LaskaS (Texas)
Posts: 1,025
Posts: 1,025
Posted:
Hello,
For the past 5 years that I have been on the board or involved in the community the board followed the document sent to all members of the association with the attorney's explanation of the results of the recall vote in 2017 and how that affected the staggered seat requirement.
That document was sent to every owner of the association.
Every year since then, when elections role around, inevitably, the question comes up, How many seats are up for election this year. The answer for the past 5 years has been consistent with what the notice to the owners stated in 2017.
This year, the first contested election since 2018.
There are 5 pieces of contemporaneous evidence that state that in the year 2022 , 5 board seats are up for election.
This year, When i asked for confirmation in early January. I was ignored. When I submitted the question to the board at a regular meeting. In mid January, suddenly the number of seats up for election is only 4. This is critical. all actions of the association are made by majority vote of the board.
After I the answer of "4" was given at the board meeting. I went back and found all the documents and official records of the association which all pointed to 2022 having 5 seats.
The board agreed to contact the association attorney to get clarification.
Today, i received a copy. The attorney stated that a defensible position could be made that the board chose to revert back to 2013 or 2014 staggered order.
The attorney was very clear to not say that the number of seats is 4, she just says that a defensible position could be made. she also says if it were to go to court, and the board loses. She doesn't know of any damages that would be assessed.
This is so ridiculous. The board is literally choosing to ignore the past 5 years precedence which followed the attorney's explanation and offical notice to the owners , the attorney informs them that a defensible arguement could be made to support them choosing to revert back to 2013 and 2014 order.??
I don't know what the legal term is , but a party can't just change how they interpret the bylaws to suit their desired outcome. Anyway, I pretty much lose here. The board is going to do anything possible to avoid having 5 seats up for election. I do not think it's a good use of resources for me to get an injunction. But this just confirms how absolutely corrupt this board is. and how association attorney's enable bad boards.
For the past 5 years that I have been on the board or involved in the community the board followed the document sent to all members of the association with the attorney's explanation of the results of the recall vote in 2017 and how that affected the staggered seat requirement.
That document was sent to every owner of the association.
Every year since then, when elections role around, inevitably, the question comes up, How many seats are up for election this year. The answer for the past 5 years has been consistent with what the notice to the owners stated in 2017.
This year, the first contested election since 2018.
There are 5 pieces of contemporaneous evidence that state that in the year 2022 , 5 board seats are up for election.
This year, When i asked for confirmation in early January. I was ignored. When I submitted the question to the board at a regular meeting. In mid January, suddenly the number of seats up for election is only 4. This is critical. all actions of the association are made by majority vote of the board.
After I the answer of "4" was given at the board meeting. I went back and found all the documents and official records of the association which all pointed to 2022 having 5 seats.
The board agreed to contact the association attorney to get clarification.
Today, i received a copy. The attorney stated that a defensible position could be made that the board chose to revert back to 2013 or 2014 staggered order.
The attorney was very clear to not say that the number of seats is 4, she just says that a defensible position could be made. she also says if it were to go to court, and the board loses. She doesn't know of any damages that would be assessed.
This is so ridiculous. The board is literally choosing to ignore the past 5 years precedence which followed the attorney's explanation and offical notice to the owners , the attorney informs them that a defensible arguement could be made to support them choosing to revert back to 2013 and 2014 order.??
I don't know what the legal term is , but a party can't just change how they interpret the bylaws to suit their desired outcome. Anyway, I pretty much lose here. The board is going to do anything possible to avoid having 5 seats up for election. I do not think it's a good use of resources for me to get an injunction. But this just confirms how absolutely corrupt this board is. and how association attorney's enable bad boards.