From our By-laws:
“Beginning with persons elected at the annual meeting in December 2007, no director shall be an employee or contractor of the Association.”
In the last By-laws change/addition (as shown above), the Big Canoe POA Board made a special effort to keep their Board Directors from being POA Employees; but when they wanted to make Board Director Roger Klask a POA Employee, they disregarded the intent of the By-law addition.
Roger Klask may be legal based on how the revised By-law is worded, but is clear to me that the POA Board is less than ethical when it comes to interpreting our/their By-laws.
3 users commented in " Our By-laws & Roger Klask as a POA Director and a POA employee "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackRoger Klask is great. He is doing a superb job. If people could spend less time complaining and more time pitching in to help we could accomplish so much more. It seems to me we are burdened with a very small number of people who want to be in charge rather than seeking ways to be a part of the solution. No one is perfect. We all make mistakes. I feel that the current POA Board has our best interests at heart. Rather than trying to make them out to be villains, why not be a part of the solution?
Thank you for your post: “Rather than trying to make them out to be villains, why not be a part of the solution?”
Many have tried to be “part of the solution,” but this board doesn’t believe in open democratic governance (“we are a corporation”).
If the POA Board would commit to “The Six Promises,” people would be able to work with them. But until then, and for some time afterwards, they must prove, by example and deed, that they can fulfill promise no. one. (Also, they should require that their committee chairpersons fulfill promise no. one, in all of their communications with the property owners.)
Roger is a good guy; but let’s not be naive, he is also part of the corporate machine running Big Canoe.
An honest difference of opinion on how the board is representing the interests of the BC residents does not constitute making villains of them. Whether or not they are “villains” should be judged on their actions. The fact remains, we have open communication only on matters of little or no concern to the residents, the board has assumed an all-knowing posture whereby their decisions are not to be questioned, and their financial management borders on the level of incompetence. Whatever form of organization we may be, these people were elected to make and carry out decisions that are in the community’s best interest and, as our elected representatives, they should be fully accountable to us as a group.
I think most of us agree that Roger Klask is basically a good guy and is not doing badly in his position. However, it is unethical for the same board that determined that it is improper for a board member to take a paid position with the POA to use a technicality to insert one of their own in this position. If you want to push it, as I am led to believe, at least one other board member is employed by one of the amenities. Unfortunately, ethics seem to be in short supply.