Another Board Resignation

Posted for Annie McGovern by Moderator:

Word on the street is that another Rancho Viejo South board member, this time Jim Bailey, has resigned from the board. No eblast has been sent by the RVS board or Community Manager, at least I have not received one, notifying residents of this event. This makes three this term.  When Eric Sanders resigned, the board appointed Carol Thompson, a direct slap in the face to residents who obviously voted otherwise during the election.  When Barbara Boyd resigned, no action was taken, even though Marcia Kaplan had the next highest votes in the election.  Why the double standard?  Am I correct that according to Roberts’ Rules of Order, though not mandated, the person with the highest number of votes in the previous election should be the next to fill a vacancy?  And does anyone know why Jim Bailey’s resignation is all so hush-hush? My understanding is that he resigned more than a week ago – and we’re sorry to see you go,  Jim.

Advertisements

One response to “Another Board Resignation

  1. Question 1: You are correct that boards often follow suggested parliamentary protocol, and appoint the next person in line according to votes. If this board surprised us and followed protocol, the next in line would be Marcia Kaplan. Since the board had a prior opportunity to appoint David Pfeifer in a previoius year and did not, I would expect them to do nothing at this time. The minimum number of directors required in our bylaws is 3, so their reasoning will be that they have enough serving directors and the election is in November.
    Question 2: I’ll take a guess as to why Jim’s resignation is hush-hush based on my experience as a previous board VP and Director. During my term, I was accused of altering minutes. I did not, but was summoned to a Special Meeting where I was asked by the Association Attorney to resign. I had proof that I had asked for a revision through the Secretary and was supported by the HOAMCO employee who did the board minutes at that time, so the meeting ended with plenty of egg on faces. A few weeks later, the board removed my VP title for other bogus reasons. I could have filed a dispute resolution, but chose not to. There were already plenty of legal charges which could be seen on the financials, but the board did not explain them to residents, and I was told to keep quiet. Later, Dir. David Pfeifer filed a dispute resolution to get copies of legal invoices and financial records that he was denied by then President Thompson. He dropped the action when the Association Attorney said that Carol’s legal costs would be covered, but not his. Regarding Jim Bailey, at the Board meeting where they took his title of president away, the meeting broke out into an argument as to whether the board’s actions were “legal”. Our board sends anything controversial straight to the Association Attorney for an (expensive) opinion. Since Jim missed a couple of meetings and Bernie ended up President, my guess is there was a dispute resolution that no one is allowed to discuss (mentioned in July board meeting). Whatever the case, I’m sure there were plenty of discussions with Atty Krupnik, and that the legal line item on our financials is over budget again. Since we will be looking at a new budget tonight, please note that the North Association rarely spends the $2000 they have allocated, while our expenses have reached levels around $12,000.