June 24, 2010
Dear Seascape Sur Home Owner:
Like many of you, I am a non-resident owner at Seascape Sur facing an important decision on whether to recall the board of directors. I have read and heard a large number of allegations, accusations and arguments, and like other HOA members have wondered what is really going on and how I should reach a decision.
I purchased property in Seascape Sur for two important reasons: the quality of the property and the quality of life there. Both reasons are important to me for the time I spend there and the substantial financial investment my units represent. In the 10 years I have owned property and spent time at Seascape Sur, I have seen during the last several years a marked decline in the quality of the property and the quality of life because of the actions of the current board of directors. This decline is sufficiently significant that I have decided to vote for a recall, and write this letter to explain my reasons and to encourage your vote for recall to allow election of a new board.
You should know first that I do not have any personal issues with anyone on the board, and generally appreciate their willingness to volunteer time in a position that is often a thankless job. Fortunately, I have not been personally involved in any of the many reported instances that have led to emotional finger pointing, heated words, lawyer consultations, threatened lawsuits, censure votes, anonymous emails, etc. My support of the board recall is based solely the manner in which this board has made decisions and the current effects and future risks from the way this board governs.
The manner in which the board has conducted business and directed policy for Seascape Sur over time is very concerning to the point that I believe the homeowners should now bring in a new team for a fresh start. I have expressed my concern about the manner in which this board governs and related issues repeatedly for some years at the annual meetings, but have seen the situation in the complex only grow worse over time.
Here are some of my general concerns and examples of my reasons for supporting the
recall.
Unwillingness to Provide Information and Lack of Transparency in Decision Making.
This board generally has an established practice of communicating on important matters only to a minimal and inadequate extent. For example, we typically receive only brief and incomplete communications with ballots about significant issues (e.g. the electrical problem assessment and earthquake insurance) and never get any follow up information on developments, status and results. A simple executive summary of board issue discussions and decisions
1
emailed monthly or posted on a website is not too much to ask for homeowners whose investment in Seascape Sur is $1 Million on average. Many of us have asked for such information to be available for years, and this board continuingly fails to provide such information on a readily accessible and updated basis.
For years I have been asking the board at annual meeting to provide board meeting minutes and other relevant information to homeowners through email communications and more recently through a website. These communications are particularly critical for nonresident owners, especially in situations where a great deal of incomplete and inaccurate information is circulating on important issues. After years of requesting use this basic business communications tool, I still must ask for board meetings minutes on a monthly basis, I receive online only the "Tidings" information limited to landscape matters, and there is no website for the dissemination of infonnation and communication with homeowners as promised in the last annual meeting.
The annual HOA general meetings are not conducted in a businesslike manner, and have deteriorated to out of control "complaint sessions" that are a waste of time to most members in attendance. In my earlier years as a homeowner, we received at annual meetings a relatively comprehensive report on all important issues affecting the complex, e.g. reports on finances, integrity of the buildings and the bluff, planning and spending priorities, security, state and local government issues that affected the complex, and the like. They were worth the trouble of attending. By contrast, the most recent meeting was devoted almost entirely to homeowner complaints in which each individual was given a strictly enforced insufficient three minute period to address issues. If information on important issues came out, it was mostly in response to questions. If Robert's Rules of Order were followed, as required by the CCRs, it was an exception rather than standard procedure.
"Ready! Fire! Aim!" Approach to Decision Making.
One of my greatest concerns about this board is its apparent "Ready! Fire! Aim!" approach to decision making on significant issues. Here are three important examples.
The assessment of homeowners for the repair of the electrical connection boxes is a classic example. We received an announcement of the problem with a ballot for a vote on an assessment. The "sky is falling" tone of the communication was concerning but the facts and financial aspects of the problem were vague and incomplete. I had to spend 45 minutes on the phone with Bob Ellis to get the additional information necessary for understanding the issue and making an informed vote on the assessment. The logical and the prudent approach would have been 1) to identify the nature and extent of the problem, 2) to initially warn the homeowners of the serious problem, 3) to determine a solution with a budget and timeline, 4) to determine whether the project should be funded from the reserve fund that could be replenished over time, or by an immediate dedicated assessment, 5) to provide the homeowners with a more detailed
2
briefing and propose a ballot decision or options to the homeowners, and 6) to provide a final status report on the problem's solution and costs.
In this case, the homeowners were hastily assessed without the board knowing the full nature and extent of the problem, what the solution was, or what the timing and cost of the solution would be. As a result, $470,000 were assessed without knowing whether that was an appropriate and adequate amount, and then the funds were held without being used for over 18 months (during the recession when having these funds probably would be useful to most homeowners). We still have never received a final status or budget report on the project that was so important that we had to have an expedited ballot vote and assessment. Did the board estimate the assessment cost perfectly, or to what other purpose has that money gone? The fact that we don't know what has happened and when and for how much on a problem that was so critical we had to have a rushed assessment vote, is indicative of the unacceptable mariner in which this board operates.
Another example is the long promised "Master Plan." With the aging of the complex, such a project and document is critical to planning and budgeting for the HOA and its members. I have seen different descriptions of what is intended for the Master Plan; some were for a broad range of significant issues, some focused principally on landscaping. We haven't been informed of when or how the board intends to take on this critical process and project. Instead we learn on an ad hoc basis what is and is not covered by the Master Plan from piecemeal decisions.
