Towing Incident and Response of a Member of the Board of Managers

During the April meeting of the Association, our Communications Director, who is a member of our Board of Managers, read a statement which she had prepared, signed and presented copies. I am publishing that statement below. I delayed this posting because I wanted to see what outcome, if any, would occur over the following month and at the May meeting. The reading of the statement and noisy followers of the Communications Director disrupted the April meeting in what I would describe as an attempt to coerce the entire Board of Managers. Refer to my blog “Update – Board Meeting of April 9, 2009’.

The position taken by one of our board of managers was very disturbing to me. Our board is a representative body with a legal mandate to represent all unit owners, equally. A member of our Board of Managers should not take a position for one unit owner, that would not be taken for any and all unit owners. The members of our Board of Managers are not empowered to determine who is deserving or not deserving in our Association. Ergo my ongoing concern. It would appear that those of us who would be less deserving in the opinion of the Communications Director would be held to the rules. There are parking rules and the boulevard leading to our complex is posted with a 5,000 lb. GVW restriction. A tractor of the type described has a GVW in excess of 30,000 pounds; it cannot be legally driven to our complex.

Here is the statement made by our Communications Director at the April meeting. I suggest that all unit owners read this and consider the implications. I have altered this only to remove the identity of persons named in the statement. For that purpose underlines indicate where names, addresses and other identification have been removed:

Proposal to the BLMH Board of Directors
April 9, 2009
RE: __Towing Incident

BACKGROUND
The occupant resides at _____with her son, _____. Her sister-in-law _______owns the unit.

The occupant of the unit is disabled ______ and requires around-the-clock attention from live-in caregivers. Her separated spouse does visit the occupant two or three times each month. His visits are typically 2-3 hours long.

Her separated spouse is a long-haul trucker for a company ___, which has a drop garage in ___. Since the unit occupant’s confinement two years ago, he has been dropping the trailer at the garage and driving the tractor to our community to visit the occupant, as he does not own a personal vehicle. Prior to his first visit to Briarcliffe with the tractor, he called the local police department to find out if there were any parking restrictions. The police told him that overnight parking is prohibited and, of course, anyplace where signs are posted restricting certain vehicles. He is very conscientious about observing parking restriction signs and, seeing none in Briarcliffe, he’s been parking the trailer on the street within in our association boundaries.

TOWING INCIDENT
One Saturday in mid-March, after visiting his former spouse, he walked out of the _____ building at around 2 p.m. and discovered that his tractor was gone. Thinking that it might have been stolen, he called the ___ police, who knew nothing about it but suggested that he call the towing company that was listed on the posted sign. He called and was told that his tractor was there and he could have it back after paying $700 by credit card or $600 by cash.

____ drove him to the bank and he paid $600 to get his tractor out of the tow yard. He has not visited his former spouse since the incident. He has no way of getting to our community, unless he takes a cab from the garage in _____, and quite frankly, he cannot afford it.

I do not know who called the towing company. I do not know why the towing company was called. I do know that what was done to him was unjust and, because it happened on our property, we should try to make things right. As part of a community, and especially in these tough times, we should be kind instead of mean to our neighbors.

PROPOSAL
I propose that the association reimburse him $600 to cover the expenses he incurred from the act against him by our community. Whether it was performed by one person or a group of people, this action reflects negatively upon all of us. Not only have we caused a significant financial drain on him, but we have deprived his former spouse of his visits.

I also propose that the association allows him to park his tractor on our streets so he can resume his visits to his former spouse. And, I hope that when we see that tractor, we welcome the thought that an invalid neighbor is sharing a few hours with a friend.

Signed by our Communications Director