1.        Canceling and rescheduling of Board Meetings have become commonplace Board meeting scheduled on June 28, September 27, and November 22, 2001 were held on June 22, September 13, and November 20, respectively. The meeting scheduled November 22 should have been held on November 23. Reference Article VI, Section 1 of the By-Laws wherein it states, "Should the meeting fall upon a legal holiday, then that meeting shall be held at the same time on the next day which is not a legal holiday."

2.        In accordance with Florida Statute 720.306(3), notices for Special Meetings were posted with no agenda or specific purpose published, opened as workshops and business conducted as usual. There is no legal basis for this type of meeting in any Statute or By-Law. The statutes states in part, "Business conducted at a special meeting is limited to the purposes for which a meeting is called." Robert's Rules provides a sensible guideline for the use of special meetings suggesting that they (special meetings) be held to deal with important and urgent matters that may come up between regularly scheduled meetings. This has hardly been
the case. So far this year, there have been seven (11) Special Meetings. 

3.        They have blamed the homeowner for their excessively long board meetings. This is a
            joke. Their board meeting have been excessively long due to:

a.        Lack of preparation that includes:

1. Failure of the Management Company to provide timely documentation required in accordance
    with the by-laws and the management contract. This is especially true with finances. 
2. Failure on the part of the board to exercise their fiduciary responsibility to ensure that this
     information is timely and accurate. 
3. The lack of adequate and accurate minutes on which to maintain the consistency and
    accuracy of information and documentation flowing from one board meeting to the next.

b.        Due to item a, board has been ill prepared to discuss agenda items.
c.        Failure to be on time.
d.        Failure to follow a previously established agenda.
e.        Failure on the part of the president(s) to properly control and conduct board meetings in
           an orderly and professional manner.

4.    This board has totally ignored Article IV, Section 5 of the By-Laws that states, "The directors shall have the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written approval of all the directors. Any action so approved shall have the same effect as though taken at a meeting of the directors." This board has used telephone polling as a means to secure approval from each board member They have, on occasion, and definitely more times than could be considered accidental, purposely left out Mr. Lars Jettman and if not left out, ensured that he was the last member telephoned.

5.    The present and all previous boards, regardless of the makeup, have known that a nominating committee is required by Article IX of the By Laws. There has been no obvious attempt by any sitting board to put this committee into place.

6.    This board has limited the input of the association member by adopting a set of rules called the homeowners Bill of Rights. We have our rights and they are spelled out in the Florida Statutes and the By-Laws. 

7.    This board has spent money without proper authorization. Case and point:
The previous president authorized the expenditure of money to build the counter in the association office without the authorization of the full board. This was never discussed or approved at any board meeting. The board has been challenged in writing on at least two occasions to identify the meeting and produce the minutes that identifies board authorization of this installation. No reply has been expected because these records do not exist.

8.    This board has collectively, under the opinion of the association lawyer, determined that they have the authority to stop homeowners from personally videotaping board meetings. In his opinion, Mr. Tomassetti did fine down to the third paragraph where he states, "Further, I believe it would be reasonable, etc., etc.," As a matter of fact, his information up to this point was very parallel to that pointed out in The Homeowners Association Manual written by two very popular lawyers. Subsequent to the information contained in the second paragraph of his opinion, there is nothing that even remotely parallels the "opinion" of these professional individuals who further imply that requests to record or videotape a meeting do not need to be intimidating to an association that is properly run. Do you call reasonable when a board installs a $4000.00 system to stop one, and I repeat one, homeowner from videotaping? Do you call exposing individuals to inclement and freezing weather reasonable? Why should a homeowner have to pay for something the State of Florida permits them by statute to do on their own? Video equipment can be damaged and rendered inoperable in freezing weather. As a homeowner, do you call $10.00 a reasonable price for a tape when tapes are less than $1.00 each retail? One homeowner has requested in writing and paid her money for a videotape copy of the October 25th board meeting and is still waiting.

9.    Prior to examining and studying the documents very closely and allowing Mr. Lars Jettman, a board member, to speak on his own behalf, this board stood in support of Mr. Ken Broughton, a CLOA employee, who accused Mr. Jettman of bid rigging and embezzling of association funds. Their actions subsequent to these accusations could have been closely compared to a modern day lynching. In the end, the board gave Mr. Jettman until 5:00 pm the following day to submit the documents in his defense to the secretary at the CLOA office. In doing so, Mr. Jettman found the office closed due to illness. As an alternative and to confirm his attempt to provide the documentation, Mr. Jettman faxed the information to the office of Mr. Jeffrey A. Tomassetti, CLOA attorney. Even more interesting was the fact the Mr. Jeff Schmidt, Board Member and owner of our present landscaping company, filed grand theft charges against Mr. Jettman three and one half hours before the deadline specified by the Board of Directors. The charges against Mr. Jettman have been determined unfounded and dropped by the Sheriffs Department. A letter
from Mr. Mike Murphy of Landscape Consultants, attests to the fact that Mr. Jettman did not provide him with under the table information as indicated in Mr. Broughton's accusation. In further attempts to shut down the channels of justice, Mr. Jettman received a letter from Mr. Tomassetti informing him that, "you are not authorized to send me any further documentation or call my office." This letter was sent by Mr. Tomassetti as a result of a phone call from Ms. Betty Johnston, Property Manager, who acted as instructed by the current acting president. All documentation used to unjustly accuse Mr. Jettman of these illegal activities and defame his good name was provided by the management company, RIMSCO, Inc., at the request of Mr. Broughton.

