Late Fall & Winter 2009/2010

03/21/2010

Your comments concerning the executive sessions can only be responded to with the statement that issues of personnel for several positions were dealt with, legal issues relative to cases carried over from previous boards, and legal issues regarding whether to proceed against certain unnamed individuals were items that required executive session activity.

03/21/2010

Once again, a neighbor's brick mailbox was vandalized this past Saturday evening. From the damage observed, it looked as though some sort of explosive was used. Every member with "children" should be having a talk with them about such behavior. Not only is tampering with a mailbox a federal offense, using an explosive puts the perpetrator into the category of a "terrorist" and there are stringent laws about punishment since 911. My own mailbox has been vandalized several times over the past several years, and if it happens again and the person is ! caught I will prosecute. I am hoping that no resident of Lake Forest is responsible for this latest "prank."

03/21/2010

You should really keep up Mitch. The Board action that Moss worked on Thursday was the rescinsion of the rescinsion. Previously, this board had voted to rescind, not only the dues increase action, but the parliamentary move that gave the board the by-laws amending authority, and ultimately the rightful control of dues setting. This board is really in a predicament. They want the same things everyone else wants; transparency, accountability, and improvement of facilities. This problem for them is being backed into a corner on dues. They pre-ordained their own defeat by agreeing that improvements could be made to our faciltiies within the same income that we have. I actually feel sorry for them. Soon, they will come to see that setting the operations and services given to the community based only on existing income, is basically more of the same. So, as we see them try to stay within the financial means of current dues and revenue..our facilities will be closed and even less (as if that is good) of our members will utilize the place. a downward spiral, all tied to the idea that dues should remain stagnant and not increase with costs.

The contributor is mistaken about at least the first part of his statement.  The board rescinded Section 2.4, which changed the wording of who has the authority to change dues.  They did not rescind Section 6.6, which gives them the power to amend the by-laws.  Section 6.6 is the important one.  With that power, the board can bounce Section 2.4 back and forth as much as they want, which is what they have done.  Section 6.6 is the part that the board changed improperly, in the opinion of this writer, a couple of years ago.

03/21/2010

Mitch, You have once again attacked what was the most open and transparent board this association has had in years. The last few years have been about openness and accountability. Your continued jabs about ethics are slanderous. Sure, when the first Slate of Five took the reigns, there were small issues; A focus on the past, rather than the future, for instance. But really, though, the association communications was ramped up.

The contributor is looking at that board through rose colored glasses.  They also set the record for number of executive sessions held by a board in Lake Forest.  There is nothing transparent or open about an executive session.  There are times when confidentiality is necessary and an executive session is called for, just not every month.  We'll let the membership make the final judgment on such issues. 

03/19/2010

Does it really matter whether the dues are increased or not? No matter to what amount it is increased there will always be the "special assessments" for one thing or another charged to each member at least twice each year. The underhanded way the Association's Board continues to get what it wants and never mind the will of the people, makes one think "someone is taking lessons from OBAMA and the far left radicals. And if one should happen to voice a difference of opinion it is because they don't attend meetings or don't get their voice heard, etc.,! etc. - PLEASE, spare us the unnecessary criticism! An Association divided will soon fail.

03/19/2010

03/19/2010

This report is from a trusted source.  A couple of directors were missing from last night's board meeting, so Jim Moss took the opportunity, when there were few members around, to move to reinstate the dues increase.  Naturally, they had to suspend the rules to do that and from what I was told, they did not get a unanimous vote for the suspension.  You may remember, when they had a large crowd in attendance, that Jim made a great showing of voting to rescind the dues increase.  He also ran on that platform last fall.  Last night, when there were only a few members present, he reversed all that.  Also, apparently all the work done by the board to get the budget under control was tossed out the window and a budget was approved that did not address some of the issues they had been working on.  The new budget also closes some of the pools.  Lake Forest could use someone with real public relations skills.  This action will not win any friends in the community.  As you may recall, this writer really did not see much of a problem with that dues increase in the fall.  He just objects to some of the slippery methods that have been used by boards for the last several years.  It is interesting to note that Jim Moss has been instrumental in most of those.  Nevertheless, last night's action was a pretty smooth move by the minority faction on the board, Moss, Prater, Bidney and Sturch, to regain control.  This is getting to be some interesting stuff.

03/17/2010

Should members who would like to have a recreational community that keeps and maintains its properties to a high standard act to protect what they want? What about a lawsuit requesting the LFPOA restore the by-laws to their original state? The by-laws that gave the board full authority to set the dues at a level that allowed for upkeep and improvement. This continual decline or removal of our common facilities is becoming intolerable.

What's your point?  The board seized that power by rescinding a five year old board action a couple of years ago.  Has something changed that we haven't heard about?

3/4/2010

Just as most of the people that live in Lake Forest don't lift there heads out of the sand long enough to find out about what is going on. The discussion to take down the Club House has been discussed for the last year & the reasons explained a hundred times, so don't say that the people of Lake Forest have not been notified. Take your head out of the sand, come to the board meetings & you will find out why certain things are being done & why certain moves are being made. If you don't like what the board is doing then come to the board meetings & be heard! .

The issue has certainly been discussed on this website enough.  Unfortunately, though we've had almost 95,000 hits, I would guess that most of them have come from the same couple of hundred people.  My guess also is that most of the people in Lake Forest neither read the newsletter nor visit either of the community websites.  We know that they don't go to board meetings.  It's a shame.

3/4/2010

Look, all this talk of defending the actions of the board that voted to tear down a dilapidated building is getting ridiculous. We had the opportunity to properly fund the association in a way that would provide for the investment necessary to maintain the buildings and common properties in a reasonable fashion. The membership voted that down. The previous board also took the authority to raise dues back through perfectly legitimate parliamentary procedure. The new board voted that down. The reality is that without funding more things will go away, period. So, if you are unwilling to allow the board you put in office to set the dues, just accept what is..a more rapidly declining budget for maintenance and improvement

3/3/2010

I am very disheartened to find out that Lake Forest will be losing the country club building. I have yet to read or learn of a reasonable defense of this action. It's one thing to have national leaders ignore the public and quite another to have to same disregard by your neighbors.

3/2/2010

A "public" Golf Course? I sincerely hope that statement is only tongue-in-cheek?! But if they can demolish the CC with as much opposition as they had to it, I guess anything is possible? Next I guess they will close the pools. What is this place coming to? Really makes me want to throw up!

3/1/2010

Well the bulldozer is in the drive way. If you don't have photos and you want them, you better get them now. It looks like the Country Club will shortly be a thing of the past!

Lake Forest will shortly no longer have a Country Club.  It will simply be a cafe on a public golf course.  Maybe that is just as well.

02/26/2010

Just curious who would have something to gain by tearing down the country club? It appears, the association as a whole will be gaining in that the costs of keeping it were reported as being at least 125,000 annually. So, between energy costs, insurance costs, and yes, staff costs, the savings should help us survive the lack of increased funding for the common properties that this board has decided would be proper.

There are those who suggest that the cost attributed to operating this building have been exaggerated.  Energy costs can be reduced by taking some reasonable conservation measures and the cost of personnel will not really be eliminated, but simply moved, they say.  It has also been suggested in the past that the current general manager, who is actually a golf professional, really would like to have a new clubhouse on the other side of the parking lot directly in front of the 1st hole.  They suspect that this whole effort to tear down the old clubhouse is just a set up to allow that to happen at some point in the future.  Unfortunately, because of financial issues, the association may never again have enough cash or credit to make such a thing happen. 

