Hi All,
Please give the following a read; it is quite interesting:
http://www.becker-poliakoff.com/pubs/articles/adams/adams_2008_01_31.pdf
Dave Israel
Friday, February 13, 2009
UCO, MASTER ASSOCIATIONS AND ONE VOTE PER UNIT. IS IT TIME FOR A CHANGE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Let us examine some of the changes which would be required. As per the first draft of UCO Bylaw Amendments submitted by Rod Tennyson 8/29/2007, the following changes would apply:
1. The shift to direct elections proposes "One Vote per Unit Owner" and not "One Vote per Unit" as the name of this ad hoc Committee would suggest. "Each dues paying member of UCO in good standing shall be eligible to vote in direct elections for UCO officers...". This eliminates the need to employ the use of voting certificates, which would be required to determine the 'voting member' of a multiply owned or corporately owned units;
2. A section on "Transition" would be rquired in order to accommodate the transition from Delegate elected Officers in March to direct elections beginning in December, 2009(elected officers would take office January 1st, following their election).
a) every officer would be elected to two year terms;
b) this transition would further eliminate staggered terms (at least for the first term in office);
c) thereafter, staggered terms could be reintroduced by amendment to the UCO Bylaws.
3. The election of officers would be held on the second Tuesday and Wednesday of December for 2009 and each odd year thereafter;
a) The Annual Installation Luncheon would then have to be changed from March to late December (to permit the taking of office effective January 1st... the specific details would be integrated into the amendment);
4. Term limits for the President and Vice Presidents would remain unnchanged (limit = two consecutive two-year terms);
5. The Executive Board would be elected in even numbered years (serving two-year terms) and ELECTED BY THE DELEGATE ASSEMBLY.
a. The appointment of Executive Board Members by the President (not to exceed eight in number) would require further logistical attention and clarification in the final amendment draft.
1. the President is elected in odd years; EB Members in even years; there are two year terms for each; how can the President appoint EB members to two year terms since the appointment cannot 1)survive the term of the Presidency, or the "uninstall/installation process (at the 'Luncheon'). The only logical option is that the President may appoint EB Members any time during his/her term, but at the Annual Installation Luncheon, the appointed member must be uninstalled and automatically re-appointed/re-installed with the newly elected EB Members. This brings up another interesting point; since the presidential appointees to the EB are subject to the approval of the DA, only the DA can remove a member of the EB (elected or appointed) by 175 affirmative votes. Therefore, an EB member appointed early in a President's term would have to have their appointment automatically re-approved.
6. The following proposed amendment (addition) is worth noting as follows:
ARTICLE X - EXECUTIVE BOARD
A. "The affairs of UCO shall be managed by an EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, which shallconstitute the "Board of Directors" as that term is used in Florida Statutory Corporation Law.
To maintain documentary integrity, "Article V - Delegate Assembly" deletes the provision which states "The affairs of UCO shall be managed by an Assembly of Delegates, which shall constitute the "Board of Directors"...".
Rod Tennyson stated "Basically, the attached draft does not change the powers of officers or the Delegate Assembly. The Executive Board becomes the formal "Board of Directors" under corporate law but it's powers remain the same. The Nominating Committeeand Elections Committee will have substantial new powers on who gets on the ballot and how the election is run.
We will also need to amend the UCO Articles of Incorporation.”
This was only a brief highlight of some of the changes which would be required to effect a 'one vote per unit owner' election. It is up to the Delegates whether the required expense and time consumption is worth the effort. The DA has thus far voted against authorizing expenditues to further pursue this issue.
It is probably time to have someone other than Randall advise UCO.
Someone that doesn't have to patch his/her previous mistakes every time he/she opens his/her mouth...someone with workable intelligence.
Thanks Randall, I think it would be worth the expense to do this. If UCO can squander 1 million on GL's offices , this is a no brainer.
Hi A Nony Mouse
Feb 13, 2009 1:57:00 PM,
My God! you are criticizing Randall for attempting to make things legal!
You are critizing Randall for doing his research and correcting mistakes!
Please, get rational; we could use more like Randall; how much more of the current Ad-Hoc chaos can we stand?
Dave Israel
Consider...I know Randall better than you do.
Randall don't know which side he wants to be on.
ANONYMOUS 8:13
If you only knew yourself as well as you think you know me, you probably wouldn't be able to write such utter nonsense. The comments you make are intentionally hurtful, and serve no useful purpose. Please re-think you motivation. Be well and be happy.
I am confused by number 5. and A. If the Executive Board is elected why is the a. saying the President would appoint the Executive Board not to exceed 8. Doesn't A. negate 5?