Here is my recent email to a board member on this problem:
"I am writing after reading the last two Tidings to express my disagreement with the approach being taken on planning for landscaping of the entrance to the complex and the bluff
Your report indicated that these areas do not need to fall within the long awaited and delayed Master Plan. However, they are signature areas in the complex that are critical to the establishment of the overall tone and tenor of the complex as determined by the landscaping. A Master Plan without including the entrance and the bluff would be more of a "Minor Plan" it seems. Consequently they belong in a Master Plan and should go through that process."
A Master Plan is needed, it has been promised, nothing has been forthcoming, and the absence of the Master Plan appears to have given the board license to make short term decisions that may be inconsistent with long term interests and plans. Given this board's approach to issues and communication, it is not the best board to be further responsible for a Master Plan.
The most recent example of "Ready! Fire! Aim!" is the handling of Earthquake insurance. We received a straw ballot to seek homeowner's guidance on whether we should
3
adopt a stop loss policy. Then we later received a ballot that proposes an amendment to the CCRs that gives the board the authority to have a stop loss policy. In essence, the board asked for guidance to do something before they had authority under the CCRs to do it.
Then I read the fine print of the proposed amendment and found that there is significantly more to the amendment than is covered in the board's description. The purpose of the amendment was described as "to remove some ambiguous terminology and clarify areas that were open to interpretation." However, the board amendment specifically requires each homeowner to obtain insurance to cover loss assessments by the HOA (Section 5 (a)(1)(a)). In short, the board proposes an additional insurance requirement on each homeowner, apparently expecting us to learn about it only by reading the fine print. That insurance requirement may be appropriate, but this notice is not the way a board should handle CCR amendments and certainly not the way to inform homeowners of new financial insurance requirements. (There are other problems with the amendment wording that I won't bore you with here.)
I learned further, having had to make additional inquiries to just understand what is going on so I can make an informed vote, that the HOA must renew its insurance by July 13th. Yet the ballots authorizing the board to adopt stop loss earthquake insurance do not have to be returned until July 15th. If the information given to me on this is accurate, the board's handling of this matter does not appear to be a businesslike approach to an important issue.
The "Ready! Fire! Aim!" approach of this board is not an acceptable way to handle substantial risks or to protect and advance the interests of the HOA.
Disrepectful Treatment of People and Home Owners.
Because I generally enjoy the people I have met at Seascape Sur, I am particularly disappointed in the rudeness and inconsiderate conduct of members of this board towards homeowners and employees that has resulted in an atmosphere of pervasive rancor, acrimony and distrust among neighbors and colleagues.
It has become so bad that the Board passed on April 22, 2010 a new $250 fine for Physical or Verbal harassment of board members, employees or volunteers. I wonder, did a significant number of homeowners and residents undergo recent personality changes making them inclined to physical and verbal harassment?
It has become so bad that one board member felt the need to seek the advice of legal counsel to express concern over board actions. The board then voted to censure that individual for essentially following the advice of counsel.
I will not speak to claims of preferential or discriminatory treatment of homeowners by the board since I don't have personal knowledge of any incident, but it concerns me that under this board there are so many more strong and continuing complaints than with past boards.
4
However, I was present at the last Annual Meeting and was truly embarrassed and genuinely disappointed by the abrupt and impolite manner in which homeowners were treated by board members when individuals asked questions or spoke on issues. The manner in which well intentioned and polite statements and questions were handled was rude and uncalled for in my opinion. Most of the members of the present board do not have the thick skin and diplomatic skills necessary to be effective board members.
I admit to being a fan of Bob Ellis as property manager. No one in that job is perfect and can make everyone happy, but he knows how to do the job, works well with the employees and homeowners, and has done a multifaceted and difficult job well. With the several managers we have had during the 10 years I have been at Seascape Sur, the property has not been better managed nor the homeowners better served than under his supervision. Yet I have found the board's treatment of Bob to be unfair and inappropriate, and their micromanagement of his responsibilities to be unconstructive. This board does not understand that their job is to establish policy and provide oversight, not to micromanage the property. Bob has put up with more than he should under this board (to the point of seeking legal counsel), and I fear we will lose him if the board is not recalled.
Finally, I was disappointed at the manner in which the long time gardener employees were terminated. They were loyal, dependable, hard working and friends to many of us. It is my personal opinion that the appearance of the grounds has not improved as a result of the change to the outside contract gardening service, and that the purported cost savings did not justify the change. Regardless, our gardeners deserved better than the treatment they received. The homeowners at Seascape Sur are better people than that. Our board's handling of this matter did not reflect well on any of us as members of a community.
For these principal reasons as well as others, I have had to conclude that Seascape Sur is not getting better under this board's approach to issues and people. The present board has outlived its effectiveness. I encourage you to vote for recall to create the chance for a new team to take a different approach, to protect our interests in a businesslike and prudent manner, and to restore the tone, tenor and beauty that made us all want to join our special little community on the bluff
Sincerely
Joe R. Junker units 90 & 87
5
No comments:
Post a Comment