02/19/2010

Can't believe demolition is the only solution...NOT that it is one by any means! What a crime to destroy something so elegant, or certainly could be again with refurbishing! The presence of the Country Club structure is why a lot of people bought in here to begin with. With its "futuristic" ski lodge looking design it adds a bit of grandeur to what is otherwise a very "dated" and partially run down subdivision. It is thought someone has something to gain in this?... and all at the expense of Lake Forest Owners. Bad, bad move!

02/19/2010

The Country Club, for all intents and purposes is as good as demolished. The roof leaks, floors are rotting, walls need repair, exterior needs re-siding, and so forth. There is no way, under the current dues and by-law structure, the association can afford to keep it, let alone maintain it as it is. It will continue to decline and rot. It has been proposed before to increase the dues and dedicate a large percentage to capital improvements on the common property. Each time, the membership votes not to do that. Is it a wonder that with little to no investment, the facility would look worse, perform worse, and be used less?? The Board finally has re-established itself as the ultimate authority of the financial level needed to maintain and improve our amenities. The board decided not to increase dues at this time, not due to financial needs, but political expediency. What has that gained us?? Continued squalor. Good luck. I hope the market rebounds soon, so I can move.

02/19/2010

At last night's monthly meeting of the LFPOA board of directors, the board took a number of actions.  They voted to spend over $82,000 to demolish the Country Club building. They voted to repeal the action of the board that was taken last fall to give themselves the power to raise maintenance fees.  They voted to repeal the $6 increase in maintenance fees.   They informed us that they are going to call a special meeting of the membership to vote on some plans that they have not yet come up with to deal with future financial conditions.  They told us that they were acting in good faith in anticipation of the membership responding in the same manner and voting to raise those funds when the time comes.  Of course, one of those plans will include the suggestion that we close the three community pools and build a single one and raise dues to boot.  Interestingly, most of the speakers from the audience last night spoke against that idea. 

Let's examine some of those actions and see if we can identify the real impact.  First, regarding the vote to repeal the motion to allow the board to raise fees.  It means nothing.  Jim Moss sat up there demagoguing the heck out of the issue knowing full well that because of the board's improper action to alter Section 6.6, they can simply change it back whenever they get the urge.  Section 6.6 is the section that determines how the by-laws can be amended.  Jim Moss, himself, made the motion to alter that section in 2008 giving the board the right to change the by-laws without membership approval.  I wonder if anyone still believes a word he says.  The action last night only delays the inevitable and does absolutely no good for Lake Forest.  Second, regarding the action to repeal the fee increase, refer back to the last few sentences.  Third, regarding the vote to fund the demolition, it's a done deal.  It makes no difference what the membership thinks, that building is going down.  And, finally, regarding that good faith stuff, the term that is most appropriate is "spitting in the wind".  Over the last five years boards have continuously made poor decisions and taken privileges away, while making sure their own personal interests were taken care of.  I'm told that one of the current directors has a boat in his yard that is not behind a fence or in a garage.  If you or I did that, we would get a letter.  So, when it comes to "good faith", if this board really means it, they had better take a good long time doing things and taking actions on behalf of the membership that will earn it.  It won't exist next month.

Now, how about an opinion?  It is absolutely clear to this member that the action in 2008 was illegal, unethical and improper.  The board had no right to give themselves the right to change the by-laws.  Nevertheless, they did it and except for a few of us who wasted our money taking the issue to court, the members did not really demonstrate much outrage.  So, the new board, who with the exception of Moss, Martin and Bidney, had nothing to do with it, should simply make the most of the situation.  The plan to manage fee increases, that was overturned last night, was not really a bad one.  The facilities can use some good old TLC.  Of course, saving Lake Forest is going to take the efforts of quality management.  If they don't think they presently have that, then they had better make a change.  If they do believe they have that, then they should get out of the way and let management do its job.  Lake Forest as a deed restricted community will last thirteen more years.  At that point, the covenants will expire and residents will no longer be required to be members of the LFPOA, or do anything else that the association wants, such as pay fees.  That gives the boards only thirteen years to win the hearts and minds of the property owners.  How are they going to do that?  Let's hope they figure it out.

Note: It struck this member last night that the directors really did not seem to know much about what has been going on in Lake Forest for the last thirty years and some of what they did seem to know was wrong.  One has to wonder where they are getting their information.

2/18/2010

I heard again recently that The Country Club is being prepared for demolition. I thought because of so much protest from the Lake Forest population in general that pathetic idea had been shelved long ago? If not, what can be done to stop it now? At today's cost I bet it would take over a million dollars to replace that majestic structure! Such a waste! Do you have any news on the subject?

The country club is set to be demolished.  The numbers used to justify the action were flawed according to some sources.  The owner's equity of the LFPOA will take an immediate hit of several hundred thousand dollars.  The board has the power to do it and they did.  Under present management, they will probably never be able to get enough credit to build a replacement, which is probably just as well.

2/17/2010

Clint's comment concerning support for a central pool is probably correct. If you ask someone.."if you could keep dues the same, but have one central pool, would you do it?" they would probably say yes. Especially if you tell them that to keep all the current pools open, they will have to pay more in dues. Very easy to get support by slanting the discussion.

A little over five years ago the membership voted by a margin of 70/30 to keep their pools even though they were offered the option of reducing their dues to $17 per month.  A couple of years ago via a survey taken by the board, the membership once again voted overwhelmingly against getting rid of their community pools.  Yes, the contributor is correct.  Much of it depends on how the question is presented.  In those two examples, however, the questions were slanted toward the reduced pool option and still failed.   The pools cost the community something in the neighborhood of $100,000 a year out of approximately $2,500,000 in revenue.  Since our cost of operation is about the same as our revenue, those pools represent only about 4% of our operating costs.  Yet, when some of these folks talk about cutting costs, they always point at those pools.  If you would like to pose the question, try this one.  Would you be willing to close the ____________, if your dues would be reduced in return?  Fill in the blanks with any of the following; pools, golf course, tennis courts, yacht club.  Care to take a bet on which amenity would get the least votes?  In the opinion of this writer, not only should the association continue supporting the community pool concept, but those pools should be a basic benefit included in the normal maintenance fees of the association.  They currently bring in around $20,000 in pool usage fees including $6,000 from the swim team association.  Eliminating those fees, other than the swim team charges, would cost the association very little, but would have a very, very, positive impact on the attitude of the membership as a whole. 

2/15/2010

What happened to the new board allowing us to vote on the fee increase?

The last news I heard was that they were postponing the increase for further study.

2/15/2010

  I see where the board president, Clint Martin, says he has 100% support for his plan for a central pool.  He says that everyone he talks to likes the idea.  I like Clint, but sometimes I think he lives in a fantasy world. We have a survey of members that says that the vast majority hate the idea.  For the record, everyone I hear from also hates the idea.  His own board won't back him.  What's he thinking?  Perhaps if he used Lake Forest amenities instead of Rock Creek amenities, he might hear what his own members are thinking.

1/25/2010

Wow...just found out noise ordinances are dictated by the timeframes of 10pm to 7am. My dog is barking before 9pm and the police show up. They can't even write a report when the multiple mailboxes are vandalized. Interesting!

1/25/2010

I find it interesting that everyone in this neighborhood is nosy and all up in everyone's life. Here it is well before 9pm on Friday night and someone's idea of a good time is to call the police to complain about my dog's barking. Interesting...I hear lots of dogs barking around here all the time. I don't complain and I don't call the police. Guess it's time to call the police myself.

