My Initial Thoughts on the Response from the ROC Representative

I'm glad I did get a lengthy response. Of course I have more questions. When I composed my letter, I designed it with some "baiting" questions and statements. I focused on assessment issues because there has been at least one "stormy" meeting with the board about this. However, reading the response of the ROC representative, I am of the opinion that they don't think it's the major issue. On the other hand, in that response it was pointed out that during "last year's budget meeting when outraged residents demanded a reduction of the proposed 8% increase....that was when ROC was formed.."

The fact that the budget meeting was the catalyst for the formation of the "Residents of Change" seems to validate my opinion that assessments were and probably are the major issue for this group. If the existing board is being opaque about the budgeting process, that would rankle owners who are upset about assessment increases.

Communication and community. Sounds good. So does advocating change. But to what purpose?

I particularly like the comment that "there can be no website unless the board allows one." Well, I guess this blog doesn't exist then! Of course, I do understand that an officially sanctioned website with details of budgeting, etc. cannot exist without board approval and the release of certain documents.

I also noted that in the response letter, the ROC representative obliquely responded to my questioning of their statement that they represent the "majority" of residents. This leads me to believe that they do not.

From what I have received to date, I am of the opinion that, for this group, there is a lot of mistrust of the board. To be honest, at present I have more trust of the current board than I do of this group. What is really lacking for the ROC group is a comprehensive "mission statement" or direction for BLMH. Of course, that's a "chicken or the egg" question. We can't have an official mission statement unless it is formulated by the board. Or can we?

I'd like to see an inquiry of "Where do we want this "community" to be in 20 years"? If there were such a comprehensive statement of that type, then "we" the unit owners could determine if the actions of this group were consistent with that "mission statement". The ROC seems most concerned with changing the board. I can understand that; they can't do anything to affect the changes they want unless they are on the board. However, I'm concerned about the possible consequences of anarchy. What happens if the board is reformulated for a small but loud group of dissatisfied unit owners? Will the majority be represented, or that group of dissatisfied unit owners?

I am grateful for the response. However, I must note here that since this is the first time I have been made aware of the FAQ and Questionaire, and because they were not released with the original letter from the ROC that I received last week, there is a possibility that these documents did not exist prior to the response I received.

That does not invalidate this group.

I'm still formulating a formal response to the ROC response and when I have finished, I'll post that complete response here!