RECALL VOTE UNDER WAY IN HVL: The HVL BOD has started the balloting process for the vote to recall two Directors. The ballots are expected to be mailed out during the week of August 11th and must be returned by September 19th. A member meeting has been called for September 19 @ 9:00am to accept walk-in ballots, count all the ballots and announce the results of the vote. ......... Two separate petitions have been submitted against two Directors. The first petition, received June 26th calls for President Bill Waite to be recalled. The second petition, received July 17th calls for Director Steven Greenberg to be recalled. Each petition was sent to Robertson & Associates, CPA, in Lakeport for signature validation. Each petition was deemed valid, thus bringing about the balloting process. ......... Under the Davis-Stirling Act (the set of laws/statures which govern Homeowners Associations such as HVLA), members may recall Directors with whom they disagree. Petitioners are not required to show just cause. They need only collect signatures of 5% of the membership and a recall is underway. ......... How did this all come about? It began on April 27, 2014 when the BOD held a Community Forum event to present and discuss with members the status of the Hartmann Restaurant replacement project. On that day, Director Greenberg distributed a document to members in attendance titled: The Hartmann Facility Project - To Be or Not to Be? This document included a false statement claiming a Davis-Stirling mandate regarding members right to vote. Due to the erroneous nature of Director Greenbergs claim, other Directors were concerned about the exposure to a law-suit over the new building project. After all, if a Director states categorically the a member vote is required for any large scale construction project, then it must be true, right? Well, NO. ........... As a matter of fact, Director Greenberg was well aware of a written opinion from the Associations legal counsel stating a vote does not apply in this case, as this was communicated to the membership at a Community Forum held August 17, 2013. Under the California Corporations Code, (7231), a Directors allegiance is to the best interests of the {Association} corporation and Directors are protected from personal liability when they rely on professionals opinions and studies rendered in matters under consideration. When Director Greenberg contradicted legal opinion, he put the Association at undue risk of legal action against it. ......... Since a Directors duty is to act in the best interest of the {Association} corporation, President Waite consulted with legal counsel. Legal counsel drafted a letter to Mr. Greenberg, warning him of his ill-advised approach and erroneous statements. President Waite, acting in the best interests of the Association, authorized the release of that letter to Director Greenberg. Upon receipt of the letter, Director Greenberg chose to violate the code of conduct and he publicized it. ......... The BOD Code of Conduct states: Directors shall at all times maintain the confidentiality of legal, personnel, quasi-personnel and private membership issues and executive session discussions and decisions, other than those decisions the Board is required to disclose. .......... Petitioners behind the recall of Director Greenberg cite the issues described above and specifically state that Director Greenberg: (1) Breached confidentiality by publicizing a legal matter. (S.G.s May 4th email blast.); (2) Acted in his own personal best interest instead of in the best interest of the Association; (3) Falsely asserted that he did not distribute such document to the membership at large (S.G.s May 4th and May 6th email blasts) although members came forward with copies of the letter at the July 10th BOD meeting and stated that Director Greenberg had handed it to them; (4) Acted unilaterally on matters of business before discussing issues with fellow Board members. (S.G.s July 1st email blast directing GM Spears to intervene with petitions of the recall process.); (5) Issued unsubstantiated financial estimates without discussing his concerns with fellow Board members (S.G.s June 17th email blast). ........... Petitioners behind the recall of President Waite falsely cite abuse of power and failure to carry out his fiduciary duty. Supporters contend that President Waite was RESPONSIBLY PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF THE ASSOCIATION.
Posted on: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 19:10:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015