  The reason that most people move into a deed restricted subdivision is so that they may be assured to some degree that their quality of life will be protected by rules of the community created for that reason.  Unfortunately, sometimes we find that we like for all the rules to be enforced but the ones that we are violating.  However, for the police to show up indicates that we are dealing with a city ordinance and not subdivision covenants.

1/19/2010

There is to much to complain about in today's world. I believe when you come home it should be a place of solitude where the outside world becomes neutral. It's really hard though when you next door neighbors dog barks throughout the day and nothing is done about it. I can't stress enough how annoying this problems is! Pay dues and nothing is enforced by your guidelines.

01/15/2010

I think anyone, be it employee or management, has the right to eat or not to eat where they choose. Does this contributor spell his last name OBAMA?

  I think the point the contributor was trying to make is that when one asks for the responsibility to help guide the association by running for the board, one should probably take enough interest to actually attend a function of the association.  It also seems reasonable that a general manager would at least check in at a major event held at the Yacht Club, although it is possible that he had another commitment.

01/06/2010

I think it would be nice to see some board members and employees at the YC functions, New Years Eve we had 2 board members and NO employees or GM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Sort of demonstrates their interest in the success of the amenities, don't you think?

1201//30/2009

  I found an interesting article in the New York Times about an American who is the manager of a baseball team in Venezuela, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/world/americas/30venez.html?hp.  The message of the article is about how even some Americans can be popular in Chavez' Venezuela.  What I found especially interesting is near the end of the article, where the writer says that baseball games in Venezuela generate fan rivalry like that found in an Alabama - Auburn football game.  How about that?  Even the New York Times recognizes that our cross-state rivalry is special!

12/29/2009

I think it would be nice to have a pet section (lost/found and pet registration) on the Lake Forest website. I realize that we have rules that require our pets to be confined, but accidents happen (as we all know). I have returned a dog before wandering (quite far from his home) that I had recognized from driving by his house. He was small, and I was terrified he would be hit by a car. I am afraid that other people are not as observant, and a place for lost/found pets and photos could be useful. This would also eliminate posters from being posted on our beautiful trees. I am a graphic designer, so perhaps I could be of service in helping create this portal/page. I think it will help keep our pets safe, and people would check it if they spotted a wandering furry friend (if properly advertised in our newspaper and bill inserts). Also, it would be interesting to see all of the pets that share this beautiful neighborhood with us. As most of us consider our pets part of our families, perhaps we could reunite pets mistaken as strays with their owners, prevent them from ending up in shelters, and keep them from being injured on our curvy roads. Please consider, and let me know your thoughts. Thank you.

  That is a good idea.  This website is an "unofficial" website that was once the official website.  It is now used primarily as a outlet for Lake Forest residents to speak their mind about issues in the community, freely, without interference from the board and management. I will be happy to create such a page for you, but I have also forwarded your message to the Lake Forest general manager, so that he might consider implementing the same thing on the official association website.

12/29/2009

  Did you notice in your statement this month that the board has postponed the implementation of the dues increase in order to study the matter more thoroughly?  That's is good to hear.  What they should really do is study the measure taken a year ago to rescind a five year old action of a previous board.  That was the really improper action that opened the door to this whole thing.  In any event, congratulations to the current board on at least considering this dues issue one more time.

Last week I stopped by the 19th Hole for lunch.  If you haven't tried that place, you should.  The ladies that run the place are very nice, the service is excellent, the food is good and the prices are reasonable.  While there, I noticed a few maintenance issues that could really be addressed very inexpensively.  A door leading to the the grill area behind the counter could use a coat of paint.  The siding on the Country Club could use a quick spray of stain.  Things like this cost very little, but make a world of difference in the appearance. Since I haven't been involved in association business in a few years, I cannot tell you why these little touch up things are not being done.   I can only tell you that my friend, Jake, the former general manager, would have taken care of them pretty quick.

12/14/2009

  Alabama is having some projects funded as part of the $1.1 trillion federal budget passed on Sunday.  How much of that do you suppose the City of Daphne leadership got for our pitiful streets? I'll bet you can guess.

12/08/2009

To the person that called me brilliant - Thank You! Even though you are, no doubt, being sarcastic, you are very close to being correct. ;-) As for your comment and prediction about the future we will all just have to wait and see what happens. Hopefully everything will work out positively. The current board is comprised of some very intelligent / brilliant people. I believe they can figure things out. From judging the past (with they employees involved) things have not been going so well. Granted, many things have happened over the years that have lead to our current situation and were not caused by the employees. I am not trying to imply that (all) of the employees are the problem or that they should not be listened to! I feel certain that any competent board will take input from "vital" employees and use that information when making decisions concerning our community. Certainly you can agree with this. I hope you have enough intelligence to comprehend what I am saying. Something has to change and it has to change quickly. Our neighborhood is currently on a path to certain disaster. Some major changes must happen soon or we will reach a point of no return - hopefully we are not at that point yet. Have a little faith in the new board members. When they actually mess something up then go after them. I personally doubt they can do worse than the previous board. Also, I did not see your name attached to your message! Don't hide your identity and post anonymously. I would love to know who my admirers are. Grow a spine! Sincerely, Wes Hamilton

  Now, now, we don't need any squabbles among our contributors.  Besides, you should have heard some of the things the other guy and his cronies have said about me over the years!

12/2/2009

Dear Mitch, You know I follow your website every day, because I had so much of my time invested in Lake Forest. I don't have copies of the covenant, but when Circuit Court Judge Bill Byrd was alive, he told me one of his concerns was that the Board could extend the covenant without membership voting, because it was not a change or alteration to the covenant, just an extension of the same terms and conditions. I am sure many read your web page. I think it's good for Lake Forest, although I don't agree with your comments, but I respect them because over 30 years you have done and said what you think is in the best interest of L.F.P.O.A. Bob Underwood

  That's an interesting idea, Bob.  Below is Section I of the covenants, which as you can see states that they are "binding upon all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of fifty (50) years."  Extending them would mean altering that 50 year line, which would seem to be a matter subject to the requirements set forth in Article XIX.  Also, the covenants apply to all property within the subdivision, whether or not the owners of that property are members of the LFPOA.  So, I would be curious to learn how the LFPOA board could have the authority to extend covenants on property that is not part of the LFPOA. By the way, there is a copy of one set of the covenants on the home page of this website under the Rules, Regulations, Etc link.

I

TERMS

All of the provisions, restrictions, conditions, easements, covenants, agreements,

liens and charges set forth herein shall affect each and all of the above-described lots

delineated on said map, shall run with the land and shall exist and be binding upon all

parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of fifty (50) years from the date

of recordation hereof, unless sooner annulled, amended or modified pursuant to the

provisions of Article XIX hereof.

11/30/2009

So, Wes Hamilton is comfortable with a board committee, made up of members with about a month of LFPOA Board experience, discussing the financial accounting and control systems without any staff guidance? This guy is brilliant!...Let's see...why not let the greens committee decide how much fertilizer to use without discussing it with a greens superintendent? Better yet..a greens committee made up of new members with little to no knowledge of golf greens at all. The idea seems more reckless than productive. I think most association members would be much more comfortable if a knowledgeable board worked with staff to improve the situation. To think that somehow leaving the employees out of discussions relative to overall performance or cost saving measures is going to be good for the association, doesn't sound quite right. Sounds more like a recipe for disaster. Do I see employee unrest, insecurity, and bad morale on the way? Good luck to the new board and I am hopeful that they leave the association stronger when they are done.

