Board Critique

 Huntington Lakes Section 1 Association has been badly mismanaged. This is evidenced by deficits in Condo 1 and special assessments. Both indicate bad budgeting and poor financial planning.

The purpose of this blog is to inform you of what is going on in your association based on verifiable facts instead of stories told by people who want to be on the board because they like running things their way. That is, without regard for the law, our by-laws, good accounting practices, good financial management, and respect for their fiduciary responsibility to owners.

The deficit budgets we've had are illegal and against our by-laws. However, most board members don't care - they literally don't care even when informed of this. Instead of following the law, they seek questionable professional opinions to avoid following the law. These rules are designed to protect owners from boards financially ruining them. Breaking the law may seem like a good approach in the short run, but it leads to problems like more debt, special assessments, potential legal penalties, and a lack of transparency in general by the board. Nobody breaking the law or violating the by-laws can allow transparency!

Open meeting laws are not routinely followed, and owner questions are not always answered fully and honestly. Board meetings are supposed to have agendas and have notice provided in advance. Owners should be allowed to ask questions and get honest answers. There should be few surprises at board meetings. Owners should know the agenda in advance, get copies of the draft minutes of the previous meeting in advance, and even get reports either in advance or immediately after the board meeting. To accommodate snow birds and people traveling, the meetings should be in Zoom and structured so people can clearly see and hear what is going on.Transparency in meetings is important for overall transparency.

Most of the current board thinks doing things the so-called "Section 1" way is the right way to do things. If you like deficits, special assessments, and lack of transparency, then you might agree with them. However, the true Section 1 way should be better than that. Some people living in Section 1 want to get the Association on track financially, legally, and administratively. We want everything above-board so the board welcomes transparency instead of fearing it. We want Association information to be available to all owners who are interested so they can participte in governing their association to the extent they are comfortable instead of simply being governed by it. We want a board that remembers that the owners are the owners and the board works for them. We need to ensure our buildings and facilities are well managed and maintained and that our finances are managed so our buildings can be kept in good condition without unpleasant surprises for the owners.

To put it simply, you should avoid voting for anyone running for the board who has voted in favor of a budget in the past 5 years even if it means only voting for 4 people instead of 7. These budgets have had deficits. Last year's budget was poorly done and required a special assessment. This budget is even worse and will require an even larger special assessment shortly after the election.  The "slate" of 7 will still get at least 3 people on the board no matter how you vote. Do you want to risk giving them a majority?