THE
TRUE FACTS
BY Stephen Cluney (SC) |
A Homeowners’ Association should be more than just collecting dues and
handing out violation letters. REMEMBER, this is your community, not just
five board members and a management company.
I feel compelled to reply to the article in the latest newsletter aimed
at me. You may have recently been inundated with literature from Steve
Berube (President and treasurer) and the rest of the board of directors
(BOD) for Southchase, parcel 45’s Homeowners’ Association and Sue Carpenter
of Leland Mgmt. Although there are two sides to every story, in their attempt
to defend themselves they are giving you incomplete information.
a) SC: A financial audit was requested and denied by the BOD.The
last audit was over 6 years ago.
The
BOD replies that an audit is not necessary because it is too expensive
and there have been no indication that the funds have been mishandled and
the CPA who performs the year-end tax return has never seen a problem with
our finances.
SC:
Saying you don’t need an audit because there has been no indication that
funds have been mishandled, is like saying that you don’t need a smoke
alarm because there has been no indication that the house will burn down.
RIDICULOUS!!
b) SC: The BOD and mgmt. co. do not comply with the bylaws,
C&R or State Statutes. The mgmt co. follows the orders of the BOD,
right or wrong.
The BOD answers;
they do comply with the rules and laws. They also state that the Manager
works for the “association” and reports and take direction from the BOD.
SC:
The BOD have violated and are violating the State Statute for reviewing
and copying official records, recording meetings, flying the American flag,
etc. In all these cases they have come up with rules after the fact
that are unreasonable and possibly illegal. If Sue Carpenter works
for the “association”, why is she taking sides on the removal/recall of
the current BOD? (See attachment #1)
c) SC: The president of our HOA runs the
show, the board votes with him and goes along with anything he says.
BOD replies:
The President of the association is empowered to make decisions in consultation
with the BOD.
SC:
This reply does not answer the allegation. In fact, the current board
members are puppets and do as the President says. Case in point:
At the last attempt for a board meeting, Mr. Berube asked for a vote to
adjourn because he did not want a homeowner recording the meeting.
This is a violation of FL. State Statute, although the entire BOD agreed
to the adjournment. Is the BOD just following Berube’s lead or are
they just not informed? Either way, they should not represent the
homeowners of Southchase 45.
d) SC: The Secretary has no time for the board.
All she wants to do is show up for meetings.
BOD reply:The BOD are volunteers. The Secretary is President of the
PTA and asked not to chair a committee for that reason. It is unfair
to demand more and more of people who are simply volunteers.
SC: We are all aware that the BOD are all volunteers. The Secretary
is to be commended for becoming President of the PTA. I am not demanding
more and more of people, but I would like the BOD to be working for the
community. For what reason does she remain on the board?
She performs no functions. This situation has been an on going problem
for years, even before becoming President of the PTA. All board secretarial
functions are performed by Sue Carpenter, the manager. The Secretary
has refused mail at her home from a homeowner concerning association business.
If the Secretary is too busy, she should resign . I am sure
that there are other homeowners that are capable and willing to serve.
e) SC: Some BOD members wanted to gather for a dinner meeting
to discuss association business at the homeowners’ expense. This
meeting never took place.
The BOD responds that it never happened. It was merely mentioned.
SC: The manager recommended a dinner meeting with the attorney, to
the BOD by email.
I feel that
Sue Carpenter, who has on many occasions, indicated that she was “professional”,
should be very well aware that such a meeting would be unethical.
The reasons the dinner meeting did not occur were because I objected to
it and the association’s attorney emailed all of the BOD and Sue Carpenter
informing us that it would be illegal and he would not attend.
f) SC: The management company has provided inadequate
and misleading information to the BOD and homeowners.
BOD reply: Management is constantly providing the BOD with statutes
and articles pertaining to the HOA’s and boards.
SC:
My responses is to see b) and e) above.
g) SC: The BOD refuses to release public information.
The board responds and admits that they have refused to release the membership
roster and a list of names of people who are delinquent in their assessments.
They further state that I had access to the roster and never requested
a copy and that I have now filed a suit against the association for a copy
of the membership roster. He also says that it will cost each homeowner
a share of the legal fees to defend that case.
SC: During my short (2 month) duration on the BOD, I had no need
for the requested information. It is true; I have filed a suit against
the association. According to State Statute all homeowners are entitled
to the information (official records) that I am being denied. The
board has foolishly hired an expensive attorney to defend them. Because
this is a small claim there is no reason to have an attorney present.
Once again they are wasting your money ! It is pretty obvious
from their comment above, they know that they will lose. They say
that it will cost each homeowner a share of the legal fees to defend my
case. If they had any hope in winning, they would not have stated
this.
h)SC: Mismanagement of funds. The contract with the previous
landscaper was prematurely terminated. It will now cost the homeowners
to settle the case against us for terminating a contract without cause.
The board’s answer is double talk. They are in negotiations
for the past year.
SC: The BOD and mgmt co. used very poor judgment on this matter.
How much will they raise the dues for this blunder? Has the attorney
been involved in these negotiations? Have you checked your mailbox
lately? Who is paying for the latest mailing which includes a stamped,
return envelope? Again, mismanagement of funds! Our dues money
is not for the BOD and management company’s propaganda. This is a
blatant and unethical misuse of Homeowners’ finances. The
BOD plans on increasing your dues. Why? To pay for
more lawsuits?
i) In the latest newsletter, the board quotes me as emailing, “I don’t
think we should allow just a few member out of 800 homes take over and
destroy our association. Also don’t allow them to intimidate you.
Everyone is doing a fine job and you should be proud of it.”
SC: After a very short time on the board I realized that a lot
of people were unhappy, not just the few outspoken ones like they said.
Selective enforcement of rules became exceedingly commonplace. Before
long it was obvious that the board was ruled by two people, Steve Berube
and Sue Carpenter, the manager.
The manager pits homeowners against homeowners by encouraging them to report
violations to her. Although unethical, this is what keeps her in business.
She has been known to divulge the names of people who have reported violations.
This does not make for a peaceful and happy neighborhood. In the
newsletter, Volume 7, No. 8, April 2001, the President’s Message states
“that if you report a violation, your name will not be disclosed to anyone
except board members, and conversely, if you were the subject of a complaint,
we would not disclose the source of that complaint to you.” Newsletter,
Volume 8, No. 4, August 2001 says “We do not give out the names or addresses
of those who provide us with information about infractions.”
See
attachment #1 for an example of the unethical behavior by Sue Carpenter.
The
newsletters also states that I am having people go door to door with a
petition and proxy. The petition is completed and presented
to the Board and Attorney for a Special Meeting. The BOD and Sue
Carpenter say that people are being intimidated by the petitioners.
I doubt that is true! Instead, the board and Sue Carpenter are using
intimidation tactics to prompt homeowners to remove their names from the
documents.
The Special Meeting will be held October 22, 2001. Please attend!!
If you receive any literature from the BOD or management company, Sue Carpenter
changing the time and or date, please disregard it.
|