   It could be that they want to discuss employee performance in the handling of association finances.  I am optimistic that employee morale and performance may be improved by what hopefully will be intelligent board action in the future.

11/30/2009

I have a couple of simple questions. When do the covenants expire and what are the steps required to extend them. Is it something that the board can do by themselves out of self preservation or is it something only the homeowners can do. If so, what percentage of the homeowners must vote to keep the homeowners association a legal entity. Thank you,

  The covenants are dated either in 1971 or 1973.  I'm not sure which, although I believe it is 1971.  The term is 50 years, making them expire in 2021.  The covenants state that it takes 85% of the property owners to alter or extend that contract.  Unfortunately, they also say that the term "property owners" includes everyone who ever owned any of the property that was owned by Lake Forest, Inc within 2 miles of the subdivision.  That would include the City of Daphne's waste water treatment plant, a few apartments, and who knows what else.  In other words, the odds of extending the covenants are slim.  Even if it only included people who owned lots within the subdivision, it is unlikely that one could ever get 85% of them to vote on anything, much less agree.

11/28/2009

To the person that commented on the new board (specifically the finance committee) holding a meeting and not inviting the staff/employees to the meeting. The employees shouldn't be at the closed financial meetings! You are EMPLOYEES of all of US in the neighborhood! Perhaps the new board members are trying to figure some of the current problems out - you could be part of the problem. Back off and let them do their job without all of the whining. Just be glad that you have a job. Up until now it appears (to some of us in the community) that the employees ! have been running the show - 1 in particular - and they are not doing a good job of it. Perhaps things will now change for the positive. Peace - Wes Hamilton

  FYI, Wes, the contributor you are responding to is not an employee, but a former director

11/17/2009

I certainly hope that George Lieb is happy with the new board he ushered in. Great people, and skilled at business. They held a Finance Committee meeting and no staff were invited, from what I hear. Double secret probation???

11/09/2009

  Anonymous contributions to the Grapevine are not published.  However, the identity of the contributor of a piece is not revealed unless the contributor includes it in the body of the message.

11/09/2009

Interesting year is an understatement. For the first time in a long time, the board is dominated by non-users. What this means is the amenities will come under attack. Be watching for what "cuts" in operations will occur to "remedy" the cash-flow shortage. Yes, it should be an interesting year, alright. I have even heard a new board member has said that "every amenity should stand on its own". Well, if that is the case..look for mass closures.

  There have always been directors who came on the job with that idea.  It doesn't usually take long for one to realize that the concept of a recreational community is that costs of maintenance of mutually beneficial amenities only works when those costs are shared by all.  Intelligent directors also realize that the benefits one may use or not use will change over time.  As a personal observation, during my family's 33 year history in Lake Forest, we have used every amenity at one time or another.  Today, as all our children have grown and my wife and I are still tied up with careers, we use none.  However, we have no problem supporting the amenities with our dues, because during those other years, there were people just like us today, who were helping to make those amenities possible.  The amenities do increase the overall value of our property!  It is only fair to mention that someday in the future, I intend to be a user again.

11/06/2009

Wednesday night 11/4, 2 large yellow kayaks were stolen from the back yard of Don Prosch who lives on the lake. They had to removed in darkness, but if anyone saw anything to help find them or the thieves, please call Don at 626-2240 or 654-1311 asap.

11/05/2009

  The names of the new officers have not yet made it to the official website.  However, I am told that Clint Martin is the new president, Mary Ann Hampton is the new VP, Anthony Dees is the new treasurer, and Travis Stone is the new secretary.  Congratulations and best of luck to all of these folks.  Maybe they can figure out why the association seems to be struggling so much financially.  This should be an interesting year.

11/05/2009

Clint Martin- President nuff said!

  Congratulations, Clint!

11/03/2009

Very simply an Executive committee ..."..shall have authority to exercise all the powers of the Board which may be lawfully delegated and not inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation, or these By-laws at any time and when the Board is not in session." Even you can see that the action resulting in removal of a board power that is expressed in the by-laws would, in and of itself, be inconsistent with them.

  Your assertion that since board power is expressed in the by-laws, removing them would be inconsistent with those by-laws seems a little weak.  By-laws are expected to be changed from time to time.  Thus the reason that a section regarding amending them exists.  Where does it say that all things can be amended except the passages that support your position? 

Now, if you can find a "provision of the Certificate of Incorporation or any provision of law" that supports your opinion, then we may have something to work with.  It is interesting to note that the section 6.6 does specifically identify what the board may not do.

the Board of Directors may not alter, amend, or repeal any By-law establishing the number of directors, the time or place of stockholders' meetings or what constitutes a quorum at such stockholders' meetings

Notice that removing their own right to amend the by-laws is not one of their limitations.  None of this alters that fact that you improperly used Roberts Rules of Order to reverse the action.

11/02/2009

The 1984 action was done in an Executive Committee Meeting, not an executive session. The difference is that it wasn't even a full board making the decision. An Executive Committee under this by-law: Section 5.12. Executive Committee In furtherance and not in limitation of the powers confirmed by statute, the Board of Directors may establish an Executive Committee of three or more Directors, constituted and appointed by the Board of Directors from their number, who shall meet when deemed necessary. They shall have authority to exercise all the powers of the Board which may be lawfully delegated and not inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation, or these By-laws at any time and when the Board is not in session. The committee shall elect a Chairman and a majority of the whole committee shall constitute a quorum, and an act of a majority of members present in person at a meeting at which a quorum is present, shall be the act of the committee, provided all members of the committee have had notice of such meeting or waived such notice. The Secretary shall prepare and maintain minutes of meetings for submission to the Board of Directors. Emphasis should be placed on the section that reads " not inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation, or these By-laws at any time and when the Board is not in session." You can clearly see that the Executive Committee's action was indeed inconsistent with the by-laws and thus, improper. This was allowed by a willing membership, no doubt, but regardless, was done in error. This action has now been righted for all future boards. I would hope that this new board, when considering any rescinsion ideas, would take this into account, so that a non-apathetic membership would not need to litigate this issue to protect the association and its future boards' powers rightly designated. There you have it, the way it was laid out and the reason the board took the action it did. Basically, a restoration of duly authorized powers under the original by-laws. The procedural method was used to do it because it was the simplest and cleanest way to get it done. If anyone can still consider this an ethical lapse on the former board's part, I truly feel they do not have the LFPOA's interest in their heart.

Your submission quotes the by-laws in saying about an executive committee, "They shall have authority to exercise all the powers of the Board".  Explain why their action violated the by-laws.  Several of issues here to consider include the fact that the 2008 board did not rescind the 1984 action.  They rescinded the 2003 action.  The 2003 action was taken in response to the will of the membership as expressed in face to face discussion with the developer and in the results of the vote taken by the remainder of the membership.  The action taken in 2008 was also a misuse of Robert's Rules of Order, which in turn opens the matter up for future litigation.  Thirdly, even if the offending issue to the contributor is the 1984 action, that action would have been 24 years old in 2003 and, therefore, probably fixed.  Even if that 2008 action were directed at the 2003 action, it would have been 5 years old at the time and still probably fixed.  Your position that the board did not have the right to take away the power from all future boards may have merit.  However, the proper place to test that is in court and not via an abuse of a system meant to guarantee free and open discussion.

10/30/2009

The minutes that I have seen from 1984 indicate that the by law change was made during an EXECUTIVE SESSION. Obviously a complete violation of the bylaws itself.

