Association Related
Are there some abusive and oppressive tactics being used by some Board members?
Every once in awhile someone gets on the Board, and commits acts that
seem oppressive and abusive!
The second year after I became a member, someone from the architectural
committee began stealing for-sale signs from my lake lot. After
attending a few board meetings and filing a few complaints about this
problem and other questionable activities from the association, the
board president publicly declared (at a board meeting) that I was no
longer a member. That was oppressive. A couple years later that
president tried to push through an assessment increase. Three other
members and I sued the Association and forced them to return $80,000 to
the members.
Then one summer, I decided to leave my camper on my so-called building lot over the November-April time period. At the annual member meeting that winter, the head of the architectural committee, at a break told me that my camper might just end up in the lake. After I responded that if it did, he might end up in jail (or worse), that person left the meeting. That person is no longer on the architectural committee.
Over the past couple years, I have again noticed that some acts that seem abusive. This time, since the webmaster of the Association's Supported website is publishing the minutes, this is public information. Actually, I believe there is a madness to the publication of this information. This information is being used to show the rest of us what will happen to us if we don't straighten up and get with the program! (OKAY DAD, I will behave!) Lets go through a few examples of this seemingly abusive behavior and you can determine for yourself if it borders on being oppressive. Before we do, I want to acknowledge that not all of the Board members are guilty of this behavior, and some of the board members and committee members that are guilty are no longer on the Board Some members of the board are not participating in this behavior. Let's start with the most recent examples.
In September of 2008 the minutes read: "Jack went to Hidden Valley this week and took pictures of 33 properties. Notification (approved by our attorney) will be sent to property owners giving a specific number of days to clean up their property. If this is not done a lien will be filed. Foreclosure proceedings will follow on any that have not complied."
This statement is intended to tell the world that the new architectural committee is serious about cleaning up the sub-divisions that have been deteriorating for the past 20 years. Unfortunately, this statement is oppressive and contrary to the Covenants. Notice the note about the lawyer supporting the notice. That was intentional. I don't know what was in the notice, but there is no way our lawyer is going to support something that is not provided for in the Covenants. The covenants do not give the Association the right to Foreclose on our property for anything but non-payment of assessments. If you go the the Associations web site for September, you will see the result of this kind of behavior. This year, approximately $67,000 less money was collected for assessments. People don't like to be abused and they will vote with their feet (abandon their lot and membership).
In August 2008 the minutes read: "Special—larger—sticker would keep all those on the lake visible to the patrol as being authorized to be there. Trespassers must be dealt with."
If my interpretation of this comment is correct, the person who made it implies that we are trespassing if we don't buy the sticker for our boat. Now I disagree, first of all, would this be criminal trespass or civil trespass? Meaning could we go to jail (criminal) or just be sued (civil)? Now, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but the last time I read my real estate law book (I had to take a college level real estate course in real estate law to protect myself), it read that an easement, which we all have in the common properties, gives us the right to use the lake, the golf course, etc. There is no way we be trespassing with our easement. Now maybe I am being overly sensitive and misreading this comment. . If the comment was about the local towns-people bring their boat to the lake, sure that's trespassing. But somehow, I don't thing that's what that board member meant when he said we are trespassing.
In July 2008 the minutes read: "This Association has rules and regulations that govern how members are to act on common properties. For way too long these infractions have been over looked and the Board in now drawing a line in the sand. If a member or their guest is on common property they must abide by the rules and regulations and covenants outlining how they are to act. There will be no cussing out loud, there will be no slander, there will be no harassing of management, no threating of management, there will be no harassing of employees, you are not their manager and you have no right of telling them what to do." AND "Security personnel have the full backing of the management and the Board of Directors. Security may, at their discretion, remove members or member’s guest from “Common Properties” for violation of Association rules and regulations."
I don't know who this Board member comment was intended for, but someone was apparently not happy with the way things are being run and became belligerent with an employee, manager or board member or all of the above. While I agree with the principle of watching what you say in public your (cursing and swearing out or about the leadership should be done in private) and people, including our leaders should be truthful (the slander comment) I disagree with the remedy. The Board, does not have any authority to give the security guard the right to remove members and their guests from the common areas. In fact, this comment is going to get someone killed, and it will probably be the security guard. The board should not even be suggesting that our security guard is expected to provide such services. Our security should be providing just one service. That is assisting with the safety of the members and their guests when they are using the common areas.
Except for the comment about members camping at Hidden Valley without paying a fee, June 2008 appears to be an abuse-free month. Same for May 2008, April 2008 and March 2008.
In February 2008 the minutes read: The situation concerning Ferguson’s property and the dilemma of cleaning it was brought to the table for discussion. Ferguson was restricted to common property for thirty days according to the Rules and Regulations. Mr. Ferguson assured the Board he was in the process of cleaning it and that he had conversed with the General Manager and they were working together to complete the task. Mr. Ferguson was reminded that during the past three years he has had ample time to have his property cleaned and being a Board of Directors member he should be leading by example and not fighting the system. A blog was placed on the Associations web site regarding the same. Board member Bob Young wanted to know if it was legal to do something regarding this situation. Mr. Young also wanted to know what type of liability issue this could create. It would create no liability issue as there is a disclaimer on the web page releasing this association from any and all liability issues regarding someone’s blog submittal. The General Manager assured the Board of Directors the corporate attorney would examine the disclaimer and advise on same. Restriction remains in effect until the expiration date and/or the property is cleaned to the satisfaction to the Board of Directors
In this example, the target victim is a then-current board member who has apparently not cleaned up his lot to the satisfaction of some of the board (I think that member since resigned). Earlier, we saw how those members who don't clean up their property will have a lien and subsequent foreclosure on their property. In the early days, the member was only subject to restriction of no use of the common areas (including the golf course which this board member loved to use). Again, here is an example of the oppressive coming from some (not all) of the board members. The Board does not have any right to prescribe a loss of enjoyment of the common properties for something that is in the restrictive covenants!
The final tactic published on the Association's website occurred in December.
The minutes read: Day told the Board that he has filed ten suits against individuals who owe back assessments and plans to file an additional ten suits prior to the end of the year.
This was published to scare the nearly 25% (that's one-fourth for non math students) of the members who no longer pay their assessments into submission. This is a big stick- a threat that if you don't pay your assessments, the Association will sue you and get a judgment against you for your back-assessments. Actually, the lawsuit occurred in small claims court where Kansas Law set a maximum of 20 of these claims per year. The law considers anything over 20 small claims to be abusive. That's why the minutes reflected only 20 lawsuits would be filed. I don't know how the Association leadership chose the 20 people to be sued. Maybe they were well known and hopes were the word would get around to the other non-payers. (You know like IRS does it). At the annual member meeting, I rhetorically asked how many years it would take to sue all of the members who have stopped paying their assessments. Of course, I knew the answer, with a limit of 20 small claims per year, it would take over 50 years to sue all the people who have stopped paying their assessments. Of course, now we all know that this was only a tactic to put fear into those non-payers. By the way, I support members paying the assessments that are duly levied against their lots. I just don't agree with the methods the Association's leadership has used in the past. Carrots are much better tools that sticks when it comes to getting people to pay assessments.
I believe that we need vote out of those few board members who are conducting abusive and oppressive activities against the membership. Some of the board members in this article are no longer in power. Some of the unnamed committee members are no longer living at the lakes. The association needs leaders who will conduct their actions in accordance with the Covenants, bylaws and articles, and the law. It is our duty to eliminate the leaders who violate the principles of honesty and integrity and good citizenship.