The following questions were not part of first set of questions submitted to POA Board.
The POA Board is requested to answer the following questions. Note, that it is not pleasant to have to ask these questions, but the answers are owed to me as a Big Canoe property owner:
1. Since all of Big Canoe POA’s income/monies go into the General Fund, including monies to the Capital Reserve Fund, how can we be sure that the Capital Initiation Fee (CIF) money will not be used (at times) for other purposes (to help support the Operating Budget or other budget shortfalls)?
2. The POA has no lock-boxes in the General Fund; therefore, is the CIF money really going into a “separate account;” shouldn’t it go into an account that is separate from the General Fund?
3. If the POA Board wants to add the CIF money to the Capital Reserve Fund, will the POA Board leadership promise that they will keep the Capital Reserve Fund/Capital Initiation Fee (CIF) Fund money in a separate (lock-box) account, that is separate from the General Fund? Will they promise to publish a monthly audit of this fund?
4. Will the POA Board promise not to play musical stairs with the General Fund budget line items?
5. Will the POA Board promise not to raid the Capital Reserve Fund/Initiation Fee (CIF) Account should the Operating Budget/General Fund’s cash flows (at times) become near to or negative?
6. If the CIF is not approved this year, will some other funding, or actions, be required to maintain a positive cash flow balance in the General Fund?
7. Without some other source of income or loan, could the Big Canoe POA face bankruptcy if the CIF is not approved and the resulting money not placed into the General Fund this year or next year?
8. Is the impeding, or otherwise, Operating Budget/General Fund shortages caused in part or in whole by the Sconti Rebuild expenditures?
9. Why are we going to use the CIF money to help keep our Operating Budget/General Fund solvent; or in other words, out of bankruptcy?
10. Has the word “bankruptcy” come up in any POA Board discussions on the financial health of Big Canoe during the past 12 months?
11. Has the word “bankruptcy” come up in any POA Board member meetings with the Board’s CFO, or in any discussions between any Board member and the Board’s CFO, during the past 12 months?
I know that these questions are tough to have to answer, but I have a need to know and a right to the answers.
As always, truthful answers, without spin, are appreciated, and are a fiduciary duty of this POA Board.
10 users commented in " More Capital Initiation Fee (CIF) Questions "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI received the following information from a “highly respected” Big Canoe insider:
It is not even a subject [bankruptcy] since the board has the power to tax. As pointed out earlier they can more than double our assessment [to over $400 a month] without any input from the property owners.
The whole issue I see is that there is a distrust of the board. The solution is to have people run (and get elected) who will behave differently from the current board.
I agree with this comment. I would also add that if we paid the board we could attract a larger pool of quality individuals to consider it and make their pay based upon properly and fiscally running this organization. Other boards get paid.
If they raise the dues that much, someone will riot and probably throw them out of office.
I would agree if the property owners elected the Board Directors, but we don’t; they are appointed by the Developer’s block-of-votes.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the property owners decided our elections, and not the Developer?
Want to know more?
Read Promise No. 6 at http://www.thesixpromises.blogspot.com
Big Mac,
How many votes does the developer have?
How many votes were cast in the last BOD electiom?
As the election is by secret ballot do you have a close relationship with the developer or a mole in the auditors office?
The number of the Developer’s block-votes changes almost daily. There is a question on this website asking the LTFC for that very number. Also, see note below.
The Developer’s block-of-votes are very important for his control of the community, and are written into, and are protected, by the Big Canoe Covenant and Restrictions (C&Rs).
The C&Rs are currently being revised; ask the POA Board to make a deal with the Developer to remove this flaw, and to give us democratic governance.
Their email addresses are:
rfcrouc@aol.com, fomundson@aol.com, xterryb@tds.net, lipkowitz@alltel.net, john@seferian.com, stephen@langway.com, rhklask@aol.com
Note:
Due to the gross errors in the facts that the LTFC are giving the property owners in their FAQs sheets, if possible, we will need to verify all of their answers to this Website’s questions.
Does your answer mean that you really don’t know how the developer votes? And that you don’t know if he has a high percent of the votes cast or not?
Gee, Big Mac and Just Asking,
Every time you comment under this post, I reread the Big Canoe bankruptcy questions.