It is my understanding that minutes aren't taken in an executive session, since that kind of session is supposed to be used to discuss confidential or non-public information.  Furthermore, to go back 25 years and complain about procedure is a little pointless.  The action in 2003 was done in a public stated meeting.  That was the one that was rescinded using Roberts Rules of Order five years later.

10/29/2009

Your erring is in the idea that a board of directors in office, is the same as the board of directors that are represented in the by-laws. To presume that a board of directors in office at a given time in history should be able to be the voice for all future boards, ever, is wrong-minded. Particularly, if you consider the political or social motivations at any given time may lead a board to take an action contrary to the by-laws, that in the long run, could be harmful to the association and its functioning; As I believe happened in both 1984 and again in 2003. I understand that you will never agree that the original by-laws should be upheld for the betterment of the association. The action to return the by-laws to their original intent will be, in my mind, always proper. So, I guess we will agree to disagree and let the lawyers decide what action is more appropriate.

Actually, as much as it pains me, I was beginning to go along with you to a point.  Every board since 1984 has said that the action to remove the board's ability to change the by-laws, particularly their ability to reasonably adjust the dues structure, hamstrung all future boards and should not have been taken.  So as usual, you are wrong about what I believe or will or will not agree with.  By the time, I joined the board in 1996, twelve years had past and the state of the by-laws had become more or less accepted and fixed. No one even considered that it would be appropriate, legal or ethical rescind the action.  That is because it would not have been legal or ethical.  However, it might have been possible for interested members of the association to take the matter to court for resolution.  Unfortunately, by 1996 they might have run into a statute of limitations problem.  

10/29/2009

The 1984 board and the 2003 board actions did not take their own power, Mitch, they took a power from all future boards. That is clearly not the same. The effects of those decisions can be seen in the condition of our common properties. You can say all kinds of things regarding management decisions, poor planning, or operational decisions, but the fact is that the removed powers alone are at the crux of most all problems that the association has had. The inability to properly fund the common properties in a way that retains, maintains and improves them is the issue. Nothing else. Your own collusion with the d! eveloper in 2003 that got a $100,000 payoff and a dues increase with their vote is the proof that the power was needed by the board to control dues. Your mistake was responding to those that declared the board incompetent to have the power by removing it once again. That action, thank goodness has been properly expunged.

Unfortunately, the developer would not agree to the amendment without that promise to remove the offending wording from Section 6.6.  The board in 2003 made a commitment and honored that commitment.  Our agreement with the developer, or collusion as you put it, gained the association a hundred thousand dollars, a reasonable dues increase and some precise language in Section 6.6 about what constituted a majority of votes.  We tried for the ability to amend the by-laws, but were unable to make our case with either the developer or the members.

Also, some will say that by 1984 the boards had earned their loss of privileges through incompetent management and decision making.  Spending on unnecessary services was out of control and rather than fixing the problems, they were just passing the cost through to the membership in dues increases and additional of user fees.  If you think F&B costs are bad now, they were pouring around $300,000 a year into it. The board in 2006 started doing the same kind of thing by putting a completely unprepared individual into the top management position and once again adding additional user fees.

10/29/2009

In the board, Ray Sturch's, infinite wisdom we dismissed our past greenskeeper. Now we have been turned down by others to take his place and are restarting the interview process. Seems like it would have been a lot easier, to remove the bad board member. What does it say about the way we handled the last greenskeeper when, in this economy, others have turned down the job!

10/28/2009

So, you believe that a board, taking an action that does away with an expressed power in the bylaws, is not contrary to them. If the BOD has an expressed power in the by-laws, it stands to reason that removing that power is contrary to the by-laws, correct? Let's try another comparison...Let's say that the power of the members to elect the board is in the by-laws. Let's say that the board power to amend the by-laws is in the by-laws. Would changing the by-laws to allow the board to elect its own members be contrary to the by-laws? Of course it would. Likewise, an action that a board takes, even to remove its own power, is also contrary to the by-laws. Sometimes I wonder...is this really that difficult to see?

No, it's not that difficult to see.  I'm just not sure I would not want to be on that side of the argument in court.  As for your hypotheticals, it is one thing for a party to give up its own power, such as in the board removing its own authority.  It is something else again for a party to unilaterally remove the power of another party, such as the board removing the power of the membership.  In the latter, the membership might be forced to pool its own money to take the issue to court to be resolved.  Isn't that what we had to do?  That possibly might have been a better method of dealing with the current matter.  If the current board felt that the past boards had inappropriately removed its power, then individual members of the board could have pooled their own money and taken the issue to court and used your argument to try and convince a judge to give it back.  It might have worked. However, that is not what you did, is it?  No, you chose to use Roberts Rules of Order to do it and it didn't cost you a thing.

10/27/2009

It appears we have a chicken and egg situation concerning the use of Robert's Rules overturning the 2003 action of the board to change the by-laws. In 2003, how did the board vote to change the by-laws? Considering that they took an action contrary to the by-laws themselves?? Hmmmmm. Well, now, I guess we could extend this discussion to the very first change in the by-laws that resulted in the board losing power to amend the by-laws, around 1982. Again, if actions must be consistent with the by-laws; and the by-laws gave amendment power to the board; How does the board properly remove that power from itself without operating outside the by-laws? You see, this is the basic legal question. Where is the improper action? 1982?? 2003?? 2008?? The chicken or the egg? Maybe it will take a legal ruling to clarify it. Perhaps the judge will just say that the original by-laws should apply. That would leave us where we are. You cannot apply rules now that should have been applied in 1982 and 2003, can you??

Perhaps you can explain a little more clearly just how you think the 2003 and 1984 boards took actions contrary to the by-laws.

10/23/2009

I just read in today's Baldwin Register that Daphne is getting a $500,000 grant for the sewer system.  If they keep this up, I may have to eat some of my recent words, while bouncing down our crummy streets.

10/23/2009

Okay, so as I see it the fight is still to attack the use of Roberts Rules as inapplicable to this situation as there is an existing Bylaw specific to the issue. If we establish that then the Board has no authority to change the By-laws and any action they took is null and void. It again seems that the misuse of Robert's Riles is the key. Who was your lawyer? You needn't post this if you feel we're beating a dead horse or you can reply directly to my e-mail address.

I don't remember the lawyer's name.  It is not that I think you're beating a dead horse.  It is just that the membership in Lake Forest either doesn't know what is going on or doesn't care.  If you look at the attendance at the last few annual meetings, the picture is kind of bleak.   Also, let me point out that it was my board in 2003 that actually presented the amendment to 6.6 to allow the board to change the by-laws.  I supported that amendment, so obviously I thought at that time that it was needed.  We had no idea how quickly poor management and leadership could send the association into the dumps.  My problem with the whole matter is the manner in which the board in April 2008 managed to snatch that privilege back.  I agree with you that use of Roberts Rules of Order was improper.

I was doing a little research yesterday for one of our contributors and read the minutes of the meeting at which the board voted to use Roberts Rules of Order to give themselves the ability to amend the by-laws.  What I found brought up an interesting topic.  Why would they do that?  Why would a 2008 board use Roberts Rules to reach back 5 years to renege on a previous board's promise to the membership?  There are really only a few reasons; to increase the dues, to increase or remove the limit on how much money they can borrow in a year, or maybe increase the assessment.  By the way, there was also a recommended amendment to the by-laws in 2003 to remove the limit on how much a board could borrow in a year.  It was defeated by a huge margin.  In any case it all boils down to wanting more money.  Now, do you know what director made the motion to rescind that action?  Jim Moss.  Jim is one of those guys who always agrees with you.  I don't think you can take a single position with which he is not in complete agreement.  I imagine it is really stressful for old Jim to be in three way conversation where two of the people are on opposites ends of the argument.  Anyway, if my premise is correct that the only reason to rescind the 2003 action is to get more money and if Jim is the one that made the motion, then it stands to reason that he supports the idea.  Just to remind our readers, Jim's term expired in 2008 and he had to sit out a year and ran for the board again this year.  Perhaps you saw his name on the yellow signs throughout the community during the campaign.  Let me see, what was the platform of those candidates listed on the yellow signs?  Oh yes, the first platform item was "We do not think there needs to be a dues increase".  What do you think readers?  How long will it be before everyone catches on to old Jim?

