Some Issues with the Most Recent Newsletter and Meeting Posting

I raised several issues which included the June newsletter with the board. This was voiced during the "Homeowners' Forum".

First, I was concerned that the board had decided to post an advertisement for a unit owner, who happens to be a handyman. I asked what criteria was used for approving this advertisement. Our Communications Director seemed confused by my questioning and did not give me a direct answer. I persisted, and I was told two things:

1. The advertisement is for a resident and is therefore not an advertisement. Any business of a resident can be posted in our newsletter.
2. She stated that a precedent had been made in 1997 in a newsletter.

I asked if the board had approved the advertisement. Her statements indicated that board approval was not required as far as she is concerned.  I asked if the "handyman" had the proper licensing, insurance, bonds and so on. I didn't get an answer and then I said "so the board, and specifically the CD has decided that the association will take on the responsibility and risk if this "handy man" does damage, or is injured or causes injury." I did not get a direct answer. I then persisted and asked "if any unit owner and specifically myself, were to write an advertisement for anything or service I could perform, would it be printed?" Our CD responded that yes, it would be printed "as long as it isn't pornographic". I stated to the board that as far as I was concerned, an advertisement in the newsletter is a recommendation of that business or service by the association. That would be a reasonable assumption and conclusion on the part of someone reading the newsletter, wouldn't it?

During the interchange, another board member interjected "perhaps we should print a disclaimer" and I pointed out that the advertisement was already in circulation. A disclaimer would be a little late in this case. Perhaps there should be some ground rules for the newsletter?  I stated that this discussion had occurred at earlier board meetings, and that the CD had stated that she wanted to post residents or unit owners' "ads" in the newsletter. The board in 2009 decided not to do this, after an association meeting discussion about such postings representing tacit approval by the board, of what was contained in the ads. There had also been concern about unit owners and residents conclusions that these advertisers had been screened and approved by the association. The board at that time did not want to take on that responsibility. However, I stated at the June meeting that now with a new board, the CD had finally gotten her way. 

As for the CD's position that a similar advertisement was contained in the newsletter in 1997 and is therefor acceptable due to precedent,  I can only observe that the "precedent" of the 2009 board which decided that such ads were not in the best interest of the association, that "precedent" was ignored by our CD. She was our CD then as she is now. However, she now has a more compliant and more gullible board to deal with.

I can only wonder why such a position of "precedence" wasn't taken by the CD when the time to vote for a fee increase came before the board. The precedent for most of the previous 10 years was to vote "yes" if for no other purpose than to keep fees in line with the increased cost of utilities, suppliers and contractors, etc. However, as has been frequently the case, any position is justified if one can find a precedent, any precedent, to point to as an excuse for a specific vote or action. This is what politicians frequently do to justify their actions; find some statistic or information, take it out of context if necessary and proceed with their desired course of action. The "precedent" of the 2009 board deciding that such ads were not in the best interest of the association, that "precedent" was ignored by our CD. 

Second, I objected to the order of business on the posting for the Association meeting. That posting placed the "Homeowners' Forum" before the "New Business". I viewed this as a covert attempt to shut out unit owners and prevent unit owners from making comments to any new business. I objected on that grounds and stated that this order of business had been posted during some previous meetings, that unit owners had objected during the meetings for the order of business and that the board had agreed to adhere to an order of business in which the unit owner forum occurs after the  "new business" discussion of the board, but before the "executive session" which is closed to unit owners. I requested that the unit owners be given the opportunity at this meeting to address the board after "new business" session. The CD didn't see the problem, but the board did not object to my position.

Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References
================================

1. My issue and concern about the newsletter is very general. The newsletter is a representation of this association. The newsletter and its contents represent us, the unit owners. The newsletter is not a political document and should not represent the position of the board or of a single board member. The board, in performing its duties as fiduciaries and representatives of us, the unit owners, should be aware of that and act accordingly. Apparently, as in many other issues, I am among the small minority here at BLMH. 
2. There seems to be little interest in this board, overall in acting as representatives of all of the unit owners. If a single unit owner or resident, which includes our renters, has an issue or problem, the board seems to take the position that it must accede to that one person's position. Is that representation? I also object to the use of the term "residents" by board members. This is a continuation of previous attempts to elevate renters to the same status as unit owners. In certain aspects, that is acceptable. However, renters do not pay association fees and can not vote on association matters. That distinction seems to be something that must be undermined by members of this board.