Since Wachovia Bank is involved here, why doesn’t someone ask Wachovia Bank to do some due diligence in reference to the questions being asked of the Long Term Finance Committee?
Shouldn’t Wachovia Bank determine if they have any liabilities here? Based on today’s financial climate and the questions posted to this Website, I would expect that the Wachovia Bank stockholders would expect some due diligence by their bank.
Why don’t you guys contact some of the regional Wachovia Bank officials and ask them to do some due diligence on their loans to Big Canoe?
To Just Asking Too—I have never commented on Big Canoe finances…..but, as you mention them, I believe that they are healthy and strong.
My question has been to Big Mac–does he have facts relative to how the developer has voted and the percent of the total vote he has or it is merely an opinion with no basis in fact?
Common POA Board Lies: It’s a democracy
To anyone familiar with the activities of property owners associations, the notion that a POA has any resemblance to an American style democracy is ridiculous. Never the less, many POAs have tried to foster that very unsupportable notion.
For example:
“…the POA board and the ACC are a democratic organization no different from congress. We attempt to represent the community.”
The truth is that, with a high level of property owner participation, a POA could operate in a democratic fashion; unfortunately, there never is a high level of property owner participation. The reason for this is simple: most property owners, especially those with jobs and children, do not have the time to participate in POA activities (or take the time to vote in the POA’s elections). This situation creates a void, which often attracts those, most likely to abuse the position; it’s a simple fact of human nature and the property management companies and their lawyers depend upon it for their livelihood. The groundwork for abuse is built into the POA system.
Unlike the American system of government, there are no minimum levels of competency required to be a board member.
Unlike the American system of government, board members cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. They are provided legal representation paid for by the property owners, and if the board decides to bring suit against a property owner for any reason, the property owner will pay for all legal expenses.
America’s founding fathers devised a system of checks and balances to insure that even the best and the brightest statesmen the country had to offer would not fall victim to the corrosive influence of unchecked power.
Unlike the American system of government, a POA has no system of checks and balances. POA board members simultaneously occupy the legislative, judicial, and executive branches without oversight. The board creates rules without property owner input. In disputes with property owners, the board acts as accuser, judge, and jury.
As for oversight, the board limits witnesses to or documentation of their activities.
For example:
“…the Board of Directors determines meeting dates, times and places, as well as who may attend them…”
“The Board of Directors of private corporations, like our POA, can set policy as to whether meetings can be taped.”
“…meetings held with individual homeowners to resolve a complaint or covenant issue…are only open to the board and the specific property owner(s)…no other parties are allowed to attend these meetings.”
So, lets sum it up:
No competency requirements
No accountability
No checks and balances
No oversight
And full use of the people’s funds to carry out their activities
Doesn’t this situation sound like our Big Canoe POA?
A couple of comments on this:
1. I don’t think the assessment or lack of assessment will ultimately affect our property values. What will affect them is a continued decline in the quality of our ammenities. As far as the slow sales, I think it is obvious that a lot of houses are overpriced, considering that you can buy a new one for less and it will be completely updated. I know of at least two houses that have been for sale for 5+ years and probably will never sell until the owners get realistic.
2. I am very concerned about what the board of directors will do with the money. I have seen no instance of their financial responsibility. The Sconti debacle, which seems to be largely brought on by pressure from certain “key residents” for a showplace is all the evidence anyone needs. We should all remember that the cost of the Sconti now exceeds to total cost of the amenity upgrade package that barely passed. We should also remember that the board said they would just increase the monthly assessment if we didn’t vote for the $25/mo. special assessment. These people are not your friends.
3. When the insurance settlement was announced on 11/14/06, Bob Crouch said that these funds would be deposited in an interest bearing account. Where is this account? What is the total balance? What has it been used for?
4. Crouch also stated that these funds would “supplement an already robust POA financial picture.” What happened?
5. Have you ever noticed that when the candidates for the board make presentations, all they talk about is where they went to college and what their job was before they retired? Never have I heard anyone actually say what they thought should be done about the credibility problem facing the board or the total lack of fiscal responsibility we are faced with or present any sort of platform.
6. Common sense says we need to face up to the funding of the maintenance, otherwise we will be in a situation not unlike the Social Security or national debt mess. Unfortunately, while I support the idea in principal, I could not vote for the program until I see some iron-clad controls on the funds collected.