10/22/2009

The attorney's representation is most likely based on the fact that 1) the by laws were not changed (as you stated) and 2) No increase in dues had been paid yet, hence no loss, or damages which would call into question what standing you had to bring a suit. For this reason I recommend that everyone write "Under Protest" when writing their check for increased dues to show they do not agree. Then we go back to court and can show damages or refuse to pay the increase and wait to see if the board moves to deprive you of services members are entitled to at which time! we can again show damages. It's all in the timing. Interestingly as their action is illegal under the By-laws it might be possible to include individual board members or staff in a suit if they communicate with members in an effort to extort funds which it can be shown they gain from personally by their use of the amenities. If you want to pursue this again I will be happy to donate to the cause. I hate tyranny, and bullies no matter how petty. Oh yes, thanks for your reply, keep up the good work.

The by-laws were changed.

Section 6.6 before board used Roberts Rules of Order to give themselves the right to change by-laws.

Section 6.6 after board used Roberts Rules of Order to give themselves the right to change by-laws.

Section 6.6. Amendments. Any proposed amendment to the By-laws of the Corporation must be presented to the voters 30 calendar days prior to a vote, after which the By-laws of the Corporation may be altered, amended, or repealed, in any particular, and any new By-laws, not inconsistent with any provision of the Certificate of Incorporation or any provision of law, may be adopted by (1) the affirmation vote of the majority of the membership present or represented by proxy at a duly called membership meeting. The notice of any such meeting shall include the form of the proposed alteration or repeal or the proposed new By-laws, or a summary thereof, or (2) by a vote of a majority of the Board of Directors at any meeting thereof; provided, however, the Board of Directors may not alter, amend, or repeal any By-law establishing the number of directors, the time or place of stockholders' meetings or what constitutes a quorum at such stockholders' meetings

10/22/2009

Roberts Rules of order operate by default and only in the absence of laws, ordinances, or by-laws specific to the issue. The increase to dues is illegal under LFPOA By-laws section 2.4 paragraph 2. I urge everyone to refuse the increase or add to the MEMO on their checks "Under Protest" if they intend to pay. $6.00 more a month won't break most of us but the board's actions are a dangerous precedent!

That was the basis of our lawsuit.  It was tossed because the board's attorney convinced the judge that since they had actually done nothing with their kidnapped power to amend the by-laws, then we were not harmed.  Whether or not this $6 increase in dues could be considered "harm" might enable interested parties to take the matter back to court.  The problem is that most property owners don't appear to be interested.  Do you think that if the board amends the by-laws to give themselves the ability to borrow a half a million dollars, that the members might become interested?  Just three or four years ago the association's credit was good enough to do something like that.  Judging from comments made by the former president, Mr. Prater, apparently that is not the case anymore.

10/21/2009

Thanks for posting the results. The fact that the total number of votes are not divisible by 4 (since there were 4 slots on the proxy), some people may have voted for those who they knew. I met the first timers. They seemed like smart, benevolent people. I am certain that they will be a great asset to the board.

10/20/2009

Hello all, Mr. Frater told me, today, that I did not win. I want to thank those who voted for me. I do not the know the results of who did win, but I do hope that Tony Dees was one of the winners. When reviewing the financials, they need to be put into a better format. This would aid in better decisions. Best of luck to the new board. Thanks, Ronda Melton, CPA

• Mary Ann Hampton - 455

• Bill Menefee - 431

• J. Anthony Dees - 428

• Jim Moss - 348

• Ronda Melton - 256

• Kay Ponder - 162

• Dean Watson - 82

Thank you for caring enough about your community to run for the job.  You just didn't happen to have your name on a sign.  That is all it amounted to.  Unfortunately, it seems that most of our members don't care enough to do a little research.  Let's hope the three first time board members are willing to work hard enough to solve some of the problems in the association.  Frankly, I'd just be happy to have at least one director who knows how to read financials.  It's been a while since we've had one of those.

10/14/2009

It's always nice to be able to report the outstanding work done by our local governments.  Do you remember the stimulus money that was made available over the last year?  What was it? 750 billion?  Well, so far our own City of Daphne has managed to ask for and receive $14,595! Whoopie!!! By the way, the United States Sports Academy has received $71,000. The City of Bay Minette has received $30,012.  Bay Minette Properties LTD, whatever that is, has received $232,713.  The Baldwin County Commission has gotten $69,070.  The Bay Minette Police Department received $140,159.  HA Bay Minette, another mystery to your writer, has receive $214,824 and Delta Realty, LLC has received $25,000.  But, never mind all those, Daphne got $14,595!!!  Wonder why our streets are so bad?  Wouldn't you think that they would have qualified for some of that stimulus money?  Just for a point of reference, D & G Hardware in McIntosh, Alabama received $67,000.  Surely, they had something more important to work on than little old streets.  The source of this information is recovery.gov, a website created by the federal government to help us keep up with the progress of the stimulus.  Maybe the Lake Forest property owners might want to make a proposal.  They seem to need some money. 

You'll love this one.  Alternative Answering of Montrose received or will receive $765,000!  Their listing says "Alphanumeric Paging, Email,  Fax Delivery, Custom Message Formats, Text Messaging, Voice Mail Message Delivery Options".  Isn't that great!  The City of Daphne has only come up with $14,595!!

I found another good one.  Thomasville City Waterworks and Sewer is receiving $15,199,000 in water grants.

10/14/2009

I had a very interesting conversation with a realtor yesterday . . . the house next to me was just put on the market last night and I had the opportunity to speak to the realtor (who lives in Spanish Fort) . . . she stated that it will now be tough to sell homes in LF since the maintenance fees went up and this will lead to more devaluation of our property values. She stated that the monthly fees now match or exceed those fees charged by other (read "newer" subdivisions) POAs in the area. She wanted to know what the Board was thinking when they increased the fees. She also stated that something needs to be done about the LF Board - I assured her that most of the residents are hoping and praying that the newly elected Board members will rescind the increase. The realtor also mentioned that to her knowledge, hardly anyone who lives in LF plays golf and it's a waste of money to keep up the course just for a few regular players - which I agree.

Lake Forest property owners get a lot more for their money than residents of most other communities.  Your realtor is not too sharp in my opinion.  If one wants to sell a house, which would he prefer, to sell a 30 year old house in a neighborhood with poor streets as the only defining quality or would he want to sell one that includes membership in a Country Club, Yacht Club, Racquet Clubs and pools?  The cost of maintenance fees in Lake Forest is cheap comparatively speaking.  My disagreement with the board is one of ethical procedure, not the support of amenities that I just don't happen to use.

