CariB2 (California)
Posts: 1
Posts: 1
Posted:
Hi -
My board decided to end "free paid pool use days" at our association. They wanted to do so FAST.....
- A notice went out from my board of a rule change that was to take place immediately (no 30 day comment/adoption period).
- I objected to the process
- They came back "suddenly" saying that it was an emergency meeting and that the rule was to address an imminent threat / substantal financial loss to the association
Q: Shouldn't the first notice have stated SOMETHING indicating SOMETHING other than: we're doing this and it's going to start next week.
Additionally, now that the 120 limit to that rule is over, it's my understanding of D-Stirling, they want to propose the rule again through the proper channels (sort of), but say that they are "formalizing the earlier rule" (But wait! That was to save our skins - and they haven't given us any indication of what it was about, and why this was an emergency action needed for 120 days. Nor were we told that it was, or how, it was resolved.
Perhaps they don't have to offer than information, but if a homeowner asks - must they explaiin?
And, in the proposed rule above (the formalization......) they're also adding additional changes not previously in the original - yet they don't believe this needs to go through the whole 30 comment process.
Mostly: does an emergency meeting rule change notice that goes out (with no 30 day review period needed) still have to reveal WHAT the imminent threat it (purpose, etc)
Please help!
My board decided to end "free paid pool use days" at our association. They wanted to do so FAST.....
- A notice went out from my board of a rule change that was to take place immediately (no 30 day comment/adoption period).
- I objected to the process
- They came back "suddenly" saying that it was an emergency meeting and that the rule was to address an imminent threat / substantal financial loss to the association
Q: Shouldn't the first notice have stated SOMETHING indicating SOMETHING other than: we're doing this and it's going to start next week.
Additionally, now that the 120 limit to that rule is over, it's my understanding of D-Stirling, they want to propose the rule again through the proper channels (sort of), but say that they are "formalizing the earlier rule" (But wait! That was to save our skins - and they haven't given us any indication of what it was about, and why this was an emergency action needed for 120 days. Nor were we told that it was, or how, it was resolved.
Perhaps they don't have to offer than information, but if a homeowner asks - must they explaiin?
And, in the proposed rule above (the formalization......) they're also adding additional changes not previously in the original - yet they don't believe this needs to go through the whole 30 comment process.
Mostly: does an emergency meeting rule change notice that goes out (with no 30 day review period needed) still have to reveal WHAT the imminent threat it (purpose, etc)
Please help!