As always, listen to the tape of the meeting to verify for yourself. I attended the meeting, and have provided the following information to the best of my ability. Comments, will be noted as such.
There were two areas of interest, that our board omitted updating us about.
1) It has been 6 months since our board voted on the settlement of the case regarding the canal lot owner, who refused to pay his/her $5,000 assessment for the dredging. Again this month, there was no update. Why?
2) There wasn't an update on the gatehouse. Months ago, McMillin received board approval for the gutters. Your board, also determined, that volunteers would complete the gatehouse project. This month, McMillin mentioned moving on the gutters soon, but failed to inform the membership about the work that had been done. MOLDY dry wall had been removed, placed in a trailer near the gatehouse, and it could be assumed disposed of. Why didn't the board bring us up to date?
COMMENTS:
Most of this board (We only have one new face, after the November election.), has operated on "we'll tell when we want to, if ever, and what we want to". They tend to call their failure to discuss, but unanimously vote, cohesive. These two items, are just more added to a long list, of failure behind the scenes, with projects, cover up, and no information, or lack of clarity (if ever), when pushed by questions. Right now, we have no one on the board who appears willing to question at the table, and bring information out that way - almost forced provision of information, so we are left in the dark.
You might ask, how important can the gatehouse be? It is important because we have a right to open, according to the governing documents, state law (introduced in 2010, and by DeMarchi, regarding record review and copies), and just plain good business operation. After reading and reporting, what a professional contractor said about the gatehouse, "Removal of dry wall and floor coverings. (This will be done by a mold remediation company due to the severity of MOLDS that are growing so this will take care of Gate House Proposal # 1-2 as well." He ends with, "This is a good faith estimate for work described in the bid proposal as well as extras. highly advise to be done." He goes on in another area to say, "Anything with a asterisk is highly advised extras to prevent this problem from happening in the future. Due to the fact the building was built with no extra plywood an water barrier there are no guarantees the elastic membrane and vapor barrier are highly recommended to take the place of the plywood an water barrier to prevent water coming in that penetrates the brick." , a prudent person, would have to believe, that your board made poor decisions, regarding volunteers doing the work, in place of professionals. Additionally, it could appear that they moved forward, without the assurance that the volunteers would be properly protected under the WPA insurance, if harm came to any of them. It also appears that they could be covering - not reporting, to keep it off the tape and record.
As far as the canal lawsuit settlement, that has been dragged out, handled by poor lawyer selection by this board (One of them was disbarred during the case.), and what could appear as an attempt by our Legal Chair, to call it anything, but a settlement. When your board has to vote on the terms, IT IS A SETTLEMENT. Just maybe, if they stay silent long enough, you will forget to ask, and find out exactly what it has cost all of us, while our Legal Chair twists and churns information, from his board seat, and your board sits by, and nods, and votes approval.
Think that is harsh? Think again. At one point toward the close of the March meeting, regarding a concern, McMillin says, "we can do what I did to Great Lawns", and another board member says, "don't go there". That's just the way they operate!