10/12/2009

I just noticed your hyper link > In the prior ten years, millions of dollars were spent on maintaining the amenities. That's good stuff! It needs to be front page! Many people probably don't know to click it. How can I get quality accurate info to reprint for the "public"? I am planning to very openly question these people and try to get the neighborhood in this too. Thanks

OK, this a link to an old letter with financial information >>> Click Here for Old Letter <<<<.  How's that? ;-)

10/12/2009

Nice Site. I'm the one building the Super Unofficial LFPOA site www.lakeforestreform.com.  How long do you think it will before they put a hit out on me. Make sure to update about what happened at today's meeting. I could not make it to the meeting today.

I don't think you need to worry about it.  I'll probably be the one hit by mistake.  I didn't make the meeting and haven't heard anything. 

10/8/2009

With all this talk of financials I find it interesting that that the monthly P&L is no longer printed in the newsletter. I can’t remember the last time or the reasoning behind removal. In my opinion the newsletter is 90% rubbish anyway, such a lowly production from cover to cover. Second rate paper, worse editing and filled with enough ads it should have “$135 in saving inside this issue” on the cover. Sorry got off the subject. I feel the newsletter should include the MOST IMPORTANT information for the members. I understand that we as members can request a copy of the current P&L at anytime by going by the main office, unfortunately I am rarely in the neighborhood during those regular business hours. Many residents including myself could offer suggestions on how to improve our “Dire Financial Situation” if we had easy access to the information. We could even have a special meeting!

10/7/2009

A special meeting has been called by Board President, Bryan Frater and Secretary, Sherrie Weller to ratify the motion from the October 4 Special Meeting. The minutes from the special meetings Sept. 29 and Oct 4 will also be submitted for Board approval. The meeting will be at the Country Club, Saturday, October 10, 2009 at 10:00 am.

Sorry folks, I have no idea what's going on now.

10/6/2009

I was just reading the story in the Register about Sunday's meeting of the board.  The reporter mentioned the comment Joe Moseley made to the incoming board that they consult with the comptroller before making any decisions about finances.  There is nothing wrong with that.  However, a comptroller simply reports what the financial condition of the organization is based upon the measures that are taken by management, including decisions regarding expenditures, and the revenue numbers.  Comptrollers do not control any of these things.  More importantly, concentrating on the second issue alone, revenue numbers, is short sighted and certainly incomplete.  The incoming board needs to look at the whole picture.  The area of board and management decision-making is usually more of an issue in Lake Forest than the revenue numbers. This has always been the case. For a couple of years there we had an issue of micromanaging directors, that didn't help matters any. 

10/6/2009

I was unable to attend the meeting Sunday. I find the increase of $6.00 a very palatable number. With that small of an increase, it appears likely that the board would have to continue to the Special Assessments each year. As for the new board reversing this by-law change. I would hope that a prudent board member would thoroughly review the financial condition of the association and the budgeted costs of "civically improving, operating, and maintaining" the common properties of the association "to the mutual benefit of its members" before any such action is taken. As a member in good standing, I will be demanding that this be done, which is clearly in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation and the By-Laws of this association. Any board member acting outside of this duty and responsibility to the association and its members should be prepared to defend their action. That is all I can say at this time.

Demand away.  You're no longer the big dog on campus you were a year ago, so your opinions will probably carry as much weight as the rest of ours.

10/5/2009

I didn't attend Sunday's meeting due to a family function . . . but I heard about it from friends and neighbors later that evening. Over the past week I have been speaking with neighbors about what happened at the Tuesday night meeting and encouraged participation at the Sunday meeting. Two of my friends attended Sunday's one-sided event. The reaction was: it doesn't matter if we attend or don't attend board meetings, the board is going to do whatever they want to do. That may be true - and appears to be so in this case. People that I've spoken with in the neighborhood feel disenchanted (not that they were ever "enchanted") - or, perhaps the word is "disenfranchised" - with the way things operate around here. They feel that they are "working" class people who just get by on their salary and can't afford any more increases in dues (or whatever the board wants to call them), especially in this economy. These residents feel that the amenities should be able to pay for themselves - if not, then they need to be pared down or disbanded. Why throw good money at a poorly run operation - perhaps the banks now see that this is true and that's why they won't lend any more money. I, for one, would like to see the association's books audited by an outside independent firm. Has that ever been done? Anyway, the majority of the people I have spoken with in the neigborhood don't utilize the amenities one iota and are tired of their dues going to something that they don't see that they "benefit" from - and, please spare me the definition of the "benefits" Lake Forest offers - the residents don't care! I also have found that a lot of neighbors do not read the Lake Forester . . . they feel that it's "one sided" view doesn't reflect the reality they live with in Lake Forest. Also, there are a lot of people (read "elderly") in the neighborhood who don't have a computer - or if they do, they don't know about the "official" Lake Forest website, much less don't have time to sit at a computer screen when they have a family or job or something more important to do at the moment. Also, meetings are only posted on the main entrance marquee - so there were people who didn't know about Sunday afternoon's meeting. And as far as reading those self-serving flyers in the monthly statment - people just throw those away. So, what I'm getting at is how do you communicate with the thousands of residents in Lake Forest? Not very well, it appears. So you have a neighborhood with apathetic residents who don't trust the board and who are tired of money going down the drain. And, don't even get me started with Friday Construction . . . do they always side with the Board? Or, in this matter, did the Board know that not only the "residents" but also Friday Construction would not pass a dues increase and that's why the Board took the matter into their own hands? I had one neighbor state that only those residents who have a house built on their lot should be able to vote - which would obviously leave Friday Construction out of the voting process. Perhaps the NEW board members can turn this thing around - but wait - I recall hearing that same sentiment several times over the past 17 years that I've lived here . . . it appears that nothing changes.

I better make sure I am clear in this response by identifying what is your weblord's opinion and what is fact. Fact: The Board of Directors is made up of property owners most of whom are working class people or retirees themselves. Opinion: The amenities do make the community of Lake Forest better for a number of reasons.  For one, they tend to attract the kind of neighbors who will work to make their community better by keeping their own property up, joining groups like the Garden Club, the Women's Club and other community associations dedicated to making Lake Forest beautiful.  Opinion: Working class people want to live in a beautiful community like Lake Forest and they want their property values to be as high as possible.   Opinion: While communication is a problem, the board does try to let the members know what is going on.  Opinion:  The directors are not trying to be heavy handed.  They are just grasping as straws to find a solution.  They could use some help and there may be some coming with the new board. Fact: There is an annual audit by an outside, independent auditing firm.  The auditor will present the findings of the audit at a meeting of the board each year.  Fact: Friday Construction rarely takes sides.  Opinion:  The board knew that Friday Construction would not vote for a dues increase.  Fact:  Friday Construction's rights, including their right to vote on by-laws, are defined in the sales agreement and are not subject to modification by the board or the property owners.  Opinion: If the board goes overboard with their actions in regards to the by-laws, I believe Friday Construction will use their votes to call for a special meeting of the property owners.

10/5/2009

Alright $6, I can live with. Maybe $6 could have been agreed to by the membership but we will never know will we. I agree with the increase but it was accomplished in the wrong way. Now that I think about it, if the BOD can change the by-laws shouldn't they keep them from expireing? In fact they have opened up unlimited possibilities.

It's not the by-laws that are expiring.  It is the covenants.  Covenants are legal objects controlled by State law.  The Board of Directors has no control whatsoever over the covenants.  Neither do the property owners for that matter, because the covenants require that it takes a vote of 85% of the parties to alter them.  Extending them would mean altering them and you couldn't get 85% of the parties around Lake Forest to vote on anything.

10/5/2009

10/02/2009

The official website says that the special meeting on Sunday afternoon has been moved to the Yacht Club.

