Monday, January 26, 2009

Correction to Pres. Loewenstein's current column

With regard to the Article in particular, paragraph 5, refers to Delegate Assembly vote against
Exploring the ability of every unit owner to vote for both UCO Officers and Executive
Board Members... Perhaps the actual reason for defeat of this motion, was an
oversight on G.L's part....
This particular issue was addressed on more than one occassion, in years gone by,
by previous chairs, certainly since I began attending Delegates' meetings, as an
interested seasonal resident in 2003,
Most fortunately, several villagers had complete recollection of this issue and were
able to convey the outcome to the assembled...It was further mentioned, that little
or no interest has come forward from the community at large, as evidenced in their
respective Boards or at Delegate Assemby meetings, where various associations, are
not represented, concluding that there was no need to re-visit this issue.
As a post script, had the current chair, and her committee met with their predecessors, ( in other words, done their homework )this would not have occured.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

George Loewenstein in his first election had in his platform one vote per unit. Lou Augenblick and later Phyliss Richland were working on that. I remember that they were talking about buying voting machines from the county for $3,000 each. I also heard squaking that having everybody vote was too expensive. In any case, Mr. Augenblick moved; Richland resigned; and George had his following elect him for the third time. So who needs the individual unit owner to vote ??

Why would the Delegate Assembly vote away their "perceived" power ??

How many times do you think the unit owners are going for promises that have as an answer " we really didn't mean it; just kidding !!"