Some Good Signs From The TAMPOA Board
There are signs that the TAMPOA Board has begun to understand how seriously angry some Annex residents are with the Board's handling of the Southard Street dispute. A few of the signs that Board members are beginning to get it emerged from the December 4 Board meeting.
The Board will be putting together a Power Point presentation at the annual meeting detailing the expenditures on the litigation. There are concerns among some board members that providing spending details to the membership about the cost of the litigation will hurt TAMPOA's litigation were the details to be learned by the City. While we don't agree that telling the TAMPOA membership in some detail what has been spent on legal fees will hurt TAMPOA's litigation position, we do commend the Board for acknowledging at the meeting that its communication with TAMPOA members has been less than ideal, and for understanding that the Board will have to provide a sufficient amount of detail about spending on the litigation if the Board expects to members to support their efforts.
The Board has reversed itself and now will do a survey of the members. While the Board was not crystal clear, our understanding is that the Boar intends for the survey to be done in connection with sending the Notices for the January Annual Meeting.
The Board also endorsed a proposal brought up by Tom Tukey to attempt to open a dialogue with the Bahama Village Consortium regarding common interests that TAMPOA and the Consortium may share regarding the City's development of the Waterfront. We applaud this idea. We have said on many occasions that we think there is more that unites Truman Annex and Bahama Village residents regarding the future use and development of the waterfront than divides them. We have consistently maintained that you do not have to agree with someone in order to understand them and that understanding, in the long run, is often more important than agreement, because understanding is the first step towards respect.
A small sign that the Board is beginning to understand what a burden some TAMPOA members feel the Southard Street litigation has become when the Board, with virtually no debate indicated that the 2007 Southard Court pool assessment (usually paid in a lump sum as part of the Regular First Quarter Assessment) could be paid in installments.
Prior to the Board meeting, the Board had received a hefty number of emails reflecting member discontent. It was obvious that the Board members had talked among themselves before the meeting and was trying to be more conciliatory, something we commend.
The Board has also decided to ask for a legal opinion from an attorney (not Bill Andersen) who has advised the Board in the past about the law regarding homeowner associations. The Board wants a legal opinion whether it is required to obtain a vote of the membership when it wants to use the special assessment route, as it has been doing, to spend more than $100,000. Some TAMPOA members have maintained that the Board's expenditures of more than $100,000 on the Southard street litigation without a vote of the membership is unlawful. The Florida statute governing the situation is sufficiently ambiguous that then Board has decided to tread cautiously and seek a formal legal opinion. This might protect the Board members from liability, in the event that the Florida statutes do require a vote of the membership as some TAMPOA members have claimed.
Some things about the litigation itself came up at the Board meeting. One board member reported that Andersen was now indicating that the litigation over the ownership of the street, while ultimately on solid footing may not be on such bedrock in the short term, and victory may only come after an appeal. The implication is that the litigation may cost more than anticipated -- more than the $250,000 set out in the 2007 budget.
That coupled with the fact that TAMPOA, even if it wins the lawsuit ,may not be able to recoup its legal fees in the current litigation is leading the Board to explore other strategies that would involve litigating the dispute in Federal District Court. The Board, to its credit, is moving cautiously on this recommendation. The Board has made no decision. Any decision will require a careful analysis of many competing issues, advantages and disadvantages and can spell success or disaster in the dispute with the City. The Board is correct to move with caution and a healthy dose of skepticism.
Also noted at the Board meeting was the fact that Board members have been reading the Key West blogs. Even if they don't like or agree with what they are reading, it is a good thing, nonetheless, that they are reading. A classic purpose that the blogging community serves, like the pamphleteers of Ben Franklin's day, is to push the envelope of people's awareness and thinking. The blogs provide a rich and diverse resource of information. So we hope the Board members, and Annex residents as well, will keep reading the Key West Blogs.
The Board will be putting together a Power Point presentation at the annual meeting detailing the expenditures on the litigation. There are concerns among some board members that providing spending details to the membership about the cost of the litigation will hurt TAMPOA's litigation were the details to be learned by the City. While we don't agree that telling the TAMPOA membership in some detail what has been spent on legal fees will hurt TAMPOA's litigation position, we do commend the Board for acknowledging at the meeting that its communication with TAMPOA members has been less than ideal, and for understanding that the Board will have to provide a sufficient amount of detail about spending on the litigation if the Board expects to members to support their efforts.
The Board has reversed itself and now will do a survey of the members. While the Board was not crystal clear, our understanding is that the Boar intends for the survey to be done in connection with sending the Notices for the January Annual Meeting.
The Board also endorsed a proposal brought up by Tom Tukey to attempt to open a dialogue with the Bahama Village Consortium regarding common interests that TAMPOA and the Consortium may share regarding the City's development of the Waterfront. We applaud this idea. We have said on many occasions that we think there is more that unites Truman Annex and Bahama Village residents regarding the future use and development of the waterfront than divides them. We have consistently maintained that you do not have to agree with someone in order to understand them and that understanding, in the long run, is often more important than agreement, because understanding is the first step towards respect.
A small sign that the Board is beginning to understand what a burden some TAMPOA members feel the Southard Street litigation has become when the Board, with virtually no debate indicated that the 2007 Southard Court pool assessment (usually paid in a lump sum as part of the Regular First Quarter Assessment) could be paid in installments.
Prior to the Board meeting, the Board had received a hefty number of emails reflecting member discontent. It was obvious that the Board members had talked among themselves before the meeting and was trying to be more conciliatory, something we commend.
The Board has also decided to ask for a legal opinion from an attorney (not Bill Andersen) who has advised the Board in the past about the law regarding homeowner associations. The Board wants a legal opinion whether it is required to obtain a vote of the membership when it wants to use the special assessment route, as it has been doing, to spend more than $100,000. Some TAMPOA members have maintained that the Board's expenditures of more than $100,000 on the Southard street litigation without a vote of the membership is unlawful. The Florida statute governing the situation is sufficiently ambiguous that then Board has decided to tread cautiously and seek a formal legal opinion. This might protect the Board members from liability, in the event that the Florida statutes do require a vote of the membership as some TAMPOA members have claimed.
Some things about the litigation itself came up at the Board meeting. One board member reported that Andersen was now indicating that the litigation over the ownership of the street, while ultimately on solid footing may not be on such bedrock in the short term, and victory may only come after an appeal. The implication is that the litigation may cost more than anticipated -- more than the $250,000 set out in the 2007 budget.
That coupled with the fact that TAMPOA, even if it wins the lawsuit ,may not be able to recoup its legal fees in the current litigation is leading the Board to explore other strategies that would involve litigating the dispute in Federal District Court. The Board, to its credit, is moving cautiously on this recommendation. The Board has made no decision. Any decision will require a careful analysis of many competing issues, advantages and disadvantages and can spell success or disaster in the dispute with the City. The Board is correct to move with caution and a healthy dose of skepticism.
Also noted at the Board meeting was the fact that Board members have been reading the Key West blogs. Even if they don't like or agree with what they are reading, it is a good thing, nonetheless, that they are reading. A classic purpose that the blogging community serves, like the pamphleteers of Ben Franklin's day, is to push the envelope of people's awareness and thinking. The blogs provide a rich and diverse resource of information. So we hope the Board members, and Annex residents as well, will keep reading the Key West Blogs.
posted by Conchette at 12:30 AM
2 Comments:
why aren't you publishing dissenting responses and queries?
We do publish them. See our post "About Publishing Comments." for more information.
Post a Comment
<< Home