... since the beginning BYLAWS USED

Big picture

You May Share. On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 3:43 AM Woody <w deleted .com> wrote:

Please take a look at the Articles Incorporation especially Article II in its entirety. This article gives the Corporation many powers to operate with the consent of all. The Corporation can issue, promulgate, give notice of rules and regulations. These Articles were voted on and approved by the membership with a vote of 348 for and 127 against on October 24, 1987. These articles were prepared by Michael L. Scales. He has been the attorney of record a number of times and is no longer. The current attorney may not have his experience with our Corporation.



The Corporation has since the beginning has used bylaws and continue to use them to issue rules and regulations that are approved by the majority of the membership during a meeting of the membership where a quorum is required.



Now the Corporation is trying to use “resolutions” to issue their, not the membership's, rules and regulations and hasn't received the memberships majority approval. Those that they claim are in force are really not because the membership has not approved/authorized their use. However, the directors can use them for their internal workings but are not applicable to or enforceable on the membership. The current Articles of Incorporation set forth the standard and provides a living example of how the process must be administered with the consent of the majority of the membership. (They are still in effect.) They also legally establish what services that the membership must be provided thru and by the corporation and the directors are not doing so. The directors implore all members to report infractions of the rules being committed by other members. Does that suggest they are doing all things correctly? If not then they don't want to hear about it?



If the membership did not approve resolutions or other rules and regulations they do not exist for our local situation that we are permitted to issue by majority vote and haven't and we must not. We as a membership must not give this board of directors or any other board of directors blanket authority to issue rules and regulations without our consent by entrusting that authority in them explicitly. (The few gets to decide what is in the best interest for the many,)



Also, transparency is only practiced by the directors when it serves their “HOA” management style. Many questions that are being asked by many members go unanswered. If answered they may be though of as being subjected to undue accountability. This is in line with their blocking many members having access to electronic media. Those must present some sort of threat? Which they is necessary in the furtherance of their agenda or political agenda whichever the case may be.



Our right to have an impact on our own personal self determination is under attack by those currently in charge. No participation by members will be necessary or required if they are granted unlimited authority.



It is your money and are you willing to give up your right to have a voice in how it is spent? Or do you trust them? It seems they do not trust the membership.