Grace,
ARTICLE X - EXECUTIVE BOARD
Capitalized words are proposed additions to the current UCO Bylaws as follows:
B. "The Executive Board shall consist of all officers of UCO, DIRECTLY ELECTED BY THE MEMBERSHIP UNDER ARTICLE VI IN ODD NUMBERED YEARS and, in addition, twenty (20) members elected FOR TWO YEAR TERMS by the Delegate Assembly IN EVEN NUMBERED YEARS at the -march- DECEMBER meeting of that body. The President may appoint additional members to the Executive Board, each appointment subject to the approval of the Delegate Assembly. The total appointments must not exceed eight(8) in number...".
This proposed amendment to the UCO Bylaws does not change the right of the President to appoint up to eight EB Members, each appointment being subject to the approval of the Delegate Assembly, nor does it change the right of the Delegate Assembly to elect twenty qualified candidates.
In my opinion, the first step in the direction to make UCO LEGAL is to fire Rod Tennyson and HIRE Becker-Poliakoff.
You can't build a mansion on quicksand.
The unit owners built UCO a house but they forgot to hire a "cleaning lady".
Randall can't be trusted remember last July when we held a special meeting on the sunshine amendment Randell lied about Tennison seeing that amendment before it was presented to the deligates. I would not trust this man on anything he had to advise on
Hi A Nony Mouse
Feb 15, 2009 2:54:00 PM,
What is your evidence for this statement?
Dave Israel
Anonymous 2:54,
I had discussed with Rod, after he made a presentation at the Clubhouse, whether a Resolution would be effective in establishing the original meeting and intent of the "Sunshine Amendment" in the UCO BYLAWS, and would assure Open Meetings. He agreed that it would. I NEVER STATED THAT HE REVIEWED THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION, ONLY THAT HE AGREED THAT SUCH A RESOLUTION WOULD BE LEGALLY BINDING! Ed Black was there as a witness to my discussion with Rod. I had already told this to Jerry Karpf, who grilled me on the subject months later. He accused me of lying about prior attorney review at the EB Meeting. I clarified this issue at the EB meeting that same day. Interestingly, I find myself under fire on the same issue, with the same charges (almost verbatim, for that matter). Deja Vous? Jerry also thinks he knows me (better than David Israel... which I sincerely doubt), as was also stated by 'Anonymous'. Very interesting coincidence?
The original resolution which was presented and approved by the DA was NOT reviewed by Rod. The language used to establish Open Meetings was based in large part from "The Open Meeting Laws of Florida", as it applies to condominiums, as opposed to the "Florida Sunshine Amendment" which did not include participation in meetings. Therefore, I pursued the former so as to include participation in meetings.
By this time, there was increasing efforts on the part of the 'Administration' (not the DA) to place limiting requirements on attending Committee Meetings. The Open Meeting policy was being quickly eroded and immediate action needed to be taken. Myself and concerned others who were in favor of preserving "Open Meetings" were not permitted to place the Resolution and supporting literature on the check-in table at the Clubhouse, and had to resort to presenting our literature to Delegates in passing cars by the Medical Center. On the other hand, the literature which was permitted to be made available at the check-in tables urged "VOTE NO AGAINST OPEN MEETINGS".
The Resolution was passed almost unanimously and George and Howie resigned. I had spoken with George privately just before he entered the auditorium that morning and urged him that I would draft a limited exclusion for Officers Committee Meetings, but that it was necessary to put an immediate end to the progressively restrictive policy regarding open committee meetings, i.e. with approval of the committee chair, you may attend, make your statement and then leave so that the meeting could begin. (Not much "Sunshine" could be found in that.) I further stated that the “Exemption Provision” was difficult to properly and effectively draft and that it would require much further thought. He asked me to wait to present the resolution once until I completed the exemption section, as he and the Officers' Committee could not properly function under the “incomplete” Resolution.. I respectfully refused his request and reiterated that open committee meetings could not be delayed any longer. The vote needed to be taken immediately.
Once George returned from Israel, he attended the Nomination Meeting and sat two rows behind me. Out of respect, I gave him my rough draft of the Section on "Exemptions for the Office Committee" and stated "Here it is, as promised". He read it, and only minutes later was nominated for President, again,... and the rest is history. He sent the entire Resolution, including the proposed “exemption”, to Rod for review.
The Executive Board discussed his proposed changes. After a lengthy discussion, the E.B. voted on and approved my original draft as written.
