Comments (5)

  1. Susy Pita

    I agree with the majority of the sentiments in the previous posts on this topic.
    The current 2 board members now have an opportunity before them.
    The first step they can take is to increase the size of the BOD to 5 members and conduct an immediate election for the 2 new seats. Then, those 4 members can make a decision regarding the vacancy created by the removal of one former member. It would be the right thing to do.

  2. Susy Pita

    I agree with the sentiments in the previous posts on this topic.
    The current 2 board members now have an opportunity before them.
    The first step they can take is to increase the size of the BOD to 5 members and conduct an immediate election for the 2 new seats. Then, those 4 members can make a decision regarding the vacancy created by the removal of one former member. It would be the right thing to do.

  3. Dave and Cindy Dyal

    Hi all:

    Vacation and our 50th anniversary celebration was wonderful and then we return to our home here in Boca Vista (for you Seinfeld fans) to see that a special meeting has been called, again, with less than 14 days notice. Guess this is the “new normal” despite what our bylaws clearly state.

    That said, I agree with all the previous posts. Our election was flawed and the members have spoken. The unqualified candidate is null and void. The election has sufficient votes and candidates to simply go to the fourth candidate for appointment to the board and so on for all future vacancies until the next election. If the current board members do not wish to continue to serve under those conditions, their resignations will be accepted by the members and the next candidates will move up on the board to serve out those terms.

    As evidenced by this existing situation, a board of 3 is inadequate for uncertainties that may arise. A board of 5 is the better option. The new board should consider the expansion immediately, including consideration for representation throughout the development with At-Large board members.

    After that expansion, the new board should consider a re-write of our existing bylaws, covenants, guidelines, etc. There are actually parts of the bylaws, covenants, and guidelines that are unlawful under today’s laws concerning flags, clotheslines, FColorida-friendly landscape, just to name a couple. We live here or own property here now and the cut-and-paste bylaws handed to us by Patten do not really reflect our community. So, using a very transparent methodology, we can amend our agreed-upon CCR’s (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) to fit our way of life and benefit our property values without undue incursion on our property rights by our HOA.

    Thanks, Norbert and all for posting these notes by all of the members (owners) of our HOA. See you all on Monday in person or online. Be there!

  4. Karyn Matthies

    Thank you Norbert for posting this information! I firmly believe the strongest defense any of us has is to educate ourselves on the rules and guidelines in order to ensure the everyone, including the board, acts appropriately. If the board truly wants to say they are “only looking out for our best interest” then they should start by reading our declarations and guidelines to understand what those interests are, rather than create their own rules based on personal opinion. The level of frustration and anger that has developed over the past 4 months could have all been avoided if there was open transparent communication between the board, the ARB and the community. The disrespectful behavior, gossiping, and judgmental comments has to stop! It’s dividing our community into an Us versus Them, something that shouldn’t be happening in SSL. Now is the perfect time for the board to start acting in our best interest regarding the appointment of a new board member. If the board deliberately ignores who the community voted for, they will be perpetuating the same behavior that currently exist, which will only divide our community further.

    Looking at the facts, back in June when the election occurred, one of the candidates who was elected was not eligible, therefor those votes should be void and the next three highest candidates should be appointed. This would mean Sara, Sue and Norbert should be our board members. To appoint someone solely based on the fact that they were in the role previously is wrong. The tally of votes clearly indicates members wanted a change, which is why some people were not reelected. Isn’t that the sole purpose of an electoral process…to allow the people to vote on who they want to represent them? Why should a HOA act differently? The board needs to do the right thing and follow the electoral process and appoint the candidate who had the next highest number of votes, which should be Norbert.

    To that end, I struggle with understanding in general how is it that a board of 2 has the ability to be fair and impartial when making decisions, especially when both the FL Statute 720 and the SSL Articles both reference that a BOD must be an odd number of no less than 3 and no more than 7. The fact that our current board is only 2 members, regardless of how this occurred, does not seem sufficient to have voting authority to appoint a new board member without a vote from the community. This is why it’s so critical that we all attend, either live/or virtual, the meeting on Monday. Our voice matters, whether the board wants to hear it or not.

  5. Timothy Senak

    Thank you very much Norbert for the background to which we all, board and us members, must abide. As many of us have stated here and between ourselves, we have been thrown in this battle. I have started to recognize the board imposes their opinions without soliciting the voice of the majority of us neighbors. Boards are created to streamline decisions to be made, but as representatives of us with our approvals. We need members who take that mandate to heart in each and every decision they make. Right in the SLFB HOA documents there is the statement “the ARB guidelines may be relaxed as the board decides,” which to me says we have the obligation to put sanity into each and every ARB ruling and not everything is not only yes or no.

    To the matter at hand. We as owners voted very recently. With the board vacancy it is the obligation of the remaining board members to appoint the person with the forth most votes in that recent election to the board. The board member should not substitute their own opinion with the actual votes us member made on those ballots. I don’t specifically know who gathered the forth most votes, but appointing anyone not obtaining those forth most votes would not be representative of us owners. Thank you again Norbert for all your work educating us on our community organizational structure.

    Tim Senak

Leave a comment