Meeting Minutes from 29th RHHA Meeting – 7/16/2013

Minutes 29- RHHA Meeting July 16, 2013 @ Don and Rita’s 7PM

In attendance: 11

Greg and Beth Whitesell

Don and Rita Dunbar

John Latuperisa

Johnny Messineo

Mike Rogers

Joe Redzensky

Joe and Carrie Zambrana

Bob Mongold

Joe Fyanes

Joe and Anita Herring

Matt Teitt

In Proxy: 4

Mike Gillespie & Kathy Guyer, email

Kevin and Beth Muskgrove, email

Luis and Susan Meyer, voice

Mary Dadone, email

 

Don: Opened Meeting

 

Carrie: Treasurer’s Report

Checking Account 772.55

Save 1239.42

2 expenses pending 1 – 7.92 stamps, 350.00 insurance

 

Don: We need to do an audit, we haven’t had one yet.

Did we respond to their email about dues?

 

Carrie: Yes. Ok w/ audit.

 

Don: On with the pier issue. We have 1 proxy from Muskgrove here.

We also got a bill from the County. $109, I thought we were Tax exempt, but this is storm water (for the Bay), due by Sep 30, for fiscal year 2014.

New biz, 1 other thing – We need some weeding in our sign area ….

 

Joe Fyannes: I’ll do it.

 

Don: You can do some Round-up if you want.

 

John L: I got two little slaves you can use (Ava and Cole)

 

Joe R: I don’t want to pay dues b/c I cut the grass down there.

 

Don: Everyone helps. If you don’t want to help, don’t help. We’ll get it done.

 

Don: For the pier project … We need to pay $1750 to the county to file a Variance and a Special Exemption. Variance is for square footage (30k/13k) and the 25-foot setback from property line. The Special Exemption is something we have to pay b/c we are in the critical zone and we are a community pier. All have to have it.

 

John L: By paying this $1750, is there a guarantee?

 

Don: NO we need a hearing and do the process. So we need $1750 to stay in the game.

 

John L: Did they give you any insight?

 

Don: There is a hearing date, probably September, in about 60 days. Then we go to bid our case to replace in-kind etc.

Don: [explains some history… to the project, the situation etc.] I went to a hearing before, the hearing ruled against me, but I still got what I wanted. I went up this morning to file, but I didn’t have a check … I was going to use my credit card, but they don’t accept credit cards.

 

Carrie – We have two bills amounting to $450. If we right the check for $1750, we won’t be able to pay our bills. We won’t be able to pay our bills. If they want to pay early tonight, they can, but we don’t have enough money to pay bill right now.

 

[Don and Carrie discuss differences about why we can’t pay a larger bill (the $1750) when we have other smaller bills coming due. There won’t be enough money to pay them, if we empty the account, Carrie said. Don said, that the bills were not yet due and that he had already given Carrie a check for $2300 that she hadn’t yet deposited into the account. She was only speaking to the current account balances.]

 

Don – I’ll pay my dues for the next 5 years then. Will that fix it?

 

John L – Some people want to put boats at the pier, some don’t …

 

Don interjected: Is there anyone in the room – or not in the room – that, when they bought their house, did not think that the pier and rec area was an asset to the community?

 

Rita interjected: He [Earl Young] sold this property on the pretense that everyone in here got a slip.

 

Don: I don’t think you can deny that it is an asset to the community.

 

Joe F: The fact is that we are so far along, why don’t we just take care of this.

 

John L: Regardless of what anyone says, there will be two dividing lines. Everyone wants a pier. But, a small group of us has put in thousands into the dream that we would be able to put boats down at the pier. My proposal was – I’m willing to guess that the same 6 people are still willing – so I’m still willing to put forward an idea, that in order to bridge the costs I’m willing to … [John was cut off]

 

[Some interjection from the room, too many talking, too fast, overtop each other to discern. In general some arguments going back and fourth over the way to pay for the project.]

 

Carrie: We discussed the bond or the reserve fee – but now we have come up with an additional expense, to pay for the new monies that we owe.

 

Don: One idea was a $500 assessment, which we discussed at the last meeting and decided to vote on it tonight …

Or we could raise dues, which would drop the assessment all together.

 

Beth – I think if we do the assessment, that it shouldn’t be a lien against someone’s house if they can’t pay.