10/02/2009

I was at the meeting on Tuesday. My opinions, which mean nothing to our present board, along with their $$$ spent for the "$25,000 or so" survey to poll members on feelings about the amenities!! Obviously, that was a forgotten expenditure!! Gee, I believe they also built a nice bath house that members are forbidden access to!! -Mmmmm..... and...Our present G.M. has spoken about his need to acquire a new club house for a few years now. (Remember Ray Drake's proposal) Since this "slate" group campaigned, our L.F. amenities have plunged into a "slate state of disrepair"! Tear down...how about fix-up??? I have never witnessed such a "sorry slate state" of our C.C.- never under Mr. Davis- never !! You folks on the present B.D. may need another survey or consultant to tell you our C.C. needs some repairs-- not a bulldozer!! Our Y.C.--The survey says-KEEP!! What about the rental revenue the B.D. has turned down over their tenure - couldn't we use the $$$??? Maybe, the swim team should be members?? Maybe-Golf course should be a gradual improvement over years?? Maybe- we could have a kids crafts day at the C.C. or a lounge for a coffee house or just gather and talk (Bayview} that's popular now with nice live music- (no "scareoke")- the businesses are packed on the weekends around the area. why not change the atmosphere at the Y.C. to reflect a more classy venue with a "no smoking" policy?? There are positive approaches we can direct our energies into for a well rounded community for all !!! I gave a heads up to this a few years ago at an annual meeting-my nightmare has come true.......I am very saddened to see this for all that love our community.

10/02/2009

Let's be clear. Turning over facilities to teh city is not an option. They cannot fix our roads, let alone our amenities. The best chance to see improvement is through the association with a board of directors capable of setting revenue at a level that affords the association the capital to invest in our properties. Otherwise, Clint's ideas of shutting everything down becomes the alternative.

10/01/2009

Just curious to know the feelings out there of turning everything over to the local government and not be managed by a board of directors? I would be totally against this for many reasons but I was surprised and shocked that some members seemed to indicate such at the meeting Tues. night. Joe Mosley

This attitude on the part of many members has been around since the late 70's, ever since those of us lived here then paid an additional $500 to buy the amenities from Diamondhead .  They tend to be very vocal and, as a result, may give the impression that the feeling is more widespread than it really is.  That was proven in 2004 when the members voted 3 to 1 to keep their amenities.  You may recall that this was during the restructuring movement.  Directors cannot and should not waste any time on people like that and concentrate on delivering as good a service to our members as possible.  In the long run, that will reap much greater benefit to the community.  

10/01/2009

I want to clarify my earlier statement about the purpose of Sundays meeting. The board can discuss whatever they wish at the meeting in regards to annual fees. I didn't mean to sound like I was monopolizing the ideas or agendas that should be discussed. However, I still feel the need to adopt some type of policy as part of sect. 2.4 that sets restrictions and limitations that we can all be satisfied with and that will promote complete transparency and accountability from future boards. I think we can find a way that will allow future elected boards to realistically manage the operation of LPOA and insure it s future values. Just my opinion. Joe Mosley

10/01/2009

Thank you for your info about the LF non-smoking facilities. It's been a while so maybe things have changed? As I said I am a former (optional) member and had considered joining again if I could use the facilities without getting a migraine from cigarette smoke. That is, until I read your description of the last meeting and it all slowly came back to me. Hey, maybe it wasn't the cigarette smoke after all?! : )

10/01/2009

It has come to my attention that nowhere on the official Lake Forest website are the credentials of the employees posted. Since the members pay the salaries of these individuals, we should have easy access to employee credentials to know what we are paying for.

10/01/2009

You might view Moss as a fool, but the fools friends are the ones that show up at the meeting, and his best friend is Ray Sturch. I hope that with his motion last night, you will see Ray for what he is. When I think of Ray I think of this " the path to hell is paved with good intentions."

10/1/2009

Mitch, Since you have called me out, so to speak concerning my opinion of Lake Forest residents, I guess I will tell you what it actually is. I do not think of the members as "Stupid". I do think that overall they act in a self-interest mode. They will repeatedly refuse to contribute any more to the good of the community or improvement thereof. You know it to be the case, because you were on a board that was forced to increase dues. Not that that is all bad. Did that upset the membership? Or when you and your board needed revenue, the membership saw the need and supported the increase established by the board without a fuss? Do you actually believe that your board could have gotten an increase approved without the developer voting to give you by-law amending powers? You sir, are a hypocrite! Your hypocritical positions are clear. You just used the developer to do your dirty work, while the last board stood on their own. You have stated repeatedly that you believe that the association could "manage" on the existing revenue. You also state that they had done it for years. That is a lie! The board for years managed without additional revenue while the facilities deteriorated to the point of being un-usable. Can you deny that the facilities were not, and are not being maintained in adequate condition? That is the crux of the issue here. The ability of a board to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the by-laws with the current revenue stream. According to the by-laws, the Association shall "conduct affairs for the mutual benefit of the membership hereof and for the civic improvement, operation, maintenance, management, ownership, buying, selling and handling of the common facilities of Lake Forest." How can a board fulfill the "civic improvement, operation, maintenance. etc" for our common facilities without proper funding? We have witnessed your idea of that. That has left our properties as eyesores and and a disgrace to the neighborhood. Between the leaking roofs and rotting floors, the old equipment and reduced services, we have seen it and do not like it. To continue down this path is a direct violation of the by-laws themselves. Keep your hypocritical preaching to yourself. Most who know the facts agree that your tenure was wrought with self-interested action that benefitted you and your family members, while "playing to the masses" about free pools and no assessments (only after a dues increase occurred). You are like Nero, fiddling while Rome was burning. In this case, espousing that poor management is the cause of this revenue search and not fulfillment of the by-laws responsibilities. All the while, we watch the amenities fall apart and become less attractive, less desirable, and a property value decreaser. The board action was bold, and right. To fulfill the duties and responsibilities placed on them by the association rules, it had to be done. I applaud them and know that the boards of the future can look at improving the quality of our facilities and establishing financial solvency for years to come. One last note..there will always be members opposed to this concept. There will always be the ones who want no amenities, no services, and more importantly, no fees or dues. I know that there is a place for these folks, but a subdivision that owns and operates a golf course, three pools, a tennis facility, and a yacht club just may not be it. Here, they should expect to pay to support the facilities in an acceptable manner. Whether that is $35.00 a month or $50.00 a month, they should expect it, and gladly pay it. I do, and I will, as long as I live here. John Peterson

Don't hold back.  Tell me what you really think.  Your little outburst does demonstrate the biggest problem that your group had.  You didn't have a clue what had been going on in Lake Forest prior to your taking over and the irresponsible actions that you report actually started when you reached the board.  In the prior ten years, millions of dollars were spent on maintaining the amenities.  That stopped with your arrival and aside from the roof repair over the 19th Hole, not much has gone on since.  Could prior boards have found things to work on, if they had unlimited revenue?  Absolutely!  But with unlimited revenue comes irresponsible spending.  Everyone who had anything to do with Lake Forest during that time know that your personal attack is untrue and shows a complete lack of class on your part.  It only demonstrates the ugly side of property owner association politics.  

Note to readers:  To my knowledge, no director of the LFPOA or his or her family has ever benefited financially from their service on the board.  To the contrary, most contributed their own time and often money to Lake Forest.  We may not agree with them, but we should not impugn their motives.  That little diatribe above is simply an example of the kind of tactics used by certain slates of candidates during a hopefully very short period in Lake Forest history.