The CotoBuzz Journal, Community Journalism

AUGUST 2008 ISSUE

We do not make jokes, we simply watch the LA Times, the Orange County Register and CID/HOA board of directors and report the facts!

LETTERS

LWV Open Board Meetings Memo

August 5, 2008

We received a follow up letter, posted below, to a GRF resolution outlining rules of engagement for open board meetings (click here for copy) scheduled for approval today. We asked Ms. Donie Vantizian, co-author of the long-standing Los Angeles Times column "Associations" to comment on the merits of such letter, and have included her response under Comments below.

Subject: OPEN BOARD MEETING RULES

Assembly Bill 512, introduced by Assembly Member Bates became effective January 1st, 2004.

At that time, Assembly Member Pat Bates issued the following announcement:

"I am pleased to announce that I am authoring AB 512, a bill requiring community associations to follow fair and reasonable procedures when adopting operating rules and reviewing homeowner requests.

We’ve all heard horror stories about homeowner associations that abuse their authority. My bill takes dead aim only at these tyrannical associations, not the ones that already respect the rights of homeowners.

AB 512 would implement proposals by the California Law Revision Commission requiring that an association’s board of directors act in good faith and provide members with advance notice and an opportunity to comment before adopting or changing an operating rule. In addition, AB 512 would allow members of an association to reverse a rule change in the first 30 days after it is announced.

By ensuring fair and reasonable rulemaking, AB 512 will reduce the excessive number of disputes and lawsuits currently arising between homeowners and associations. As a result, it will reduce reliance on our overworked courts, saving money for all involved -- including the taxpayer.

It appears from the videos and written material circulating in the public domain, that in the past four and one-half years, Pacific Property Management (PCM) and the Mutual Boards have adopted resolutions completely ignoring the provisions of the Davis Stirling Act.

Simply put, the Davis Stirling Act states that the Resolution shall be in writing and mailed by first class mail at least 30 days in advance to all owners before takes its first official action leading to adoption of the rule.

The board's decision on such proposed rule changes must be made at a board meeting after consideration of any comments by association members. As far as the Davis Stirling Act is concerned, the following recommendation by Staff is not valid.

" Staff recommends that a motion be made and seconded to accept the resolution and allow discussion to ensure that the resolution reads to the satisfaction of the Board. Staff then recommends that a Board Member table the resolution to the next available Board Meeting no less than 30-days from the tablement to comply with Civil Code 1357.130”

Note: there is nothing is Civil Code 1357.130 that requires the adopted resolution to be tabled for 30 days. This is a mere figment of PCM's Staff's imagination. They should know that you can not table a motion and then ask for comments until the motion is removed from the table. But that comment is besides the question. The main question is whether PCM and the GRF Board of Directors are misleading the Community. I say they are:

1. The Resolution was not mailed to the 12, 736 members!

1350.7.

A document shall be delivered by one or more of the following methods: First-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to a member at the address last shown on the books of the association or otherwise provided by the member.

2. The rule was not in writing. In fact, the only members who were aware of the existence of the rule were those in attendance in the board room. Mr. Ridgway has also indicated in the local paper that only about 22 % of the community watch the Board meetings

1357.110.

An operating rule is valid and enforceable only if all of the following requirements are satisfied:

The rule is in writing and in the possession of all 12,736 members

3. This resolution was voted on and approved without written notice to the members of the community.

1357.130.

(a) The board of directors shall provide written notice of a proposed rule change to the members at least 30 days before making the rule change.

1357.150. (a)

This article applies to a rule change commenced on or after January 1, 2004.

For the purposes of this section, a rule change is commenced when the board of directors of the association takes its first official action leading to adoption of the rule change.

The fact is -- that the initial notice would have to be sent to the members at least 30 days before it is placed on the meeting agenda.

Civ. Code § 1357.130 (added). Rulemaking procedure Comment. Section 1357.130 provides the procedure to be followed when making a rule change.

Failure to provide notice to every member will not invalidate a rule change if the failure is minor and inadvertent.

Finally,

This is not a case where the failure to notify was in good faith "minor and/or inadvertent."

They know exactly what they doing!!!