 

Matt: If we want the pier fixed, it’s going to cost money. It’s got to come from somewhere. We also have to think about if there are any other repairs we will need [to the pier or other common facilities]. How are we going to pay for them?

 

Anita: I think the assessment is the way to go. We get it all up front.

 

John L.: Again, I support the voluntary route, if someone is willing to pony up the money. Why don’t we go the voluntary route? I’d be willing to pay $1500 right now, if it would go toward my dues.

 

Carrie Zambrana[?]: We have a motion right now for the special assessment, we need to go ahead and vote for that, if that doesn’t pass, then we can talk about other options.

 

Greg: What exactly is the language of the motion?

 

Joe Fyanes: The motion on floor is for Dues to remain at $100 and for a $500 special assessment for part of the pier repairs and the rec area (shed/gazebo) for each household due by Sep 1.

 

Bob Mongold: Second

 

John L: I just want to go on the record as saying that we need a *super majority to pass this motion.

 

*[It should be noted that, in checking after the meeting, per the bylaws, a super majority is defined specifically as 10 out of 15 residences. The RHHA interpreted this to mean that full 100% community participation would be required before a vote could officially be closed. At the conclusion of the meeting 11 households had voted, 1 proxy vote from Mike Gillespie had been sent via email to Greg but he had failed to check his email before the meeting. Greg tried to check before the close of the meeting, but could not connect to Don and Rita’s wi-fi, so he checked immediately after the meeting and reported the additional proxy vote to Don. Also, at the same time, Luis Meyer had cast his vote in proxy and in person to Don. Mary Dadone, the last to vote, cast her proxy vote by email the following morning at 6:59am, Wednesday]

 

VOTE Conducted by ballot for 11 attending households including proxy vote from Muskgroves to Don.

[Greg passed out voting materials as vote was cast. Beth W. counted the voted with Anita Herring confirming.]

 

Results of ballot vote: Results of votes counted at meeting were12 total votes [at the time]– With Kevin Muskgrove as proxy included, COUNT was 8 yeas and 4 Nays

[vote was announced by Beth W.]

 

Don – So we have a super majority. 2/3 majority. [This statement was not accurate per our bylaw definition of “super majority”.

[It should be noted that no one checked the bylaws before or during the meeting and that at the time no one disputed this statement. However, after the meeting was closed, an email was sent out pointing out that a super majority had not been reached and that the vote was “not valid”. ]

 

Don – Is everyone in agreement that it passed?

[no one disputed at the time]

 

Don: For the record: No one opposes the vote. The vote has passed.

[note, again, this is not an accurate statement, because a super majority had not yet been reached, however, no one in the room said anything to the contrary at the time]

 

Carrie – I’d like to make a motion. Dues are due October 1st, 2013, so I would ask to see if we could move up the 2014 due date to June 1st, next year so that we can generate money up front to fund our expenses … and the dues for 2015 to March 1, 2015.

 

Anita Second.

 

All in FAVOR – ALL in FAVOR.

 

Carrie – We can’t see the “No Trespassing” sign at the top of the road.

 

Bob – I’ll trim it up.

 

Don- I want to settle up with the money. I need the $1750 for the County. As far as the $500 is concerned, we need a bill to go out.

 

We can have a meeting next month to see where we stand with the county in a month.

 

Next Meeting set for September 10th meeting at Joe and Anita Herring’s.

 

Anita – expressed exasperation with Joe for volunteering and said No Bathing suits! But then realized she would be out of town anyway.

 

Don – Motion to adjourn.

 

Greg – Second.

 

Meeting adjourned 7:56pm.

 

NOTES:

Some additional communications took place after the meeting including the following.

An email from an attendee went out to all the community, reminding that a super-majority was defined as 10 out of 15 households. At the meeting close, the vote stood at 8 to 4, in favor of the motion – a majority, but not a super majority. A few remaining households’ votes had not yet been received at the time the meeting was adjourned, but the RHHA soon collected and reported those votes to the neighborhood via email.

1- Mike Gillespie submitted his vote by email – a Nay vote

2- Luis Meyer – Submitted his vote in proxy to Don by voice – a Yay vote

3- Mary Dadone – Submitted her vote in proxy by email – a Yay vote.

