Ms. Tetro spoke of the coming Permit fees for the “re-opening” of Phase II, UCO office, and the additional OPENING of a permit (where none was previously required) for the walk-way that was repaved first, and the WPRF Hastings Pool area.
All of this was pursued by one who accused UCO of entering into a Paving contract without Delegate Assembly approval. Let's not forget that “RESERVES” are (for Condominium Associations) SPENT money! Why else would we have spoken for ten (10) years about placing Money into a Paving fund, unless we expected to spend it at some time. Even before the contract was signed, the Delegate Assembly was clearly aware of the Engineers report to begin the project immediately due to conditions in the Phase I area. Of course the Delegate Assembly did agree that all future expenditures should be explained at the presentation of the budget, and that is being adhered to.
However, when does UCO owe money for the one who complained, gave records of the four (4) paving projects, to the permit office that now causes all of us to PAY procurement and permit fees. The one did not elicit approval from anybody and is the only one responsible for these additional cost, that might have been mitigated if only the one asked for a meeting with officers and established the mandatory approval through the Officers, Executive Board and finally the Delegate Assembly.
Accordingly, should we have a motion that the one pay for the increased costs associated for this costly error in procedure, especially since he is so very concerned about the budget eight (8) months after the Delegate Assembly approved it. He never attended any meetings of the finance committee, but feels it within his personal capacity to spend our money without regard to the budget consequences.
If we pay this, we will have endorsed this process where anyone may create non-budgeted expenses for which we would be responsible. Would anyone expect to repair their auto, damaged in an accident, and then expect the insurance company to pay the claim without participating in review of the damages first. Why should the one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
He absolutely should pay these added expenses and if you need someone to make the motion, I volunteer,
ReplyDeleteHi all,
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that the individuals who caused these permits to be re-opened, after they had been approved, signed off and closed, should indeed bear the additional costs that will result!
I estimate that it will be circa $40,000.00
Let's have the Delegates decide!
Dave Israel
Making such a motion at the Delegate Assembly brings forth two issues worthy of consideration: 1)"Is such a motion out of order as a matter of Parliamentary Procedure?" and; 2)"If such a motion is carried, is it enforceable?"
ReplyDeleteLet's begin with the second issue first, because if such a motion is valid, then it would be helpful to consider if it is enforceable. Since UCO does not have assessment or lien rights against any individual owner or association, if such a motion carried, how would we collect this 'fine'? Would UCO consider legal proceedings in a court of equity? If yes, on what basis? A disgruntled UCO member reported code violations to County Code Enforcement and it may cost us up to $40,000 because he blew his whistle? You decide.
Let's return to the first question: "Is such a motion out of order...?" Keep in mind that I've consulted Registered Parliamentarians from across the country on the official website.
The consensus of their opinions is that such a motion is NOT out of order!
The following URL will lead you to some interesting responses.
http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/16258-motion-out-of-order/ their website.
Bingo: "Such a motion is not out of order." The delegates who understand how spiteful it was to expose the Village to pointless re-striping would surely support a motion that the man responsible pay for the damage he created.This was not about protecting the welfare and safety of residents or even compliance with regulations. This was about attacking the M&M contract to make the current administration look bad. It didn't work. Delegates are too smart.
ReplyDeleteEd, thanks for your continued work on behalf of the Village despite small-minded attacks against you. You remain one of the few people here capable of managing a sophisticated budget, and try as some might, they cannot refute your accounting knowledge and sound business practices.
I surely hope we don't have to be restriped at Sheffield N, where I live. Even though a few of our parking spaces are less than 9-feet wide (my own is probably the narrowest at 8 feet), we are getting along fine. Restriping could mean fewer persons could park their cars in the better locations. We don't need the anger and irritations this would bring us. Nor do we need the inconveniences to us all of having to park our cars elewhere during the restriping, and of getting the cars belonging to those not in residence moved--SOMEHOW.
ReplyDeleteMe oh my, I multiply all the problems from restriping for our association by over 300 associations and think "Who in their right mind brought this all down on us?" It was an attempt to right a perceived ("perceived" being the operative word) wrong apparently, but at what cost, lack of forethought, and lack of consideration for the convenience of others?
I hope that somehow this can be nipped in the bud and a better way found through this mess.