Upon submission of the entire Resolution to Rod, he responded as follows:
From: "Rod Tennyson"
To: George Loewenstein
Subject: Amendments to DA Resolution
Date: Monday, August 11th, 2008; 11:09:16 AM
"George, pursuant to our conversation I have drafted amendments to the DA Resolution on open meetings or "Sunshine" policies. That Resolution gives one very narrow exception to open meetings for the Officers Committee:
Section 3: THAT the Officers’ Committee shall be exempt from these meeting provisions in order to make the mundane and low impact decisions necessary to be made on a regular basis or to hold meetings for the purpose of information sharing and informal discussion on matters of importance, except, that the monthly meetings or Special Meetings or informal meetings on any matter that requires AND produces a final Officers’ Committee recommendation to the Executive Board and/or the Delegate Assembly shall be bound by the provisions of this Resolution. The minutes of ALL Officers’ Committee Meetings, except for meetings with an attorney regarding proposed or pending litigation, shall be presented in written form to the Executive Board and Delegate Assembly on a monthly basis;
(ROD) "I do not see how you can have a closed meeting of the Officers Committee where you and your officers could freely debate any type of problem and solutions)inside the box or outside the box). Even if you held the closed meeting you would still have to report the discussions in the minutes. For example the Officers Committee could not discuss prospective appointments to UCO offices or other executive decisions concerning the construction of the new UCO offices without 48 hours notice, open meetings and minutes.
If the DA would like to allow the Officers Committee to have closed "workshop" meetings to discuss "executive functions and policies" without the notice, open meeting and minutes, then Section 3of the Resolution should be amended to read as follows:
Section 3: THAT the Officer's Committee shall be exempt from special "workshop" meetings in order to discuss "executive matters" but not "policy matters" as defined herein. A "workshop" meeting of the Officers Committee means a non scheduled meeting called by the President without notice for purposes of discussing "executive matters". Minutes need not be taken at said "workshop" meeting. "Executive matters" are issues concerning how to best carry out "policy matters" already determined by the Delegate Assembly or the Bylaws of UCO. Examples of "executive matters" would include prospective appointments to offices, construction decisions, mundane and low impact issues, or information sharing and informal discussion on matters of importance. A "workshop meeting" which proposes to change an already established "executive matter" shall only recommend the issue to the full Executive Committee for final approval at their next open meeting"
TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK.
ROD
Hi A Nony Mouse
Randall never lied. I can confirm that when he spoke to Mr. Tennyson, I stood directly behind him, and never uttered one word due to Randall’s clarity on the question. Mr. Tennyson was just as clear in his response. Why would Randall need to lie about this? Only someone looking to personally bash someone would stoop to such a level.
Ed Black.
July 28, 2008
A Good Man for the Job at a Needed Time
There are a number of us who believe Dave Israel is the right man for the job of UCO president at this time. We would appreciate your reading this letter.
The Village has come through some difficult times over the past four years, and we are not out of these difficult times. Florida's hurricanes, including the three that hit us in a two-year period, have had a lasting, widespread effect.
Insurance rates have gone way up, and insurance is being required where it was optional before.
Building code requirements are stricter and thus more costly, also. Running the Village at both the local association level and the overall (UCO) level gets more and more expensive.
There is a critical need for
(1) accountability to all owners and associations through their delegates and the media,
(2) clear explanations about complicated matters, and
(3) honest, wise, caring, and capable people in the top positions.
Transparency is a vital ingredient. Dave Israel took a step in this direction when he instituted the Internet blog, open to anyone's comments.
Those who pressed for truly open meetings at the July 11 delegates meeting took another vital step in this direction.
Yes, there can be some problems to be overcome in having meetings be "open," but they should not be compared to the alternative—having important, costly matters discussed and decided upon behind closed doors by a select few.
Closed-door meetings shut out the possibility of wise counsel, including perhaps good cost-saving suggestions, coming from outside the select group. Closed-door meetings at their worst are an encouragement to shady dealings taking place.
Dave is a leading proponent of open meetings.
It is not a good indicator to us when the UCO president and a vice president resign after the delegates overwhelmingly vote for enforcement of strictly open meetings—especially as open meetings have already supposedly been our policy in having adopted the Sunshine Laws a few years ago.
It is even less a good indicator—in fact, quite frankly, one's suspicions cannot help being aroused—when within a few days of resigning, the same president and vice president do a complete turnabout and place themselves in the running for the same offices they vacated.
‘Deja vous’, you crack me up. I think you found the foolish fanatic who will say anything officially and online.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts"
Randall many thanks for your time and accurate recounting of events as I also remember them. It is more than anti-Randall anonymous deserves. He is only interested in a quick bash (ungrammatical and misspelled). CV is changing but I do not know if the average Delegate is yet ready to listen to commonsense and necessary accurate detail. Too often they prefer the foolish pompous sound bite.
For every complex problem there is a quick easy solution and it is WRONG! Too bad many Delegates cannot be bothered to grasp that.
Simple problems;
Complex solutions;
More problems.
Complex problems;
Simple solutions;
More complex problems.
Good one, then stir in - You can have it
· fast and good OR
· good and cheap OR
· fast and cheap
but not all three.
Thanks for caring.
Post a Comment