 

After 100% of the households voted, the vote stood at 10 yays to 5 nays, still a majority, but this time a super majority as defined by our bylaws.

 

Another email went out claiming that the motion had not been passed and that the vote was still “not valid” because proxy votes were reported after the meeting had officially adjourned.

[after discussion among the RHHA officers, and in researching the bylaws, the RHHA did not see any foundation for this assertion in the bylaws, however, left the vote open, inviting any vote changes or challenges from the community for a period that ended at 9pm on Friday, August 3. This process was officially communicated through a July 24 email and US postal letter on July 29.

 

Another email dated Wednesday, July 17, from Don, [in response to some of the challenging emails] expressed frustration and a desire to resign from the RHHA presidency, however, it was retracted after some discussion. [Don basically said he quit as president but then changed his mind after he settled down. The RHHA operated briefly under VP leadership, but then sent out a communication to confirm Don was still president.]

 

Immediately after Don’s resignation July 17 email, another email went out from Greg attempting to poll the vote (confirm how each household had voted and to make sure the tally was accurate) and to “please” move on, considering that every household – 100% – had voted. [Since people were expressing dissatisfaction with the validity of the vote and complaining about the process, the email sought to achieve 100% participation in the process and 100% transparency, It sought to confirm 1) that everyone had gotten a chance to vote and 2) that everyone agreed with their vote.] The email served to confirm the vote by listing each household and asking them to state how they voted with full transparency. It also invited anyone who wanted to change their vote to do so. Note: The vote as stated in the email was not questioned by anyone, and no one contacted the RHHA to change their vote, however some confirmed their vote. The RHHA used this email as basis to confirm that the vote was 100%, that everyone agreed on the way that they voted, and that no one wanted to change their vote, and invited anyone to express anything they wanted to the RHHA and to the community for a period between July 24 and August 3 at 9pm, and that at the time the vote would be closed and become official.

 

An official RHHA email July 24 went out from VP Jan Fyanes that served to officially confirm that everyone agreed with the vote, as stated in the polling email of July 17. It officially stated that the vote remained open for any changes or challenges, encouraging any and all to voice their feelings if they felt the vote was inaccurate or unfair. It announced that an official letter would be sent out to close the vote at a set date. It also announced that Don was still RHHA president.

 

The official hard-copy letter was sent out July 29 to make sure that everyone had received the communication and served to close the vote, leaving it open for changes or challenges until Friday, Aug 2, 2013, 9pm.

 

After the Aug 2, 9pm deadline passed, a poll was taken of all the RHHA officers to ask whether or not anyone had received an official request to change or challenge the accuracy or fairness of the vote. All RHHA officers reported that they had not received an official request to change or challenge the vote. However, Greg Whitesell did convey conversations that he had with people who did expressed to him frustration at the way the RHHA meeting and the vote was conducted. The main complaint seemed to be that people did not feel that they got to express their opinions in the July 16 meeting, before the vote. Their voices were drowned out by others during the meeting and they were interrupted by people talking over them. They suggested that people during meetings should be given a set amount of time to talk (to “have the floor”, perhaps for 5 minutes max) and be able to speak without being interrupted. Greg encouraged those people to write an email to challenge the vote based on the concept that it was “unfair” because they were not given an opportunity to express themselves before the vote, which could have changed the outcome of the vote, however, in the end, they did not send an email to challenge the vote, nor contact the RHHA in opposition officially. The RHHA took this as an indication that they had accepted the outcome of the vote and were then satisfied that a complete, accurate, and fair vote had been achieved. This left the vote to approve the motion as officially approved by vote of the community by a super majority of 10 out of 15 households.

 

 

Meeting Minutes: recorded by Greg Whitesell- secretary

 

 

(Note: These meeting minutes are an attempt to record as much as possible that took place during the meeting [and in this case, quite a bit that took place after the meeting], but not nearly everything said was recorded, and it is from a single perspective. As the minutes are not transcribed from a tape, nor are they all inclusive, they are not meant to be direct quotes from anyone or to be used as legal documentation. Rather this is an attempt to provide a degree of transparency of the proceedings and to serve as a casual record for both those in attendance and for those who were unable to attend, of what is happening in the RHHA and the community. There is quite a bit that was said that could not be recorded, therefore, consider the minutes as a bit of short hand with some exclusions. I hope this helps. Thanks, Greg.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.