10.    This board allowed Mr. Ken Broughton and Ms. Shelly Broughton, both CLOA employees, to file Petitions for Injunction for Protection Against Repeat Violence against Mrs. Margaret Allen, and Mrs. Nancy Scott, respectively. Judgment was in favor of the respondents and issuance of permanent injunctions denied. Both of these unfounded acts of injustice resulted in a financial loss to both homeowners to adjudicate their case. Neither employee has been reprimanded by the Board for their actions.

11.    Mr. Rayvon Strickland, board member, stood idly by and watched Mr. Ken Broughton, the maintenance man, and Mr. William Beverly, a Giddens Security Guard, harass and physically abuse Mrs. Margaret Allen, a homeowner. Mr. Broughton instructed Mr. Beverly to remove Mrs. Allen and Ms. Leigh Anne Fulford from the CLOA office when they were preparing to set up video equipment in the boardroom. Mr. Beverly reacted by pushing, with both hands, Mrs. Allen toward the door. Ms. Fulford instructed Mr. Beverly to remove his hands as he was committing assault and battery. All board members and the CLOA lawyer have received letters of concern related to this incident and they have been totally ignored. Do you think that they care about you?

12.    This board is good at stating what the majority of homeowners think, but they have NEVER polled the MAJORITY of the homeowners to be able to support that statement. 

13.    By their own documentation, this board and the management company has caused this association to be in the following financial condition: 

a.    Net Income at the end of October is a minus $103,382.90.  Compare this to a plus $24,361.70 at the end of the year 2000.  They state that the audit just completed reflects we are in stable condition. The completed audit for 20,00 cannot substantiate the condition of the finances for the year 2001.

b.    Total assets have decreased from $365,601.44 to $240,530.33.  This is better than a $125,000.00 decrease in 10 months.

c.    The average monthly collections of assessments for 2001 are down $6,424.70.

d.    The average monthly expenses for 2001 are up $10,872.18 per month.

e.    At the year-end 2000, the aging receivables were $81,746.60.  YTD at the end of August 2001, the aging receivables have increased to $130,963.37.

f.    The management company and the Board of Directors have been reminded on numerous occasions that the Reserves must be funded as a part of the annual budget as set forth in Article IV, Section 11 (Reserves), of the Articles of Incorporation. This has fallen upon deaf ears. There has been no funding of the two major reserves since RIMSCO, Inca; took over the property management the beginning of November 2000. This funding was continually done under Sentry Management up until their contract terminated the end of October 2000. Even more interesting is that these reserves have not been made a part of the budget for the 2002.

14.    The hiring of an off duty policeman as sergeant-at-arms has been discussed at length by this board. This would be at a cost of approximately $25.00 per hour. I will not bore you with the reasons this isfelt necessary. However, any interruption or disorder on the part of homeowners at most meetings to date are more reactive than proactive and primarily due to the inability of the President to maintain order and discipline in the meetings. Extreme care must be taken in the execution of maintaining order in the event that if any party is maltreated, that person(s) or possibly the organization (CLOA) could be held liable for damages. In some circles, the sergeant-at-arms is in charge of ushers and refreshments.

15.    A former board member took issue with the fact that Chimney Lakes had foreclosed on homes that have fallen in arrears on assessments. House #1 was still being occupied by the owner until all the fees owed to CLOA were paid. House #2 was up for foreclosure. Upon inquiry, this former board member was told that Chimney Lakes secured the property with new doors and locks, cleaned up the inside and outside of the property, and painted and did repairs. At that time this former board member who was also a licensed realtor, offered to provide (free of charge) the Board with information regarding the value of the property for resale and contacts to use to advertise and close the transaction at minimum cost.  The offer was refused. This house was bought for $6000, which included the money owed to us plus legal costs, but not including the cost of repairs. This property was not openly advertised for sale to the public. We did not attempt to make a profit or recover our complete costs. These facts were obtained from the CLOA attorney in a telephone conversation.  House #3 has now been sold. Neither this former board member or
anyone else can locate records showing board approval to foreclose on these homes nor does any financial records reflecting the transaction of monies related to the maintenance or sale of these three homes.

16.    Audio tapes of known individuals have called the Sheriff's Department on other homeowners, not because of anything they did wrong, but because they are on the other side (if you know what I mean). It's called intimidation. Fortunately, the law found these individuals not to be in violation of ANYTHING. The audiotapes and the police reports substantiating this information has been obtained.

17.    Did you know that we (the homeowner) provide the storage space for the landscaping company's equipment at no cost to them? Did you know that if a child gets hurt climbing on or falling off apiece of this equipment - you are liable? Did you know that the landscaping company is permitted to dump his tree trimmings behind the tree line just south of the recreation area? Did you know that the mulching of these tree trimmings is blown right onto your common property? Did you know that you are paying the security guard who watches over this landscaping equipment?

Thanks for listening,

Ron Allen
[email protected]