June 25, 2010
Dear Seascape Sur Homeowner:
I sent to you on June 24, 2010 a letter about the concerns I have in connection with the current board and the recall vote, and then coincidentally received Dan McCullough's letter on the subject that evening when I got home. Because Dan's letter directly addressed some of the matters raised in my overlapping letter, a follow up comment is appropriate. His letter ironically confirms many of my points and raises significant new concerns.
I learned a lot from Dan's letter, which only confirmed to me how much we need better board communications that have been lacking in the past. It is a sad commentary on this board that it took a recall petition to get an update on important issues.
Dan's report on the electric panel repair was informative, but it also confirmed that the assessment was uninformed and premature. Some two years after the $477,000 assessment, we now learn that the budget will come in under $300,000. That is excellent news, except for the fact that it confirms we were unnecessarily assessed $177,000 for an extended period. "Ready! Fire! Aim!" That handling of our money cannot be called fiscally responsible, even if we do get a refund.
While we all applaud the board's priority of holding down our HOA dues, it is misleading for Dan's letter to suggest that costs to the homeowners have not gone up during this board's tenure when we paid a premature assessment that was unnecessarily high to the tune of $177,000. That excess assessment factored into our monthly HOA dues is the equivalent of a $20 or 5% increase in our monthly payments over approximately a two year period ($177,000 ÷- 188 units ÷ 48 months-419.61 $405=4.8%).
It's good news to now learn the website will be "up and running shortly." However, I regret the website has taken so long because if the website or other regular communications had been established earlier, we might have learned sooner that we are being sued! After reading this extraordinary revelation, I confirmed that there were no communications to the HOA members informing us that we are in litigation.
We homeowners are the ones who will have to fund any judgment against the HOA or settlement (or related insurance deductible). The fact of a lawsuit also is something that homeowners must disclose in the sale or refinancing of our units. The board may not be able to discuss privileged attorney-client communications outside executive board sessions, but the fact of a lawsuit is a matter of public record that homeowners should be apprised of immediately. Yet we learn there is a lawsuit only because Dan responded to an anonymous letter concerning the board recall.
The fact that the board has not seen fit to inform us of the fact of a lawsuit against us, as well as its nature and our potential exposure, is irresponsible and shows a serious lack of judgment. It is another example of the non-transparent manner in which this board governs. Their operative principle once again seems to be "We are handling it, so you don't need to know
about it." That approach to governance is simply unacceptable to those of us who have so much at stake in Seascape Sur.
The board may be "open to communication" but apparently only in three minute segments. Regardless of what the Davis-Sterling website says, the board should have the judgment to know that comments and exchanges on the issues important to the homeowners should not be jammed into the time period for a TV commercial break. It is basic common sense that homeowners, and especially non-resident owners who spend significant time and money to travel to Solana Beach to attend the annual meetings, should have more than three minutes to discuss and exchange views on multiple and detailed matters during the annual meeting dedicated in great part to that purpose.
This board doesn't have the sensitivity or judgment to realize that many of their actions, like their strictly enforced arbitrary limitation of three minutes for homeowner questions and comments, send the strong message that the board really doesn't care all that much about what a homeowner needs to ask or say. Is it any wonder that homeowners take personal affront from their treatment by this board? We need a board that responds to the obvious needs of homeowners, rather than a board that slavishly follows an arbitrary provision in some website.
With respect to the termination of our longtime gardeners, Dan's letter states that landscape personnel changes have provided "over $50,000 in the next fiscal year." Another board member, Nick Giovinazzo, states in his June 10 letter to homeowners that the elimination of the 3 gardeners "is a $32,000 saving of your money." I can't say that I take away from these differing descriptions any significant confidence in the board's "tough decision." A board member who decides to take away the livelihoods of longstanding and valued employees should know the dollars involved. Those gardeners certainly know what the board decision cost them.
Dan's letter confirms that while this board has spent time and effort on Seascape Sur's issues, we have reached an unfortunate point where Seascape Sur is not the better for it. It is difficult to accept Dan's position that we should be willing to continue the manner in which this board operates when it has resulted in the current heated and polarized state of affairs.
Our thanks should go to this board for their time and past service, but we should now move on to a new board with a more responsible, businesslike and collegial approach for establishing, executing and communicating policy at Seascape Sur.
And we need that new beginning immediately through a recall before the situation deteriorates further. None of us, I am quite sure, wants to be surprised by any more lawsuits.
Very truly yours
Joel R. Junker
Units 90 & 87
Units 90 & 87
2
No comments:
Post a Comment