South Board of Directors Is a Victim. Of Everybody Else.
December 20, 2010
The poor South board of directors. Everybody else made mistakes, everybody else tries to "injure" them, everybody else is wrong, the Court is wrong, the homeowners are wrong, the Web site is wrong. The management company made an error in the form, the management company didn't send out the communication, the management company didn't do the billing right, BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Anyone else see a pattern here?
Hey Board — It's really difficult to believe that everyone else is wrong and that everyone else makes mistakes when you, the board members — Barbara Finnegan, Jim Newell, Jane Fraser, Sylvia Morrison, and Lynn Hanlon — make none. YOU originally denied the vote to occur. YOU denied it, not the Court, not the pesky petitioners, not the non-homeowners, not the management company, not the Secretary of State, not the Web site. YOU DID.
Your failure to take accountability for ANY of your own actions is appalling. Blaming everyone else for everything is not a sign of leadership but of a childish mentality. And now, in what should have been a humbling moment for you, you documented your uncooperative, arrogant attitude for all to see, giving a gift to any homeowner who wishes to file any future small claims court or superior court action against you that you are always right and they, and the courts, are always wrong.
Page 1 of the Propaganda: Let's Review
1"When the Association did not (in those members' view) timely respond......"
Well, what is considered a "timely" response" The board of directors received a petition March 21, 2010. The board sent their reply on June 23 dated May 23. Is that a timely response? 90 days later?
2 "Meanwhile, once the Association was able to take action, prepared and delivered the mailing materials."
Really? Does the board have a collective short-term memory problem? Let's review.
1. The 1st small claims case filed on July 23, 2010.
2. The Association status was revived on August 18.
3. The Association held an Executive Session meeting on August 23, 2010. Homeowners were not welcomed.
4. The 2nd small claims case filed on September 7, 2010.
5. The Association sent out voting materials on October 5.
You had the petition for 6 months before you sent the voting materials, after denying that it would be done.
3 "The vote came nowhere near the 67 votes needed...."
- 25 members voted yes = 41% of those who voted.
- 35 members voted no = 59% of those who voted.
- 40 members did not vote.
It's hardly the small, troublesome group the board makes it out to be. There are a significant number of homeowners who believe the earthquake insurance is a waste of money. Imagine what would happen if this issue was up for discussion at an annual meeting.
4 "Without providing any basis for its decision...."
Do they usually? Again, it's not Superior Court like you keep reminding everybody.
5 "The website that is bent on damaging..." and "non-homeowner is on a mission to injure the Association."
There's that victim mentality again: what is inaccurate? What is incredible? And what have you done about it? Where are your letters requesting a correction? Where is your lawsuit on libel or defamation?
While you may not appreciate the journalistic endeavors of those who write on this web site, your statements that information is posted "without regard to whether information is accurate or credible" is bullshit. We make great efforts to backup all statements with documents — many of which this board of directors has written. While you may not like or agree with the commentary, the publishing and commentary of facts, including unpleasant facts, is not the same as it being inaccurate or incredible, as much as you obviously and desperately wish that it were. In fact, you tried to do something about it and it went nowhere when your Berding & Weil attorneys could not find anything to sue about. So give it a rest. You look like whiny children.
6 "In 2008, at the request of a few petitioning members...."
That petition met the the minimum requirement. The bylaws say 5%, the homeowners had 5%. Your choice of words of "a few" is designed to minimize their importance. The homeowners followed the bylaws.
Why does Association insist on belittling those with a different opinion? Because they don't follow you in goose step?
7"...Fell far short"
The final tally was 38 in favor, 32 against.8No evidence that the membership had changed its mind......
The petition was evidence that some people had changed their minds. Denying its existence didn't serve you well.
Page 2 of the Propaganda: Let's Review Some More
9"But at least one notice that the board advised management to send was not ......
There you go again, blaming everyone else. EVEN if that is true, not one of you board members has a computer and a postage stamp to send a letter? And perhaps more importantly, you never said that in Court or in your (Berding & Weil-written) brief.
10"It was even argued that the Association had a duty to mail out the suing members' personal viewpoints on the amendment, at the Association 's sole expense, a position that no statute supports."
Here's what California Civil Code says:1363.03. (a) An association shall adopt rules, in accordance with the procedures prescribed by Article 4 (commencing with Section 1357.100) of Chapter 2, that do all of the following:
(1) Ensure that if any candidate or member advocating a point of view is provided access to association media, newsletters, or Internet Web sites during a campaign, for purposes that are reasonably related to that election, equal access shall be provided to all candidates and members advocating a point of view, including those not endorsed by the board, for purposes that are reasonably related to the election. The association shall not edit or redact any content from these communications, but may include a statement specifying that the candidate or member, and not the association, is responsible for that content.
1363.09.(c) A cause of action under Section 1363.03 with respect to access to association resources by a candidate or member advocating a point of view, the receipt of a ballot by a member, or the counting, tabulation, or reporting of, or access to, ballots for inspection and review after tabulation may be brought in small claims court if the amount of the demand does not exceed the jurisdiction of that court.
Edgewater Isle South Association failed to inform the petitioners that the Association would hold an election on the matter,and that denied them (the petitioners) equal access. The judge agreed. You lost. Get over it and move on. (And seriously Board, you really want to be known as a group that does not allow any opposing opinion?)
11 "It decided to conduct the vote as the best way to show that the membership had not changed its mind about earthquake insurance."
No. The mailing you created, without notifying the petitioners, that contained your statement "The board of directors does not recommend this," while failing to provide the proponents equal access to the members. It was never a level playing field, which is why you lost.
12 "The Board appeared in small claims court to defend the Association."
No, the Board appeared in small claims court to hand in the "brief" written by Berding & Weil attorney Sandra Bonato.
13"The small claims court, ignoring the law ..., did what ... courts sometimes do, and did not rule in the Association's favor."
If you knew the risk why did you take it? Why didn't you, even once, try to communicate with or settle the dispute with the parties before it went to court?
14"Most unfortunately, the commissioner did not explain her ruling."
Do they usually?
15"The board firmly believes the Court ruled in error."
Of course you do.
Those who fail to learn from
history are doomed to repeat
it.
Sir Winston Churchill
16"Although the Superior Court was and is the only proper court to hear this matter, the cost to appeal could exceed the cost of the judgments."
Again, you knew that before you went to court and decided to run head-first into the wall. And then you're surprised that you're injured.
17"The Association has already incurred more than $10,000 in fees and costs."
Yes, well, this is because of your breach of your fiduciary duty to guard the treasury of the Association. You have been ruthless in pursing your arrogance-fueled agenda at the expense of the homeowners.
And if you admit to $10,000, it's probably closer to $15,000.
18"...at no time will it ever concede that these two members were entitled to anything."
Your arrogance is unlimited. As is your mistaken belief in your collective intellect.
19"We believe our best decision is to invest in the future."
Platitude. Meaningless and hollow. You should have invested in the present and not wasted funds defending your pride.
Now What?
The homeowners would be well-served to find replacements for this board of directors.
Contact