with Larry and Shelly; you’re running a four-million-dollar business…Chairs should meet once a month like it used to be.
3. Diane Green: [Editor’s note: This resident also complained about the length of the meeting and stated, “it’s very disrespectful to everyone’s time. I thank you all for everything you do; it’s a lot of work.”]
4. Eileen Olitsky: [Editor's note: Eileen graciously emailed me her written remarks.]
"First off, I'd like to thank Larry and Shelly for their recent statements. They reflect my following statement which was prepared while watching this meeting. It is as follows:
1) As a previous board member and a resident, parts of this meeting have been painful for me to watch; 2) In my opinion the board has been argumentative, often times disrespectful, petty, and as Bob stated, wasting time; 3) I wish that each board member would remember that they are working and conducting business for the community rather than here for themselves; 4) Regarding the Grievance Committee, where are the members listed.”
[Eileen then added to her written remarks her concluding comments made off the cuff:]
Eileen: “Finally, I know you all have great intentions. You get caught up in the minutiae… you are wasting your time and our time.”
[Editor’s note: I and a number of residents disagree about Eileen’s and others’ displeasure with what is termed “argumentative;” there is nothing wrong with robust debate and actually, it’s healthy, although I do agree that the disrespect, which is constantly aimed at Sue and Arthur, is palpable and disgraceful.
For example, once again, Bob’s apparently uncontrollable outburst was completely out of line.
Having said that, I do believe it would be better if some Board members had discussed some of their concerns with their fellow Board members in the several weeks prior to the meeting when they had ample opportunity to do so, rather than to spring their concerns on other Board members for the first time at the Board meeting.]
Round Table Discussion:
Richard: everything that we’ve approved so far has been included the budget and was budgeted for in our 2022 budget in case anyone’s worried about the money.
Harvey: …we need to stop with the snarkiness and the disrespectfulness amongst ourselves. We’ve got to get along; we can agree to disagree, but not be disagreeable.
And that’s not what’s happening, and it makes us look bad… we need to stop, we need to get organized, and continue to do what’s best for the community, and even if you don’t agree with something, you know, we have to stop with the personal insults. [Editor’s note: I guess he was referring to Bob.]
[Editor’s further note: no other Board member wished to comment.]
Jeff: Motion to adjourn? Bob. Second: Arthur. [Editor’s note: there was no vote, but no one cared, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:17pm.]
[Editor’s note: A big shout-out to the tech people that make it possible to hear the Board meeting and to watch online for those not in attendance in person: Mike Blackman, Mike Deckinger, Arnie Green, Jeff F. Green (a different JG), and Anita Goodman. We thank them for their continued service and volunteerism.]
And so concludes the Board meeting of May 18, 2022; next meeting: June 15, 2022 at 9:30am.
Thought for the Day:
Sometimes perception and reality are at odds with each other.
(Greatest dog costume ever?)
1. Don’t forget to join the community on the Cascade Lakes Boynton Beach Facebook Page, a place where you can interact and communicate! Click here:
As many of you know, Arthur and I have been taking care of my elderly parents around the clock. It’s not just a full-time job; it’s actually much more than a full-time job, and naturally, it’s getting more labor intensive as time moves forward. And truth be told, I’m utterly exhausted.
That being said, I need to prioritize my time and step away from nonessential things that take huge chunks of time which I just don’t have.
So, while I know most of you will greatly miss my synopses and commentaries, I hope you understand that I have to put family first.
Thank you so much for all your support, which I appreciate more than you know.
Instead, I will present from time to time what I call “CL-Updates” which is short for Cascade Lakes Updates and is pronounced “clupdates” for short. It will be a lot less time consuming.
So those of you who like to break the rules and whose mindset is “while the cat’s away, the mice will play” might want to think twice about what you do going forward.