Hi all,
What happened in the scant few months between overwhelming approval by the Delegate Assembly for UCO to pursue OVPU; and the same group’s angst ridden refusal to approve funds to make it happen at the 3 September meeting?
-
What happened, simply stated, was that the Delegates learned that it would cost money!
-
Well, now hear this! My stated estimate of the cost was totally wrong; my anticipation of a one thousand dollar bill from our attorney was way off. The actual bill came in on Wednesday 08 Sept. and is in fact $3875.00 (49 cents per unit)!
-
For what it is worth, I am personally in favor of OVPU, I feel that it is the American Democratic way to elect our officials. I know that our representative governance model works to a point, although our Board of Directors (Delegate Assembly) is a bit unwieldy, but I feel that the National model for election of President is a superior procedure. Having said this, I do certainly take note of the fact that many of our unit owners simply cannot afford the costs associated with such efforts.
-
Another point needs to be considered, if UCO was recast as a Master Association (It certainly operates like one), it would then function under Florida Statute FS-718 and then it’s Officers would be elected just as they are in our Associations; OVPU. That conversion, to a Master Association, would cost many thousands of dollars in legal fees.
-
Well, all things considered, it does appear as though OVPU is moribund, but if history is any judge, I suspect that it will arise again in one form or another; I await the will of the electorate!
Dave Israel
-
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The American Democratic Way, is
ReplyDeleteONE VOTE PER CITIZEN, (People have
been arrested for attempting to
vote, more than once, is that not
so?) which I do embrace, not the
proposed OVPU, which would allow
1 owner, to vote several times,
if in fact they owned several units
throughout the village.
As stated the XBD would have complete Power, should this change
take place....28 people making
decisions for the entire village...
We currently have or should have
the imput of 309 Associations
of DELEGATES,BOARD MEMBERS, OF THEIR RESPECTIVE Associations, all
all elected or appointed..as the
case may be...WITHOUT the expenditure of ADDITIONAL FUNDS,
which we DO NOT HAVE.....
FOR EXPLORATION OF ANYTHING, OTHER
THAN PERHAPS GOLD!
Hi BettieL,
ReplyDeleteSeptember 12, 2010 5:51 PM,
There was a great deal of discussion of the not to subtle differences between OVPU and one vote per unit owner (OVPUO)!
In the case of OVPU, an owner of multiple units would get multiple votes and in the case of OVPUO, a unit owned by many persons would exercise "inordinate influence"!
These issues can be resolved in either case by the wording in the new Bylaws, it would come down to what the majority of the electorate desired.
This issue is but one that requires legal assistance to resolve, in any case this matter, for the moment is in hiatus.
Dave Israel
In other words, the deliberating and arguing about paying an extra $1000 to explore the POSSIBILITY of implementing OVPU would have all been for nought, had it passed, because we had already (unknowingly) passed the $2000 mark. In fact, if we had come back to vote for a third $1000 ($3000 total), we would have already passed THAT without having the attorney do a single further thing. To me, this just shows how astronomical the costs might be if we went ahead with FULL IMPLEMENTATION of OVPU.
ReplyDeleteAll this discussion re OVPU or OVPUO still does not make provision for input from winter residents. Let's put on our thinking caps and find a way for snow birds to participate in our government operations.
ReplyDeleteHi Dave,
ReplyDeleteRecognizing the hiatus regarding OVPU and OVPUO, it does not prevent one from attempting to remove some of the stumbling blocks related to the election process. Included in one of the opinions from house counsel, was the requirement for obtaining Voting Certificates from multiply owned units to determine the voting member for a given unit. Should we refine the election process to permit every owner of a multiply owned unit the right to cast their vote, it would eliminate the need for Voting Certificates, which would eliminate the very time consuming procedure of requiring Voting Certificates to identify the voting member from each unit. Regardless of the number of units owned, in either the same association or in others, each owner of multiply owned units would be permitted to vote for each unit owned.
Though BettieL would clearly object to one owner voting several times should that person own more than one unit, it in fact works exactly in the same fashion when a person owns more than one unit in an association and gets to cast a vote for each unit owned (in a Membership Meeting) and as well in the Delegate Assembly, where one person has the right to multiple votes in the event that they are the Delegate for more than one Association.
House counsel opines that a challenge to the election results could be brought in the event that Voting Certificates are not used, and that my idea of "1st come 1st served"(on multiply owned units) could be a valid basis for such challenge.