Joe Fischler

COMMENTS

Ms. Donie Vantizian's, (co-author of the long-standing Los Angeles Times column "Associations") reaction to Mr. Fischler's letter:

"Board directors appear by presumption to be 'rational and reasonable' human beings for no other reason than they were supposedly 'elected' by a majority of titleholders in a 'fair election' and are therefore placed in positions of trust and great--nearly unlimited--power.

That presumption is based on the indemnification insurance for homeowner association boards of directors and its nearly ipso facto defense fund provided for errant directors. I do not believe in that so-called presumption-by-default mantra of 'rational and reasonable' as it applies to board directors because time and again it appears to be proven wrong on many fronts. With nothing more, it presumes an election was fair and makes such elections prima facie with little effort. That is why I termed the latest fiasco taking place in Leisure World Laguna Woods the "SHUT-UP RULE." In Leisure World-type projects everywhere, but especially here in California, because it is a predominately retirement development, it is plausible that the majority of these so-called 'rational and reasonable' human beings are bringing good will and good faith along with some sort of past work experience with them. However, what appears to be a blatant abuse of laws by those in control against those who are not in control, is a grotesque disappointment.

As we noted in 'Villa Appalling! Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living,' the abuse of laws meant to protect are a big concern of titleholders who are forced now to live under a regime of 'rulers' and be treated as serfs rather than the bona fide homeowners that they are. It is EASIER for boards to be law abiding than not."

Buzz, Members of LWV do not elect the GRF board. Members elect the housing mutual boards and the directors of the housing mutuals elect the GRF board!!! -Bob

CotoBlogzz Tagzz - use any number of social networking managers to share this (or any other articles in the Internet) with others...click here and select social bookmarkings threads

RELATED STORIES

LETTERS

LWV Open Board Meetings Memo

We received a follow up letter, posted below, to a GRF resolution outlining rules of engagement for open board meetings (click here for copy) scheduled for approved today. We asked Ms. Donie Vantizian, co-author of the long-standing Los Angeles Times column "Associations" to comment on the merits of such letter, and have included her response under Comments below

GRF Rules of Engagement Good For Folsom? First, does this new "SHUT UP!" Rule (click here for copy of GRF resolution dealing with rules of engagement) ) apply only to the Folsom Prison inmates at Leisure World or does it apply also to the residents?

GRF Rules of Engagement Innovation, or Self-preservation?If you would pay attention ((click here for copy of GRF resolution dealing with rules of engagement) ) to what the residents are telling you, you wouldn't have to be so scared and try to impose illegal sanctions against the people who are paying the bills. The residents would not be angry.

GRF Rules of Engagement Restrict Resident Participation The GRF resolution (click here for copy) about to be finally approved at the next GRF Board meeting - Tuesday after next (August 5th), is an effort to greatly restrict resident participation in their meetings. Click here for additional information

Different Homeowners Association, Same Issues
I assume that you are a member of the Walnut Creek Leisure World Association, or is this another HOA in the area? We have had many comments of similar problems by HOA's who happen to run into our website and I'm glad that you contacted me.

The Right LWV Leadership for Such a Time as This?
Is this general manager (Milt Johns) over his head in his management skills? Can someone come out with only experience from the garden to manage a 90 million dollar business without a conflict of interest? When is the last time Mr. Johns lowered our costs...

Working to Serve, Or Serving To Work - Letter to OC Register Columnist
Another good column. I was wondering if there was ever any serious consideration to any non-union government employee for the position of publicly elected Sheriff by either the Register or Supervisors? That is all I see in your Top Five selection and...

To Destroy a Community, or to Destroy the Status Quo?XThat is the Question in this Letter to the Menifee SCCA Board of Directors
First of all I have no intentions or no desire to destroy "our community". However, I must ask you to please define what you think the community is, what it is you think I am threatening to destroy?Secondly, Sun City has been declared a "blighted...

If you would like to make a comment about a specific news article, editorial or commentary and have it considered for publication in the CotoBuzz Journal as a Letter to the Editor, please send it to buzz@cotobuzz.com --. Do not send attachments- or mail to Letters to the Editor, c/o CotoBuzz, P,O. Box 154, Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678

Letters should be brief, and may be edited for clarity and length.. They become the property of CotoBuzz Journal and may be republished in any format. Please include your full name, mailing address and daytime phone number (your number will not be published).

COMMENTS

CotoBlogzz Tagzz - use any number of social networking managers to share this (or any other articles in the Internet) with others...click here and select social bookmarkings threads