Daniels Preserve President Explains. Admits Mistake. Changes Coming.

Below is an unedited version of the e-mail I received from Daniels Preserve President Kinley Engvalson late last night. It explains the situation from his point of view, which, still doesn't match what residents are telling me. I also  dispute paragraph number 2, having read the Daniels Preserve documents myself. I highlighted two important pieces of his response that I believe residents shoudl be concerned about.
I want to thank Kinley for responding. To be honest, most people would have told me to flip off. For those of you posting that I did not have my facts correct, no need to apologize. However, I do believe they will be serving crow just outside Wetland 47 for dinner tonight. I've made you all a reservation.

Dear Ed,

I've reviewed all the HOA docs I have access to, including the Declaration, Bylaws, and Articles of Incorporation, all of which we 'inherited' from Mercedes Homes. They are, I think, completely unchanged, since amendments require the presence or proxy of 75% of the owners!!

In the docs, the only prerequisite to becoming a member of the Board of Directors, or an Officer, is ownership of a lot. Although at meetings the phrase "in good standing" is frequently tossed about I could not find it in the 100+ pages I reviewed this afternoon. Accordingly, a candidate appears not to be precluded from running as a result of being delinquent on the HOA dues and assessments.

Candidates did fill out a Notice of Intent To Be A Candidate form, stating that he or she had read and understood the Bylaws, though the docs do allow nominations from the floor (I think there were none, but haven't had a chance to review those Minutes). I don't know if that form was used in previous DP elections, or whether it was created by our management company and rather generically used for this, and perhaps other associations' elections. At the Annual Membership Meeting, held this past February, I believe we had 7 or 8 candidates competing for 5 seats.

Each candidate was given an opportunity to state why he or she desired to be on the Board. Although not prohibited, I don't recall any candidates being questioned by any members present on any topic at all. The question of whether or not a candidate was current on the HOA assessment was raised by no one. The vote was taken, and the candidate in question was one of those elected.

It is my understanding that, sometime prior to, and not in the context of the election, a tentative agreement was reached with the owner on the amount due. (Contrary to the information given to you, and stated in your article, no Board member was ever given a 'pass'.) Presently our records show a balance due, and the candidate claims to have paid in full, so we are double-checking. Since we had no idea that this issue would arise at Monday's meeting, and therefore had not had any opportunity to check out the allegations beforehand, the Board instructed the management company to verify the status of the account by the next meeting.

(Our precedent is that a few months earlier, when a vacancy on the Board occurred, one of the two members--not the one in question here-- interested in the position was revealed to be behind in assessments. Seeking to be fair and considerate to all involved, the Board delayed filling the position for one month to give the candidate an opportunity to become current before the Board voted on which candidate to select. I don't recall any objection from the other candidate. When the next month's meeting rolled around, the delinquent potential candidate withdrew himself from consideration, and the remaining candidate was selected.)

Nevertheless, in light of the controversy erupting at Monday nights Board meeting, the Board member in question has resigned. Since at each meeting the Board does receive a list of delinquent accounts, some have wondered why the candidate's status was not brought up by any Board member (including some now complaining about this aspect of the election) at the time of the election. While I cannot speak for any others, for myself the answer is that there are, I believe, 60 or more last names and associated addresses on the delinquency list, out of 217 lots, and I failed to associate the name with the particular individual. Up until now, the only purpose of the list was to be informed of the status of enforcement proceedings, and occasionally to give particular instructions to our collections attorney.

Obviously in the future we'll review the list to learn whether or not our records show a member is delinquent if the member seeks to be a candidate. I expect we will also amend the Notice of Intent to ask if the potential candidate is current on the dues and assessments. We may even be able to amend the docs to make that a condition of candidacy.

All in all, however, I think it is worth pointing out that we have here a little example of democracy, the power of the people, and even the power of the internet press working! Although the election itself was legal, and the conduct of the Board member was otherwise above reproach, post-election revelations of a Board member appearing not to live up to the reasonable expectations of the community, combined with an outcry from owners who actively participate at Board meetings, has resulted in the opening of the seat in question.

And I expect to see you, Ed, at our meeting next month to get and report on whatever our latest drama will be!  Thank you for the Gazette's attention and interest in our community.

Sincerely,


Kinley I. Engvalson
President
Daniels Preserve Owners Association