- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.
The right to freedom of expression has been recognized as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations.
In the latest “tome” about Robert Stern opinion postings and his complaint, which he has every right to file with our HOA, David Berman is voicing his objections in his typical way, I’m sure many of you have heard the term, “pot calls the kettle black!”
Stern has been posting his thoughts on the community forum, Next Door, where he is making his case to encourage SCA residents to run for the Board of Directors in the up-coming elections, he also emailed the same encouragement to many homeowners.
Since the emails were not requested by the recipient, David Berman, asked those owners who received the email to forward them to him.
This morning on his blog, he posted a guest column written by “a female prior board member” who it seems desired to remain anonymous since there is no sign of her identity, her comments follow, as do my own, hers in red, my critique in black.
Prior board member:
Every line of his list is incorrect. 71% is an excellent level of reserves. He knows nothing about reserve funding. Nor does he seem to be aware of how changes in reserve funding rules in recent years have required SCA to include in its reserves items that in past years were not included.
Rana:
Taking into consideration the huge amount of SCA expenditures, wouldn’t it have been more prudent, before passing those spending needs, and wants all at one time, to have allotted them more in line with the reserve fund SCA had, rather than just thinking “let’s pass increases to the assessments to raise the funds all at one time”?
Prior board member:
The Lawyer stuff is another bit of fiction. Our lawyer does things at our bidding, not the reverse. Every attorney we’ve had over the years has come under attack as if he were some sort of Rasputin holding sway over our elected boards.
Rana
The board and management go to their attorney, Adam Clarkson for every little thing, in return “the legal eagle” will often find sentences and paragraphs in statute that will fit the reply he wants for a specific need. Example, when a prior board wanted to remove a fellow director, he found a sentence that would fit the situation and removed her without notice. When she came to the board meeting her name plate was not on the table, that was how the community knew she was no longer on the board. She received the news the same way as she walked into the meeting.
I would love to ask the former board member whose comments are in red, why SCA’s legal fees as billed by Adam Clarkson are so high since most, if not all legal actions are assigned to other attorneys not in Clarkson office.
Prior board member:
Right now, he doesn’t want us to have a restaurant, and he is clearly in a minority in that regard.
Rana
To the former board member, did you not look through the pages of comments from the survey that asked “do you want a restaurant YES….. No…? Many said yes, but they didn’t want to pay for it! But how many said YES without that comment. I have the survey if you don’t believe me!
Prior board member:
Note, please, that he cites an apparently qualified “female resident” who will be running for the Board, and he invites others to join her. Would you want to associate with an unnamed, anonymous resident whose name you don’t know and whom you know nothing about? Is there something Mr. Stern and that anonymous future candidate believe requires them to operate in secrecy, concealing her identity? We’ve been down that road in the past, and I don’t recall that it worked out well.
Rana
Both Robert Stern and the lady he mentions have been posting on Next Door as I mentioned earlier, both names are used, and the lady is very open to meeting anyone and to listing her name and qualifications.
Will people please stop referring to an ad hoc one-question survey as a questionnaire and please please stop implying it’s “research” that justifies building the Yorktown restaurant. It’s smelly garbage being passed off as delicious information. A harbinger of what’s to come?
Bob Goldman, The reason I referred to the “so called” survey in that way is because that is the way the board, at the time, named it… It was denounced by many of the homeowners, who wrote on their reply to the HOA that YES, they would like to have a restaurant, but NOT IF THEY HAD TO PAY to have one. Sadly, it looks like that is what we are getting and paying dearly for it!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.