Post by leokeeler on May 25, 2016 12:47:20 GMT -7
The Board is using the Spring 2016 Newsletter to immediately and illegaly change the interest rate in Covenant 11.06, rather than wait until the pending vote by Members is completed. Why rush to establish a “Rule”? Is it in response to some Landowner request and/or pressure.
The Newsletter quoted Covenant 2.07 stating “The Association shall have the authority to adopt reasonable rules and regulations which are consistent with the intent and enabling provisions of these covenants or the Master Plan.” and they asserted that the Board has the power to act for everyone in the Association. The Board has ignored Covenant 2.05 stating “2.05 Amendments to Covenants. The covenants in this Declaration may be altered, amended, modified, waived, abandoned or terminated in whole or in part at any time by the affirmative vote of at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the Membership Interests of the Association in good standing at the time.” Also ignored is Bylaw Article VI (B) which reads in part “may do all such acts or things as are not by law or by the Covenants, Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation directed to be exercised and done by the Members.” Just because the Association can do something does not mean the Board can do it for the Association. Is it rocket science to consider all of these elements at the same time?
Did the GLA attorney address all these issues as she gave advice? Did she really tell the Board this Rule could be established by just a Board vote, or did she tell them they could recommend this for a Landowner vote? Did she tell them how to avoid the conflicts with their desires and 2.05 and the Bylaws, or did she not address them at all? Does she really understand that because the Church Universal and Triumphant had to approve all changes made to the Covenants, the 1997 Covenants were written by the Developer, not Landowners? Are her recommendations based on an accurate history of how the Covenants were established?
I believe Rules are used to create a standard, guide, or regulation governing the conduct, procedure, or an action. They are not used to change the requirements of a law, which the Covenants really are. The Covenants are like County ordinances, which add further requirements or restrictions to State law. The new Collection Procedure in the newsletter might be a good “rule”, if it did not violate the timeline requirement in Covenant 11.06. But this new “Rule” definitely changes the Covenant, and the intent of doing it for a short time, does not provide legal justification.
I wonder if the Board feels it can act for the Association in all Covenants that use the word Association? Are the problems created when the 1982 Covenants were simply amended to change the word Grantor (i.e. Church Universal and Triumphant) to Association just now showing up? Was this use of discretion the method to recognize Master Plan requirements for the “BLUE TOWER” at one meeting, then ignore them at the next and approve the eyesore everyone now has to live with.
I wonder what Landowner will get the immediate benefit of the Board action, and if there will be a conflict of interest revealed?
The Newsletter quoted Covenant 2.07 stating “The Association shall have the authority to adopt reasonable rules and regulations which are consistent with the intent and enabling provisions of these covenants or the Master Plan.” and they asserted that the Board has the power to act for everyone in the Association. The Board has ignored Covenant 2.05 stating “2.05 Amendments to Covenants. The covenants in this Declaration may be altered, amended, modified, waived, abandoned or terminated in whole or in part at any time by the affirmative vote of at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the Membership Interests of the Association in good standing at the time.” Also ignored is Bylaw Article VI (B) which reads in part “may do all such acts or things as are not by law or by the Covenants, Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation directed to be exercised and done by the Members.” Just because the Association can do something does not mean the Board can do it for the Association. Is it rocket science to consider all of these elements at the same time?
Did the GLA attorney address all these issues as she gave advice? Did she really tell the Board this Rule could be established by just a Board vote, or did she tell them they could recommend this for a Landowner vote? Did she tell them how to avoid the conflicts with their desires and 2.05 and the Bylaws, or did she not address them at all? Does she really understand that because the Church Universal and Triumphant had to approve all changes made to the Covenants, the 1997 Covenants were written by the Developer, not Landowners? Are her recommendations based on an accurate history of how the Covenants were established?
I believe Rules are used to create a standard, guide, or regulation governing the conduct, procedure, or an action. They are not used to change the requirements of a law, which the Covenants really are. The Covenants are like County ordinances, which add further requirements or restrictions to State law. The new Collection Procedure in the newsletter might be a good “rule”, if it did not violate the timeline requirement in Covenant 11.06. But this new “Rule” definitely changes the Covenant, and the intent of doing it for a short time, does not provide legal justification.
I wonder if the Board feels it can act for the Association in all Covenants that use the word Association? Are the problems created when the 1982 Covenants were simply amended to change the word Grantor (i.e. Church Universal and Triumphant) to Association just now showing up? Was this use of discretion the method to recognize Master Plan requirements for the “BLUE TOWER” at one meeting, then ignore them at the next and approve the eyesore everyone now has to live with.
I wonder what Landowner will get the immediate benefit of the Board action, and if there will be a conflict of interest revealed?